The documents behind this group, and who issued them.

Credible Ventures owns the seven systems and licenses them. Alarivean, Inc. holds the hulls, the crew, the gas contracts, the permits and the liability, and it is the entity named on everything below.

The permit, and the office that issued it

In September 2024 the Florida Department of Environmental Protection issued permit FLOA00062 to Alarivean, Inc. of Scottsdale, Arizona. It came out of the department's South District Office under Chapter 403 of the Florida Statutes. It covers a field trial of an ozonated-seawater craft for red tide mitigation, it runs on a five-year window, and it becomes exercisable only while live Karenia brevis sits above 100,000 cells per litre.

Two Florida bodies documented the grant themselves. The Sarasota Bay Estuary Programme published a director's note about it, and the nonprofit START — Solutions To Avoid Red Tide — carried its own. Neither account came from this group.

An environmental regulator with jurisdiction read the proposal and allowed a bounded trial. What it settles stops there. Nobody in this category has published an open-water result — not this group, not its competitors — and the place a buyer sees numbers on their own water is the calibration phase, on a bounded area, against parameters agreed before a hull moves.

The estuary programme put technical support into that application and no money at all. Carrying no funding relationship, it is free to publish whatever the water turns out to show. What it wants is the measuring role once open-water work happens, so that anything said about this service past the mouth of the bay rests on readings its own scientists took. Alarivean wants the same arrangement.

Physics published by other people

Gas bubbles below roughly a micron across behave unlike ordinary ones. They carry enough surface charge to stop coalescing back into large bubbles, and they present a combined interface far larger than the same gas volume delivered coarsely.

A study in Science of the Total Environment on nanobubble aeration measured the gas–liquid mass transfer coefficient rising around elevenfold against conventional bubbles at the same delivered gas volume. Reported enhancement factors across the wider aeration literature span a broad band, and eleven sits in the upper part of it. That lands on sizing rather than on principle. A programme sized against the top of the band is a different economic proposition from one sized against the middle, and the difference belongs in a model before it reaches a contract.

Whether nanobubbles themselves generate hydroxyl radicals is disputed. Moleaer and Arizona State University reported reactive oxygen species in 2020; a controlled 2023 study by Chae, Kim, Kim and Fortner in ACS ES&T Engineering found generation minimal, if it occurred at all, under the conditions tested. Nothing in this group is priced on radical generation.

Two NOAA releases, on other parties' equipment

NOAA's National Centres for Coastal Ocean Science validated an ozone nanobubble aeration system on an eight-acre pond near Fort Myers Beach in 2018, reporting algae eliminated within 48 hours alongside proper reoxygenation and no apparent harm to aquatic life. An NCCOS-affiliated evaluation in 2020 tested a commercial nanobubble ozone system for ballast water and found it effective against algae, bacteria and motile zooplankton, with no statistically significant residual toxicity in the receiving water.

Neither release names this group. The 2018 system is called NABAS. The 2020 one shortens its technology to NBOT, for Nanobubble Ozone Technology, and names the institute AMURI as its partner on the cooperative agreement — the same four letters this group uses for Nano Bubble Oxidation Technology, on hardware somebody else owns. Between them the two releases establish that this approach clears what it is aimed at. Neither is a test of a SeaBreather.

Treatment happens inside the hull

Every marine system in this group works the same way. A vessel draws the affected water aboard, treats it inside a contained reactor and discharges it oxygen-enriched — no chemical goes into the sea, no clay or flocculant is dispensed, and nothing is taken out mechanically.

The reactor and the physics under it, in full

For a counterparty, that is a permitting fact before it is a technical one. Ask a ministry for permission to put an oxidant into its coastal water and you are asking for something most regulators have never had to frame: the file runs long, it needs a mixing-zone model, and the consent arrives with conditions somebody has to defend in public every summer. Ask instead for consent to discharge treated water from a defined outlet, against a number, and you are asking for the most routine instrument an environment ministry issues. The work is the same. The permission is ordinary — and permitting time is the largest single schedule risk an operating company carries into a territory it has not worked before.

The discharge standard, and where it is measured

Ozone and bromide-rich seawater make bromate. That is chemistry rather than opinion — the reaction with bromide runs roughly eighty-three times faster than the one with chloride — and a supplier who tells a buyer otherwise is selling something. Bromate is also a dead end. Nothing quenches it, and dilution is not a route this company takes to compliance, whatever a particular consent might be willing to allow.

So it is prevented rather than watched for. The water leaving the hull is held at or below 10 micrograms of bromate per litre — a threshold taken from drinking-water practice and applied to the effluent at the outlet, with no allowance made for the sea it enters. A batch that misses it stays aboard and is landed for disposal. Nothing is released on the argument that the water outside is large.

Two kinds of instrument carry that, and neither one covers for the other. Inline sensors govern the treatment as it runs and can cut the oxidant on their own, and a defined set of stop conditions halts intake or discharge outright — any one of them is enough. A stable end-product like bromate is invisible to a real-time sensor, though, so the discharge assay is a laboratory analysis. Routine oxygen work runs continuously against a validated envelope with confirmatory samples going out periodically. High-risk work — toxin blooms, oxidative treatment of oil — runs in batches: treat, hold, confirm, then release or divert. Holding a batch until the assay clears costs throughput, and it is the better clause to have in a contract.

The setpoints behind all of that, the guard values and the reactor parameters are held as trade secrets and are not published. What arrives in diligence is the standard, the stop conditions and the reporting line — which is what a regulator asks for in any case.

The research agreement with NOAA

A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with NOAA sits with the operating company. CRADAs are private instruments and are not posted, so there is no public copy to pull. Work under it with the NOAA scientist Dr Peter Moeller found that the treatment neutralises toxins by disabling the functional groups that make them toxic, rather than by precipitating the material out of solution. That is the company's own account of its own research.

A research agreement is not an endorsement. No federal agency endorses commercial products, and NOAA has approved nothing anyone in this group sells.

The registered name

SEABREATHER is a registered United States trademark, registration 7292856, and the register is open to anybody. What a registration settles is who may use the word. It says nothing about a hull, a reactor or a bay, and it is not offered here as though it did. Anything further on the intellectual property position is answered in writing during diligence.

Who holds the second copy of the record

Independent scientific oversight is designed into a programme rather than offered at the opening meeting. Local experts and institutions — a university department, a fisheries directorate, an estuary body, whoever already answers to the people living on that water — are engaged for the duration. They work from the same water-quality feeds the crew steers by, as the readings land, and they are free to bring instruments and data sources of their own.

That changes custody. Two parties hold the season's record, and one of them has no contract to protect. Risk control is run on the same basis, with human and environmental safety ahead of throughput in the design order.

Where a programme's scope ends

Some things sit outside what an oxidation process can reach, and they are cheaper to state than to have discovered. A hydroxyl radical does not destroy a metal, so dissolved metals are not a target here and no metal destruction is claimed anywhere in this group. Neither is PFAS destruction. Anything living on the substrate rather than suspended in the water is beyond a system that works by drawing water in. And complete mineralisation of organic contamination is not claimed on a single pass.

No vessel in this group removes a kilogram of nitrogen or phosphorus from a catchment. That load is generated on land and it will be cut on land, through agriculture policy, wastewater capital and planning law. Treatment in the water buys back seasons while that work runs. It substitutes for none of it.

Performance for a named water body follows the site read, in writing, with the assumptions printed alongside it. The rest is settled in a calibration phase: a bounded area of the buyer's own water, viability parameters agreed before a hull mobilises, and the oversight institution reading the instruments while it runs.