Landluber's Guide to Seasteading Feasibility

(Larry G) #81

Not for most of us. Personally, I simply picture a platform that looks like an oil rig, but with other purposes built into it rather than drilling.

(Larry G) #82

Good luck! I was just in Tampa recently, I had a couple business trips there and one to Orlando in the last few months. I have never been to Miami.

It’s always good to leverage connections when trying something new. I don’t have any connections in marine engineering, construction, etc. If you need someone to design communications installations, let me know. I’m also available to chat outside of this forum if you need that.


I did mentioned “floating” and “moored”,…If fixed on the seabed, as you prefer, of course it don’t matter.

(Larry G) #84

Even a tension leg platform or suction pile is anchored and moored. Spar buoys like Troll are moored.


Troll is a gravity based structure, if it has any mooring lines, I would be extremely surprised. It literally sits on the seabed.

(Larry G) #86

My apologies, I stand corrected. I meant to say the Brent Spar.


That’s true for the TLP. My bad. I was mostly talking about “barge based” seasteading platforms.

(Theodore M. Amenta) #88

ALL — I have learned so much from your postings. A big thank you. However, I myself am on a different track. I am trying to prove the financial feasibility of a sea stead. It is necessary that it is physically feasible — floats on the water in a comfortable way. It is also necessary that the anchoring and draft of the barge be correct and sufficient. HOWEVER — I am trying got prove the economics f implementing a seasteading project - community. The Seasteading Institute has failed to o this. There is no published business plan that actually could be financed. I have formulated such a program. I can prove that a sea stead is financially, market and physically feasible ---- Please understand our “thread” has shifted to other topics — No problem, thank you . I have leafed a lot ---- but my objective is socio-economic-political FEASIBILTY.



IMTA - Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture is the first logical step. Basically kelp, caged fish, crabs, lobster, Abalone, possibly oysters. Seaweed can be harvested and used to raise Abalone and feeder fish, feeder fish get fed to marketable food fish, crabs and lobster. Fish raised upstream of the kelp and oysters, to mitigate fish waste pollution.

Very expensive to set up, however higher returns than straight caged fish production, since it uses an establishable and manageable food chain, rather than buying by-catch and pelletized grain products.


Hi Tamenta,

Please note that it was TSI’s position for years that they will not get involved in building and/or operating a seastead as a nonprofit organization. It might be why that they never formulated a business plan, etc.

On the other hand, given the developments with the Bora Bora Floating Island Project (BBFIP), things have changed. A business will be formed to build and operate the BBFIP.

Also, Blue Frontiers is looking forward to cooperating with Blue21 and other businesses and individuals in order to achieve their goals.

(Theodore M. Amenta) #91

I have come to understand this and am redirecting my efforts.

(Larry G) #92

In an attempt to be helpful for @tamenta, here is another concept:

Since you’re looking at new construction in a traditional barge shape, I am still suggesting that open-bottom is a considerably more cost-effective solution than a traditional barge. Since it does not need efficiency in movement, a smooth-bottomed hull is not necessary. Since you want it to last for decades in saltwater without disassembly and haul-out for maintenance, it should be concrete, and geopolymer concrete with basalt reinforcement rather than ferro-cement, at that.

Square bow and stern still do not connect very well, so I’m suggesting triangular bow and stern to achieve the rough angles you’re looking for to enclose a harbor. You might simply attach an engineered triangular skeletal structure between two flat bows of you can figure out the leverage and attachment points and if the construction of the hull works out cheaper that way.The W/L ratio is about 1/2 (~75’/~165’ including angled bow/stern) in this drawing, but only because I am rough sketching.

You’re planning for 16.5’ draft, and you had no initial expectation or requirement for use of the hull for human occupation, so using this space for pure buoyancy is no loss. The dimensions you’re talking about are achievable with a fairly simple engineering design based upon post-tensioning the deck and vertical hull rather than complex curved ribs. Keeping the shape super simple (straight lines) allows this to be done much more cheaply. Supporting the entire bottom of the deck with EPS foam in contact means very little dead load penalty to be compensated for through deck structure, much like placing a flat slab on packed earth is less difficult than spanning over emptiness. The post-tensioning mitigates stresses from wave action (hog/sag). The structure doesn’t depend upon water tight hull integrity, so micro-cracking is not as much of an issue. There is no steel inside (other than post-tension tendons, and these can be replaced individually in the future) to corrode and expand, so no spalling. The construction process should look more like pre-casting a bridge span than the complicated geometry of a hull.

I would suggest tension anchoring as well.

These dimensions and shapes should find existing locks big enough for monolithic pours and float-out.

(Larry G) #93

Perhaps a second step, but otherwise I would agree, for anything other than a vacation destination. Vacation destinations would be more about sport fishing and luxury accommodations and is more likely to get investment interest.

For the truly first step for a low-middle income seasteading village, the first step is wild catch and processing.


So, deplete the natural resources, rather than supporting them… Not logical, when there is a known way to eliminate that and allow the already depleted oceanic resources to recover…

Try having a pond, and stocking it with a few fish… Not nearly as many as a natural, unfished lake might have had, then, fish from it for sustenance and commerce. When your stock is gone, it’s gone…

(Larry G) #95

Off-topic, but your stock has to come from somewhere in the first place.

However, wild catch is NOT automatically depleting natural resources. There are ethical and sustainable ways to harvest wild protein. What you’re talking about takes resources and time. Subsistence fishing villages have been successful without them for thousands of years. Your techniques can help, but it’s a process to get to that stage. And the ocean is not a small pond with a few arbitrary fish deliberately stocked without regard to breeding requirements and disallowed a lifecycle.

So- entirely logical.


The global hunt for fish

Within a few short decades, industrial fishing has expanded from the traditional fishing grounds of the Northern Hemisphere to include all the world’s oceans and seas. Many stocks have been overexploited and are depleted. But the situation is not without hope. Some countries have shown that fish stocks can in fact recover when sustainable fisheries management systems are implemented.

Indications are that, by developing a food supply first, rather than further depleting natural resources, native species have the potential to rebound. However, the majority of species harvested are overfished to the point that reduced size and quicker maturation are now a genetic factor, as well. Smaller fish feed fewer people. - Jeff

(Larry G) #97

Again, fairly irrelevant to subsistence fishing. It’s commercial fishing and wasteful by-catch (in most cases commercial fishermen throw back anything they’re not licensed or don’t have a market for, often killing the fish in the process) as well as techniques that harm breeding area (longlines, drag nets) that are primarily the problem.


People tend to fish for the same food fish, whether subsistence, or commercial fishing. Adding a new drain to an already overfished population is not going to increase those numbers, but deplete them further, instead. In order to prevent this, the logical choice is to provide for the food, then populate.

Exploration, followed by exploitation, and destruction of resources and habitat is a problem for the planet. In order to avoid that known pitfall, it would be far better to establish an artificial food supply, source, of the desired species, from commercial breeding stock facilities, rather than aid the depletion of the dwindling supply in the oceans.

IMTA can prevent that pitfall.

Subject line includes feasibility… Is it more feasible to try to capitalize by destroying and then introducing recovery efforts, or establish a food supply, then expand that, to prevent the damage in the first place?

If we include sustainability as being feasible, then the logical choice is to establish a renewable resource, rather than deplete existing resources than could be more financially feasible as guided sport fishing. In addition, ecotourism, licensing and other fees and purchases can increase the profit margin.

(Theodore M. Amenta) #99

FEASIBILITY: — I find no feasibility analysis that demonstrates a sea stead feasible. If a reader knows of one please share. Seasteading is feasible. I can demonstrate this. I hope to share, shortly. I need to start by stating that “Feasibility” is a simultaneous equation with three unknowns — high school Algebra.

1.) Physical Feasibility is the most obvious unknown. How big? Concrete or steel? Location, Displacement, Infrastructure; energy source? water, sanitation communication? Much of the engineering of this is known. There is an architectural portion of this which can not be solved without input from the two other parts of the equation.

2.) Financial Feasibility is less obvious. What is the source and use of funds? Equity and debt? Return on investment? ROI, ROE, There are also conventional criteria for a “pro-forma financial analysis” of total cost versus future revenues, providing measured results; LTV (loan to value), Capitalization Rates et al. If the project is not financial feasible, cut cost, increase revenue — input - “feed-back” to physical design. I have produced a pro forma that aligns with the physical feasibility. How do I know how big? where? how many people? and why?

3.) Market Feasibility is the more obscure unknown. Who will live and visit? How many? Rich or poor? Why and for how long? What will they do? There is a history of study of humans in geometry since the ancient Greeks. It became a full applied science only in the mid-1960’s. In the mid-1970’s it was further refined to answer these questions. I can not find that it has been applied to the notion of Seasteading. Why?

Gravity Model — The first applied technology is called a gravity model. The math and theory is based on Newtonian gravity. The math weighs the appeal (desire) to visit and or live at a location on the earth with the resistance of distance (expressed in time squared). One can find online. I have applied it to sea steads in several locations of Polynesia and off the coast of New England and Florida.

VALS — This second technology permits one to segment markets (populations) by age, education,sex, marital status, wealth etc. Since the day of mass data is available, one can identify the probable mix of populations who will sufficient desire to overcome the resistance identified in the gravity model. So with this input I have solved the Market Feasibility and “sized” the physical design in Physical Feasibility to create the correct scale and mix of uses — that as a result maximizes the Financial Feasibility. ---- The unknown variables solved to maximize appeal, physical context and finance.

As a result I have formulated a conceptual Prototype. I have been trying to share these thoughts for months before starting this thread. I will continue to try to share. Ted

(Larry G) #100

This is what I’m trying to address with more feasible and cost-effective physical designs. Open-bottom, straight line, post-tensioned geopolymer concrete barge-like platforms seem to be the most cost-effective per square foot of surface area, in relatively calm waters, to connect to each other to form clusters of population density that justify cost per foot, allow for scale of infrastructure, meet expectations of personal space equivalent to land-based domiciles and office spaces, and allow for mixed-use that supports economic activity, within an economic range available to a broad spectrum of middle class incomes.

If we confine the discussion to Cay Sal for a moment, the only industry in the area fishing at the moment. The unaddressed or under-served commercial needs I can identify would be:

-processing catch, including refrigeration
-eco-tourism accommodations and services
–Building/restoring reef habitat
-emergency services for stranded boaters/fishermen: rescue, mechanics, fuel
-aids to navigation
-patrol services for fisheries enforcement activity

How big? Village sized- 200-300 permanent residents, about the same additional capacity for transients.

Why? Because it’s a unique, attractive location, with an interesting culture (to be developed) that provides an interesting experience.