I-CAN Innovation School Algae Case Study Presented by Grant McVicar I-CAN Advocate & Director, Saskatchewan Resea

1. October 19, 2011 I-CAN Innovation SchoolAlgae Case StudyPresented byGrant McVicarI-CAN Advocate & Director, Saskatchewan Research Council

2. Project Genesis • The legend • The idea: • To demonstrate that, as opposed to thinking of CO2 as a waste product, there are opportunities to find uses for this resource in the production of value-added goods.

3. Vegetable oil yields

4. Sequester CO2 in Algae – harvest it, and transform it into value added products 100,000 litres per hectare vs. 300 to 6000 l/ha for traditional oilseed crops

5. Research areas • Validation of micro-algal bio-fixation in northern climates • Development and optimization of mass algal culture growth systems and harvesting technologies • Engineering of processing, fractionation technologies for the production/extraction of renewable biofuels and other specialty components • Development of novel processing, transformation, and fractionation streams for the production of renewable specialty chemicals, fertilizers, and biopolymers • Potential for integration of system with wastewater treatment, and nutrient removal from effluents

6. Disciplines Needed • Power plant management / flue gas handling • CO2 recovery, processing and concentration • Photo electrochemistry • Eco-physiology • Microbiology • Biochemistry • Population dynamics • Molecular biology • Algal mass cultivation systems management • Bioprocess design & Engineering • Optical engineering • Extraction • Quality assessment of biofuel • Wastewater systems management • Engineering, marketing, economic analysis, and business skills • Project management, organizational integration and knowledge dissemination

7. The I-CAN Team • Genetics and Gene Selection (4 – CRIQ, ARC, ITC, SRC) • Microbiology & Toxicology (2- CRIQ, SRC) • Plant Physiology and Productivity (1 – SRC) • Engineering and Productivity (7 – SRC, ARC, CRIQ, ITC) • Business Development & Economics (2-ARC) • Project Management (ARC)

8. The Client’s Public support Alberta Quebec federal government (NRCAN). Private sector BC Hydro, ConocoPhillips Canada, Rio Tinto, Alcan, ALCOA, Shell, EPCOR, Suncor, Graymont Western Canada Inc., EnCana, Mosaic Potash, PetroCanada, New Brunswick Power, SaskPower

9. Challenges: Intellectual Property (IP) • Issues: • Who owns IP developed in the project? • I-CAN, RTO’s, Clients? • Existing IP (just photobioreactors) • 8 companies – numerous patents (one had over a dozen) • Potential for new patents • yes – considerable potential

10. Technical Challenges • Can we grow algae in northern climates year round? • Cold weather – energy balance • Is their enough sunlight • Algal productivity? • Do we have local strains that meet our requirements? • Can we make them more productive? • Can we make them express wanted characteristics?

11. Technical Challenges (cont’d) • Harvesting and separation of algae • Is their technology available or do we have to develop it? • How do we get the oil out economically? • Is their technology available or do we have to develop it? • What do we do with the remaining biomass? • Other products, waste disposal

12. Organizational Challenges • Culture challenges between I-CAN members • Leadership relationships • Task teams • Changing responsibilities • Overall project management responsibility • Communication challenges • Priority challenges

13. Challenge: Meeting Client Needs • Large number of clients (17) • Mix of public and private clients • Mix of client needs • Public good • Corporate Social Responsibility • Potential future financial issues • Potential future regulatory issues • New potential product stream • New competition for their existing products • Ancillary benefits from technology

14. Biofuels – third generation algae - CARS

15. CARS Value Proposition

16. Some Key Learnings • From a purely technical perspective – the project proved that I-CAN as a whole is much greater than the sum of its parts – in short it can provide great technical solutions to our clients • We need to communicate better across the team. It started out great, but team members expressed lack of communication as an issue towards the end of Stage 1 and definitely in the developing the path forward to Stage 11

17. Key Learnings (cont’d) • We are really good at breaking down a problem into its constituent components, identifying key processes and technologies that need to be developed or improved, and developing technical solutions to deal with these areas. • We still have a long ways to go to go in terms of relationship building with our clients, and meeting both their short term and long term needs.

18. Key Learnings (cont’d) • Our team’s skill set needs to be expanded to include a focus that ensures that the project produces results that can support a value proposition that meets our clients investment hurdle decision making process. • We need to redefine what we consider a successful outcome. It needs to be reoriented to focus on the client’s successful commercial utilization of our technology development’s and improvements. • Is the I-CAN concept worth pursuing, and can it evolve to produce better results – YES!!!

19. Innovation Characteristics for the Future – the MBI • Futurist Jim Carroll has called for a new category of worker – The Master of Business Imagination. • What would I-CAN project colleagues embody if they became “Masters of Business Innovation?”

20. They would “See things Differently” • Reject the stats quo - Be prepared to challenge basic assumptions. • Continuously challenge assumptions that surround you, and use that as a formula for creativity

21. They would “Spur Creativity in Others” Spark imaginative thinking in others, so that the organization is rethought and redone

22. They would “Focus on theOpportunity for the Client” Instead of viewing disruptive change as something to be feared, focus on “Where is the potential here?” They would match technological possibilities with the market needs of the client

23. They would “Bring ideas to life” Motivate colleagues to excel by helping them to get over their own fears of the future Their focus would be on entrepreneurship as the prime mover of commerce. Technological innovation would be used as a tool to achieve the client’s market needs

24. They would “Learn and Unlearn” Don’t assume that what we know today will carry us over to tomorrow. View the acquiring of new more complex skills is an opportunity, not a burden. Embrace this concept with compassion and enthusiasm

25. They would “refuse to say I Can’t” Refuse to accept limitations, viewing them as temporary roadblocks that will be overcome with fresh insight, imaginative analysis and creative thinking

26. Embrace Challenges Approach each day and challenge as a new and exciting opportunity, rather than something to be dreaded

27. Thrive on Diversity Realize that new ideas and thinking often come from people that are different from themselves

28. Challenge Assumptions Be willing to have ideas challenged and debated. Thrive in an atmosphere where ideas are questioned, challenged, and improved

29. They would “focus on solutions” Focus on how to make ideas work for the client. Focus on the clients needs - listen Communicate, communicate, communicate – getting close to the client

30. In Short We will have evolved to where technology development is not considered the prime mover of innovation. It has been supplanted by entrepreneurship.

32. ICANTM…Canada’s Innovation System • Innoventures Canada (I-CANTM) is a not-for-profit organization incorporated to improve Canada’s performance in commercializing research. • The consortium includes Canada’s top research and technology organizations • We work together to meet real industry needs, tackle complex challenges and ensure that new technologies are successfully launched into the market.

34. I-CANTM members

35. PART 2 ICANTMAcross Canada

36. I-CANTM Across Canada I-CAN Members