Chikyu IODP Board #2 Meeting · 2019-08-02 · Chikyu IODP Board #2 Meeting Logistics 10th – 11th July, 2014 Yokohama, JAPAN MEETING DATES & TIMES: 10th Jul 09:00 - 17:00 CIB Meeting@Miyoshi

Chikyu IODP Board #2 Meeting

10 - 11 July, 2014Yokohama, Japan

Agenda Book ver.2.0

CIB #2 Meeting Agenda Book ver.2.0 revision summary

Agenda item

Sub item Action taken Material

2 B Revision Roster ver.2.0 4 Revision Draft Agenda ver.3.0 13 Revision Draft TAT minutes

14 Insertion Chikyu Drilling Safety Review Committee Recommendation

15 1-A

Insertion IODP SSO Information

2-B June 2014 SEP presentation 2-B Deletion Chikyu Oriented Proposal List

16 Insertion JTRACK WS Report 17 2-A Insertion CRISP PCT meeting note

19

2-C Insertion Chikyu Berth Exchange

4-C Insertion Chikyu Standard Measurements draft ver.1.0

5-D Insertion Chikyu Third-Party Tools and Instruments Policy draft ver.1.0

21 Insertion Outreach activities 22 Insertion CIB member rotation Status

Agenda Item 1 Welcome Remarks

Agenda Item 2 Introduction and Logistics

- Welcome and meeting logistics

A) Meeting Logistics B) Attendee Roster

Chikyu IODPBoard#2MeetingLogistics10th–11thJuly,2014 Yokohama,JAPAN

MEETING DATES & TIMES: 10th Jul 09:00 - 17:00 CIB Meeting@Miyoshi Memorial Auditorium, JAMSTEC YES

18:00 - 20:00 Reception@Seminar House, JAMSTEC YES 11th Jul 09:00 - 17:00 CIB Meeting@Miyoshi Memorial Auditorium, JAMSTEC YES MEETING LOCATION: Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) will take place at: Miyoshi Memorial Auditorium (Conference Bldg., 2F) Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences (YES), Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) Access: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/e/about/access/yokohama.html SOCIAL EVENT *Details will be released later. 1) Icebreaker : TBA 2) Reception : 10th Jul., Dinner at Seminar House, JAMSTEC YES RECOMMENDED HOTEL AND MAKING LODGING RESERVATIONS (Important Deadline Information): There is a block of rooms at “Yokohama Bay Sheraton Hotel & Towers” at a rate of ¥16,500 per night. Please send a hotel reservation form via e-mail to CDEX office, no later than 15th Jun, 2014. E-mail: [email protected] *E-mail subject should contain the key-words,” (your name) CIB hotel booking.” “Yokohama Bay Sheraton Hotel & Towers” Address: 1-3-23 Kitasaiwai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama 220-8501 JAPAN / Tel: 81-45-411-1111 Website :http://www.starwoodhotels.com/sheraton/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=1134&language=en_US

For those who will stay at the other hotel, please inform us of the name of the hotel as well as check-in/check-out date to the above e-mail address.

TRANSPORTATION: Yokohama Station to Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences (YES), JAMSTEC Take the JR Negishi Line bound for “Ofuna (大船)” at platform 3. A train ticket costs 220 JPY. The train has sky-blue line or green line. Don’t take the train bound for “Sakuragicho (桜木

町)” and “Isogo (磯子)”. These trains terminate before Shin-sugita. Get on a train. It takes about 20 min from Yokohama to Shin-sugita. Yokohama Institute is about a 15 min walk from Shin-sugita station.

REFERENCE INFORMATION: Participants will need to organize their own transport from the airport to the hotel and back. Train (to Yokohama Station): Narita Express: about 95min., 4,290JPY Limousine Bus (to Yokohama City Air Terminal (YCAT)): about 90min., 3,600JPY The Sheraton Hotel is located just across the street from the west exit of Yokohama Station (see reference map below). Narita International Airport: http://www.narita-airport.jp/en/ Timetable of Narita Express (NEX): http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/nex/index.html Ticket for the Narita Express is available from ticket machines at floor B1 at the both of terminal 1 & 2.

Timetable of Limousine bus: http://www.limousinebus.co.jp/en/platform_searches/index/2/23 Buses from the airport to Yokohama station leave from the arrival level on the first floor. Buy a ticket at the ticket counters before proceeding to the bus stops. The Airport Limousine counters are located in the arrival lobbies (in front of the exit) of both Terminal 1 and 2. Yokohama Station to the Hotel: From YCAT, It takes about 2 minutes to walk from Yokohama Station to the hotel. From Yokohama station, please be sure to take the west exit.

#1 Chikyu IODP Board meeting Roster ver.2.0 Name Institution Members Gilbert Camoin European Managing Agency (EMA), CEREGE, France Shinichi Kuramoto Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Hodaka Kawahata The University of Tokyo, Japan Gaku Kimura CIB Chair - The University of Tokyo, Japan Yuzuru Kimura Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan Casey Moore University of California, Santa Cruz, USA Kenneth Nealson* University of Southern California, USA Yoshiyuki Tatsumi* Kobe University, Japan Heinrich Villinger University of Bremen, Germany Liaisons Keir Becker IODP Forum chair - University of Miami, USA David Divins US Implementing Organization (USIO) - Consortium for Ocean Leadership, USA Robert Gatliff* European Science Operator (ESO), British Geological Survey, UK Holly Given IODP-Management International, Inc./IODP Support Office, USA Karsten Gohl ECORD Facility Board Chair - Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany Susan Humphris JR Facility Board Chair - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA Barry Katz* EPSP Chair – Chevron Corporation, Houston TX, USA Masa Kinoshita Kochi Core Center (KCC), Japan Dick Kroon SEP Co-Chair - The University of Edinburgh, UK Dave Mallinson* SEP Co-Chair – East Carolina University, USA Takeshi Tsuji EPSP - Kyusyu University, Japan Observers Naokazu Ahagon Kochi Core Center (KCC), Japan Jamie Allan National Science Foundation, USA Yoshito Ando Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan Ryo Anma Tsukuba University, Japan Mike Coffin Institute for Marine and Antractic Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia Nobu Eguchi Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Lallan Gupta Kochi Core Center (KCC), Japan Stuart Henrys* GNS Science, New Zealand Shinji Hida Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Hitoshi Hotta JAMSTEC, Japan Akira Ishiwatari Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J-DESC) - Tohoku University, Japan Thomas Janecek National Science Foundation, USA Yoshi Kawamura JAMSTEC, Japan Gil Young Kim* K-IODP, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM) Hajimu Kinoshita Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J-DESC), Japan Takashi Kiyoura Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan Shomei Kobayashi Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Nori Kyo Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Guido Lueniger ECORD Facility Board - Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Germany Kuo-Fong Ma* National Central University, Taiwan Shigemi Matsuda Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Ryo Matsumoto* Meiji University, Japan Sidney L. M. Mello IODP-Capes/Brazil Office, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brazil Shin'ichi Mizumoto JAMSTEC, Japan Toshiaki Mizuno Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan Kyaw Moe JAMSTEC, Japan Shigemi Naganawa The University of Tokyo, Japan Yoko Okamoto Marine Works Japan, Ltd. Dhananjai K Pandey* IODP-India, National Centre for Antarctic & Ocean Research Kentaro Saeki Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan Ikuo Sawada Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Jeff Schuffert US Science Support Program (USSSP), Consortium for Ocean Leadership, USA Toshikatsu Sugawara Marine Works Japan, Ltd. Kazuhiro Sugiyama Marine Works Japan, Ltd. Kiyoshi Suyehiro JAMSTEC, Japan Asahiko Taira President of JAMSTEC, Japan Shouting Tuo IODP-China Office, Tongji University, China Keita Umetsu JAMSTEC, Japan Udrekh* Agency for The Assessment and Application of Technology, Indonesia Yasuhiro Yamada JAMSTEC, Japan Masaoki Yamao Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan * - unable to attend

CDEX Attendee Akiko Fuse Shinya Goto Yoshihisa Kawamura Hiroyuki Kikuta Shin'ichi Kuramoto Tamano Omata Tomokazu Saruhashi

Agenda Item 3 New JAMSTEC Structure

JAMSTEC re-organization overview

Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology

Executives Personnel

2

Mr. Yasushi Taya

Mr. Hisashi Dobashi

Dr. Yoshihisa Shirayama

Dr. Hitoshi Hotta

Dr. Asahiko Taira

Dr. Yuko Maeda

FY14 Budget

Total：1,059 employees

As of April 1, 2014

Executive Director

President Auditor

2

Scientists (351) Engineers

(238)

Crews (46)

Administrative Staff (181) Support Staff (243)

Total Budget: ¥38.0B （$380M) ($1= ¥ 100)

(national treasury disbursement ： ¥ 34.2B ($342M)

JAMSTEC Executives, Personnel and Budget

Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology

Manned Submersible Deep-sea Drilling Vessel Earth Simulator

We contribute to integrated understanding of the Earth‘s system with the world‘s top-class facilities.

Kochi Institute for Core Sample Research Headquarters Mutsu Institute

for Oceanography Yokohama Institute for

Earth Sciences

Basic Research Area Strategic Research and Development Area

Three Latest AUVs

Otohime Jimbei Yumeiruka

Res

earc

h Se

ctor

Dev

elop

men

t an

d O

pera

tion

Sect

or

Shinkai6500 Chikyu

Mutsu Institute for Oceanography (MIO)

Kochi Institute for Core Sample Research (KOCHI)

Research Support Departments

• Dept. of Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere-Land Processes Research

• Dept. of Environmental Geochemical Cycle Research • Dept. of Integrated Climate Change Projection Research • Dept. of Seamless Environmental Prediction Research • Dept. of Deep Earth Structure and Dynamics Research • Dept. of Solid Earth Geochemistry • Dept. of Marine Biodiversity Research • Dept. of Subsurface Geobiological Analysis and Research • Dept. of Biogeochemistry • Dept. of Mathematical Science and Advanced Technology • Laboratory of Ocean-Earth Life Evolution Research

Strategic R&D Area

R&D Center for Global Change

R&D Center for Submarine Resources

R&D Center for Ocean Drilling Science

Application Laboratory

R&D Center for Earthquake and Tsunami

Project Team for Risk Information on Climate Change

R&D Center for Marine Biosciences

Project Team for Analyses of Changes in East Japan Marine Ecosystems

Focused R&D Areas 2014-2018

Submarine Resources Explore untapped submarine resources

Ocean and Global Climate Change Detect signals of global environmental change

Seismogenic Zone Contribute to disaster mitigation

Marine Bioscience Quest for the origin of life on Earth

Ocean drilling science Understand the Earth from beneath the seabed

Synthetic information science Predict the Earth's future by simulations

Construction of research base Be the ocean pioneer

R/V KAIYO

SWATH-type vessel with large workspace

GT 3,350 t

Operation from 2013 Multipurpose R/V focusing on the survey off the coast of Tohoku region

GT 5,000 t (approx.)

Various observations with ROV

GT 1,739 t R/V NATSUSIMA

Surveys the structure of sub-bottoms mainly with MCS

GT 4,517 t R/V KAIREI

Large vessel able to perform observation over wide areas

GT 8,687 t R/V MIRAI

Support vessel for “SHINKAI6500”

GT 4,439 t R/V YOKOSUKA

Drilling vessel with world-class scientific drilling capacity

GT 56,752 t D/V CHIKYU

Multipurpose research vessel with long-term cruise

GT 3,991 t R/V HAKUHOMARU

R/V SHINSEIMARU GT 1,629 t

R/V (under planning)

GT: Gross tonnage

7 Planned to be operated from 2016

Aims to survey for submarine resources

Vessels

Agenda Item 4 Approval of Agenda

Agenda

1

Chikyu IODP Board #2 meeting 10-11 July 2014

Miyoshi Memorial Auditorium

JAMSTEC Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences (YES)

Draft Agenda ver.3.0 Day-1 Thursday, 10 July 2014 0900-0905 1. Welcome Remarks (Hotta) 0905-0920 2. Introductions and Logistics (Kuramoto, Matsuda) 0920-0930 3. New JAMSTEC Direction (Hotta) 0930-0940 4. Approval of Agenda (Chair - Kimura) 0940-0950 5. CIB Decisions since Last Meeting (Chair - Kimura) 0950-1000 6. Approval of Last Meeting Minutes (Chair - Kimura) 1000-1010 7. Approval of CIB TOR revision (Chair - Kimura)

Coffee Break

1030-1045 8. CIB Action Item Status (Chair - Kimura) 1045-1100 9. Chikyu Membership Status (Kuramoto) 1100-1130 10. Chikyu Operation Update (Eguchi) IODP Exp. 348 1130-1230 11. Chikyu Budgetary Overview and Outline of Operation Schedule for JFY2014-2015 (Kuramoto, Goto) Budgetary Guidance of JFY2014 and beyond

LUNCH 1400-1500 12. IODP Forum, other FB and Agency Activities IODP Forum (Becker)

JRFB (Humphris) ECORD FB (Gohl) MEXT (Y.Kimura) NSF (Janecek) ECORD (Camoin) ANZIC (Coffin)

Coffee Break

1515-1545 13. Technical Advisory Team Report (Becker) 1545-1600 14. Chikyu Drilling Safety Review Committee Report (Naganawa)

2

1600-1730 15. JR Advisory Panels Report/Proposal Overview Support Office Activities (Given) SEP (including proposals ready for CIB and at SEP) (Kroon) EPSP (Tsuji) 1800- Reception Day-2 Friday, 11 July 2014 0900-0930 16. CIB Workshop report JTRACK WS (Kodaira) 0930-1000 17. PCT Activities (Eguchi, Moe) NanTroSEIZE

CRISP IBM

Coffee Break

1020-1130 18. Long-term Implementation Plan (Chair - Kimura) NanTroSEIZE Operation (Site C0002)

MEXT Deep Sea Drilling Committee Report Chikyu Project Criteria

LUNCH

1300-1400 19. Chikyu Facility Procedures, Guidelines and Policies (Chair - Kimura) Staffing Procedures Onboard Measurements Guidelines Third Party Tool Guidelines Second Post Expedition Meeting Guideline 1400-1430 20. KCC report (Kinoshita) 1430-1500 21. Outreach Activities (Omata)

Coffee Break

1530-1600 22. CIB member Rotation (Kuramoto) 1600-1615 23. Review of Consensus Statements and Action Items 1615-1630 24. Next CIB meeting 1630-1700 25. Other Business

Adjourn meeting

Agenda Item 7 CIB Decisions since Last Meeting

CIB Decisions since Last Meeting

The following consensus items were made after the #1 CIB meeting in July 2013. CIB_Consensus_0713-31: The CIB established CRISP Project Coordination Team. CIB_Consensus_0713-32: The CIB established NanTroSEIZE Project Coordination Team. CIB_Consensus_0713-33: The CIB endorsed the CIB workshop proposal submission guidelines. CIB_Consensus_0713-34: The CIB accepted a fast-track review of JTRACK workshop proposal. CIB_Consensus_0713-35: The CIB reviewed JTRACK workshop proposal and endorsed its implementation.

Agenda Item 5 Approval of Last Meeting Minutes

Last CIB Meeting Minutes


Miyoshi Memoriam Auditorium JAMSTEC Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences (YES)

List of Participants

Name Institution Members Wataru Azuma Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Hodaka Kawahata The University of Tokyo, Japan Gaku Kimura CIB Chair - The University of Tokyo, Japan Yuzuru Kimura Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan Casey Moore University of California, Santa Cruz, USA Kenneth Nealson University of Southern California, USA Yoshiyuki Tatsumi Kobe University, Japan Heinrich Villinger University of Bremen, Germany Liaisons Keir Becker IODP Forum chair - University of Miami, USA David Divins US Implementing Organization (USIO) - Consortium for Ocean Leadership, USA Robert Gatliff European Science Operator (ESO), British Geological Survey, UK Holly Given IODP-Management International, Inc./IODP Support Office, USA Susan Humphris JR Facility Board Chair - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA Masa Kinoshita Kochi Core Center (KCC), Japan Dick Kroon PEP chair - The University of Edinburgh, UK Gilles Lericolais SCP Chair - Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (IFREMER), France Observers Naokazu Ahagon Kochi Core Center (KCC), Japan Jamie Allan National Science Foundation, USA Yoshito Ando Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan Nobu Eguchi Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Lallan Gupta Kochi Core Center (KCC), Japan Stuart Henrys GNS Science, New Zealand Shinji Hida Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Hitoshi Hotta JAMSTEC, Japan Yuichi Inoue Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan Akira Ishiwatari Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J-DESC) - Tohoku University, Japan Thomas Janecek National Science Foundation, USA Issa Kagaya IODP-Management International Inc., Japan Shomei Kobayashi Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Nori Kyo Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Shigemi Matsuda Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Sidney L. M. Mello IODP-Capes/Brazil Office, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brazil Shin'ichi Mizumoto JAMSTEC, Japan Kyaw Moe Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Shigemi Naganawa The University of Tokyo, Japan Yoko Okamoto Marine Works Japan, Ltd. Kentaro Saeki Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan Ikuo Sawada Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Jeff Schuffert US Science Support Program (USSSP), Consortium for Ocean Leadership, USA Toshikatsu Sugawara Marine Works Japan, Ltd. Kazuhiro Sugiyama Marine Works Japan, Ltd. Kiyoshi Suyehiro IODP-Management International Inc., Japan Asahiko Taira President of JAMSTEC, Japan Sean Toczko Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Kumiko Tsukamoto Australian Education International, Australian Embassy, Japan Shouting Tuo IODP-China Office, Tongji University, China Michiko Yamamoto IODP-Management International Inc., Japan Masaoki Yamao Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Chris Yeats Australian/New Zealand IODP Consortium, Australian Resources Research Centre, CSIRO,

Australia Other CDEX Attendees Akiko Fuse Shinya Goto Tomokazu Saruhashi Kiyoshi Hatakeyama Koji Takase Yoshihisa Kawamura Aki Tanaka Hiroyuki Kikuta Keita Umetsu Shin'ichi Kuramoto Yasuo Yamada Tamano Omata

1


Miyoshi Memoriam Auditorium


List of Consensus Items CIB_Consensus_0713-01: The CIB approved the #1 meeting agenda as proposed. CIB_Consensus_0713-02: The CIB accepted proposed CIB Conflict of Interest policy. CIB_Consensus_0713-03: The CIB selected Ken Nealson as Vice-Chair when the Chair is conflicted. CIB_Consensus_0713-04: The CIB recommended including CIB selected scientists on the Proposal Advisory Team (PAT) membership in its terms of reference. CIB_Consensus_0713-05: The CIB approved proposed Project Coordination Team (PCT) Terms of reference. CIB_Consensus_0713-06: The CIB recommended including submission of the workshop report to community-wide publications (e.g., EOS, Scientific Drilling) in the Chikyu IODP Full Proposal Development Workshop Funding Guidelines. CIB_Consensus_0713-07: The CIB recognized that there is no need for “ad-hoc Riser PEP”. CDEX personal and specialists as well as CIB selected additional selectees may join regular PEP meeting as needed when Riser Full proposal to be reviewed. CIB_Consensus_0713-08: The CIB endorsed proposed general three-year Chikyu riser expedition scheduling process. CIB_Consensus_0713-09: The CIB endorsed the revised comprehensive process toward Chikyu expedition flow chart. CIB_Consensus_0713-10: The CIB made a request to JRFB to use PEP and SCP for all pre and full proposals. CIB_Consensus_0713-11: The CIB made a request to JRFB to use EPSP for Chikyu riserless operation. CIB_Consensus_0713-12: The CIB endorsed to use a biannual proposal submission deadline (1 April and 1 October). CIB_Consensus_0713-13: The CIB endorsed to evaluate Riser full proposal workshop proposal once annually (March).

2

CIB_Consensus_0713-14: The CIB endorsed slightly modified (CIB_Consensus_0713-05) Proposal Advisory Team (PAT) terms of reference. CIB_Consensus_0713-15: The CIB endorsed slightly modified (CIB_Consensus_0713-06) Chikyu Riser full proposal workshop funding guidelines. CIB_Consensus_0713-16: The CIB endorsed JFY 2014 and 2015 NanTroSEIZE operations as proposed by CDEX (assuming funding is appropriately allocated). CIB_Consensus_0713-17: The CIB approved a suggested change in the agenda: postpone Agenda Item 8 and holding executive session regarding remaining items for Agenda Item 7. CIB_Consensus_0713-18: The CIB designated both IBM and CRISP as Chikyu Projects. CIB_Consensus_0713-19: The CIB endorsed Chikyu riserless operation in the below criteria (but not limited to). • Riserless operation beyond JR capability (e.g., ultra deep water). • Riserless operation in the regions where JR will not be for many years (e.g., W.

Pacific after FY2014). • Riserless operation on the way to/from e.g., industry operations. CIB_Consensus_0713-20: The CIB recommended to establish a PCT for IBM and CRISP. CIB_Consensus_0713-21: The CIB recommended the following PCT membership selection procedures: • CIB chair contacts to PI and ask a list of additional scientists for PCT member. • CIB review the list and pick 2 additional scientists as PCT member. • CDEX provides operational/engineering members. CIB_Consensus_0713-22: The CIB in principle agreed upon a common platform “IODP Environmental Principles”. The CIB will review CDEX proposed revisions, in time for August 2013 JRFB meeting. CIB_Consensus_0713-23: The CIB agreed upon a common platform “Sample, Data and Obligation Policy”. Three FB chairs send a message to curators requesting implementing procedures. CIB_Consensus_0713-24: The CIB agreed upon a common platform “Proposal Submission Guidelines”. Small working group across FBs will work some modification prior to the next proposal submission deadline of 1 October 2013. CIB_Consensus_0713-25: The CIB agreed upon a common platform “Onboard Measurements Guidelines”. Small working group across FBs will work its contents and the CIB support office will inform CIB at the next meeting.

3

CIB_Consensus_0713-26: The CIB wait for Chikyu version of “Third Party Tool Guidelines” at its next meeting. CIB_Consensus_0713-27: The CIB agreed that the chairs of the boards (CIB, JRFB and ECORDFB) ask the three curators at the core repositories to update the Sample, Data & Obligation Policy, especially that they split up the document in a fairly short (two to three pages) policy statement and an implementation plan which contains all the details (see also CIB_Consensus_0713-23). The role of the Curatorial Advisory Board should also be defined in this document. The CIB encouraged that the geographic core distribution model should be kept as it is. CIB_Consensus_0713-28: The CIB endorsed maintaining same quality and format of IODP expedition related publications. CIB_Consensus_0713-29: The CIB endorsed continuing to use the TAMU Publication team for Chikyu-related IODP expedition documents. CIB_Conenesus_0713-30: The CIB chose its next meeting for 11 – 13 March 2014 in Yokohama. Note; this consensus item has been amended after the meeting, the final meeting schedule of next meeting is 18 – 20 February 2014.

1


Miyoshi Memoriam Auditorium


Draft Minutes ver.1.0 Day-1 Tuesday, 23 July 2013 1. Welcome and Introductions (08:58 h) Chair G. Kimura welcomed the CIB members, liaisons and observers and asked JAMSTEC Executive director Hitoshi Hotta to deliver the opening remarks. H. Hotta welcomed the group and shared his hopes for a successful and fruitful meeting. He informed everyone that the CIB meeting was a very important meeting for Chikyu operations within the new IODP framework and JAMSTEC would continue to operate Chikyu for scientific ocean drilling. H. Hotta also mentioned that Chikyu did both scientific and industrial work last year and learned from those operations that efficient operation of the vessel was most important for JAMSTEC. He also introduced the new JAMSTEC vision document describing the next 10 – 15 years of operation. Shomei Kobayashi briefed the group on logistics, coffee breaks, and lunch possibilities outside/cafeteria and the BBQ reception tonight. Shigemi Matsuda gave a brief description of emergency escape routes and instructions. Chair G. Kimura began and led self-introductions (all around). 2. Approval of Agenda (09:17 h) Chair G. Kimura described the meeting agenda: the expected meeting goals, schemes, and other reviews; Policies and guidelines to be reviewed, Expected collaboration with the MSP (ECORD) and JR (NSF) FB. Make recommendations for future Chikyu & CIB panels. Advance Chikyu riserless drilling opportunities. Chair G. Kimura also introduced the modified version of Robert Rules of Order and the CIB member agreed on using them for the meeting. In brief, all agenda points would be agreed upon by consensus, after each item was discussed; there would be flexibility in the time allotted per point, and for the agenda organization as well. Some small revisions, differing from the emailed version were discussed. In answer to Holly Given’s question, the Japanese FY terms are April to the following March. Masa Kinoshita asked if FY14 operation plan was endorsed, the chair answered that would be discussed under Agenda Item 10. The Agenda was approved by consensus. CIB_Consensus_0713-01: The CIB approved the #1 meeting agenda as proposed. 3. Framework of the new IODP (09:30 h.) Yuzuru Kimura of MEXT briefly described the new framework of the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP), and a brief summary of the establishment of 3 facility boards (FBs) to independently operate each platform; the NSF and ECORD have already established their facility boards, and this is the inaugural meeting for Chikyu. Some discussion points for the evaluation of riser proposals remain. A project partner office is

2

planned; its start is delayed but it is in the future scope. A berth exchange between NSF and ECORD has already been agreed upon. Even though platforms are operated independently, the program work together. There are new member countries/consortium associated with JRFB, while JAMSTEC partners are only starting to line up now. This is MEXT’s understanding of the situation. Keir Becker pointed out that the IODP Forum was not a decision-making group or the highest authority of the program as shown in the presentation. While driven by the funding agencies, it can be used to open discussion items for IODP forwarded to the board. Susan Humphris – The diagram showing the relationship between the different FBs and IODP Panels is not quite correct. Tom Janecek (NSF) and Gilbert Camoin (EMA) have been asked to review it. Heinrich Villinger questioned the lack of connection between the SSDB to Chikyu activities in the diagram. James Allan answered that the support office would be supporting SSDB activities as an important part of the proposal handling, and that function was part of JR facility advisory panels. The definition of riser proposal should be decided first on how to use the SSDB for Chikyu operations. H. Villinger and Yoshiyuki Tatsumi had questions about the specific connection between the CIB and the panels listed. Discussion on the connections was put on hold until after Holly Given’s presentation about the science support office function and the CIB riser panel discussion planned for the next day. (09:45 h.) Wataru Azuma – Described the Chikyu business model. Ideal Chikyu operations a year will be 5 months IODP, 5 months non-IODP and 2 months ship maintenance model. Budgets include not only MEXT funding, but also commercial contributions. CDEX is also seeking partnerships to donate money as extra support. In-kind contributions are also welcome. The non-IODP operation time windows include commercial operations, and JAMSTEC in-house operations. Two months/year needed for ship maintenance. The funding structure was described: 10 M USD/month for riser drilling, and 50 M USD for 5 months riser expedition. Riserless operations run at nearly 50% of this. Therefore, non-IODP operations needed for budget support. Casey Moore asked about the stability of this business model. W. Azuma affirmed that it’s highly variable, year-by-year. Hodaka Kawahata asked about having longer continuous drilling seasons. Also, who is responsible for the commercial contracts, MEXT or JAMSTEC? W. Azuma confirmed that 10 months continuous operation across Japanese fiscal years would be possible and commercial contract is dependent on JAMSTEC top management. The 10 M USD figure for riser drilling is competitive level compare to commercial platforms. Chair G. Kimura moved to the next item: Chikyu membership. 4. Chikyu membership (09:55 h.) W. Azuma described several categories of membership: Regular members, Project members, and Partnership members. The dues levels are 1 M USD per year for regular members, 10 M USD per project members, 300 K USD per year, for partnership members; this category only applies to new or developing countries. In clarification to a question from C. Moore, commercial ventures/project are not included in this scheme, as they are private contracts.

3

There was discussion on how long are “Chikyu Expeditions” and how many berths are actually awarded by expedition, by partnership level. W. Azuma answered that normal “Chikyu Expedition” would be 5 months; therefore more than once scientist can occupy one berth. There was also discussion on the terms and definitions of the various membership schemes. Essentially, it was noted by Chris Yeats that a more conservative reading would severely limit the possible entities applying for membership. W. Azuma answered that we would like to keep discussing this issue in the future. Chair G. Kimura Called for a coffee break. COFFEE BREAK 5. Chikyu IODP Board Terms of Reference (10:30 h.) Chair G. Kimura proposed to extend item #6 to 1 hour, and shrink lunchtime by 1 hour. All agreed. Chair G. Kimura moved to the IODP terms of reference Agenda Item. W. Azuma presented the proposed Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) decision-making timeline. Essentially, 3 years minimum are needed to prepare a drilling project. A discussion began on the Terms of Reference (ToR) list. The CIB mandate #3 “Data management, core curation, publication, capacity building, outreach programs, and other related activities” discussion was postponed until the data policy discussion (Item #16) is on the table. H. Villinger asked if the CIB is to review all proposals? Y. Tatsumi also expressed confusion with CIB roles & duties related to proposals. T. Janacek stated that the CIB should decide to what extent, and how, they would like to use the JRFB Panels then propose that to JRFB. C. Moore suggested that the current panels continue playing the same roles in new IODP. The discussion will continue after more work on the CIB timeline. The immediate question was getting an endorsement of next year’s IODP NanTroSEIZE expedition. With the JPFY ending in March and beginning in April, C. Yeats noted that a March meeting would be too late to discuss the following FY operations. Yasuo Yamada said that the timing is not that short, as JAMSTEC’s budget is fixed in February. N. Eguchi moved that the CIB ToR be amended, but after more discussion, perhaps adding to item #16, where data policy gets inline with MSP and JR FBs. (11:05 h.) Chair G. Kimura moved to add this to Item #16, and that we move on to the conflict of interest (COI) discussion. Discussion focused on whether specific details of COI should be written out, or is it sufficient for a general understanding of COI among the CIB members? Is it enough for a declaration of COI? H. Villinger declared COI as being a member of the CRISP proposal, but as an absolutely inactive member. Masa Kinoshita stated that many CIB members are conflicted over many proposals. With agreement that: 1. COI should be verbally identified at the CIB, 2. Many CIB members are in proposal proponent’s lists, but not necessarily active or even aware of this, 3. K. Becker suggested that such cases should have CIB members voluntarily remove names from proposal proponent’s lists. COI discussion led to recognition that Chair can be conflicted and may have to recuse self. Therefore, submitted that a vice chair be created and that Kenneth Nealson be appointed. Consensus agreement on his appointment. Conflict of interest of the meeting participants were declared and recorded as follows.

4

Gaku Kimura; NanTroSEIZE (603), conflicted. Masa Kinoshita; NanTroSEIZE (603), conflicted. Yoshiyuki Tatsumi; IBM-4 (698), conflicted. Heinrich Villinger; CRISP (537), not conflicted. Casey Moore; NanTroSEIZE (603), not conflicted. CIB_Consensus_0713-02: The CIB accepted proposed CIB Conflict of Interest policy. CIB_Consensus_0713-03: The CIB selected Ken Nealson as Vice-Chair when the Chair is conflicted. Chair G. Kimura moved that the discussion move to the next issue: ECORD and JR Facility Board interactions with the CIB. Shinji Hida presented that each FB will send liaisons to the other FB meetings. This relationship is established in this framework. Any other issues can and should be raised here. S. Humphris pointed out that the JRFB is responsible for the various panels, which advise both ECORD and JRFB. JRFB is waiting for CIB and ECORD feedback on the perceived roles and value of the panels. 6. JR Advisory Panels overview PEP (11:35 h.) Dick Kroon presented an overview of the PEP, and its’ functions. Previously, technical feasibility has not been part of the PEP evaluations. There are data sets, like site survey data, that need to be provided or scheduled. These surveys may need to secure outside funding, or funding might be needed for operational parts of the science plan (e.g. observatory hardware), which will need to be specified in the proposal package. Discussion on including the advice and input from technical experts recommended by the Platform Operator (CDEX), ended with a decision to discuss in more detail as part of the proposed “Ad-hoc” PEP by CDEX. Chair G. Kimura moved to start discussing the SCP after a 15-minute break. SCP Gilles Lericolais presented on the Site Characterization Panel (SCP), including a discussion on the new SCP tasks, the site characterization matrix and classification scheme. Once complete, Chair G. Kimura moved to break for lunch and return at 13:30 h. to comment on G. Lericolais’ talk. LUNCH (13:32 h.) EPSP S. Humphris presented on the Environmental Protection and Safety Panel (EPSP) for EPSP chair Barry Katz. EPSP provides safety and environmental advice associated with drilling proposals. Brings the proponents into the discussion, different from other panels. Can make several recommendations or requests. Can deny approval for drilling. All who serve on panel are specialists. Normally, the proponents or expedition co-chiefs need to prepare a safety review report for EPSP. Question to the CIB including, will EPSP be asked to review Chikyu drilling proposals? How will their review be used in planning Chikyu expeditions? What mechanism shall we use for the CIB to provide feedback to the JRFB as to the usefulness and effectiveness of EPSP review? Chair G. Kimura mentioned that these questions would be answered in the discussion under Agenda Item 7.

5

7. Roadmap for Chikyu Expeditions Note: This Agenda Item had been discussed on several occasions during the meeting, including two executive sessions. In this meeting’s minutes, all discussions under this Agenda Item are summarized here. N. Eguchi presented a summary of the new Chikyu project guidelines for proposals and evaluation process, the process including JRF Advisory Panel usage. How should the CIB best utilize the JRF Advisory Panels is one of the key discussion point under this Agenda Item. Also, newly introduced Proposal Advisory Team (PAT), Project Coordination Team (PCT), Technical Advisory Team (TAT), and the Chikyu workshop concept was explained. A discussion began on the process details, including workshop, riser ad-hoc PEP, and usage of EPSP and proposal submission deadlines. Workshops approved by CIB would be funded by JAMSTEC. At this CIB meeting the first riser full proposal deadlines should be decided first, and then the follow-up duration/interval for next submission deadline would be decided. Use the EPSP for Chikyu is limited to riserless expeditions; the JAMSTEC safety committee (Chikyu Safety Review Committee) will review riser operation safety. Another item of debate was the concept of the “Ad-Hoc” PEP – is it necessary to designate an entire new panel of people, or can a small group be melded into the current PEP, when required? These items were left for more discussion. One important point, emphasized by J. Allan, was that with the large costs involved in riser drilling projects, a great deal of planning is necessary, in very close collaboration with the operator, to ensure mission success. (14:46 h.) Kyaw Thu Moe presented the riser project preparation schedule. The PCT steps in once feasibility deemed workable. Geology and Geophysics group in CDEX begins working on the first-level site investigations and environmental (weather, sea currents) survey. Subcontractor & logistics survey are needed as well. Initial budget estimate set 3 years before expected expedition start; this is especially true for overseas riser project locations. H. Villinger confirmed with K. Moe that the geomechanics and additional seismic surveys are funded by CDEX. Personnel limitations dictate that only 2 projects can be handled simultaneously. There was discussion led by Y. Tatsumi over the CIB’s workload for the next 10 years. Chair G. Kimura pointed out that the CIB is charged with moving Chikyu into the next 10-year phase of IODP, following the groundwork laid out by the Chikyu+10 Workshop. Even so, proposals should be encouraged even if chances for implementation during this phase seem remote. A break was called for until 15:30 h. Chikyu safety Review Committee (CSRC) (15:30 h.) S. Matsuda presented the subcommittees of the Chikyu Safety Review Committee (CSRC); this committee consists of two or more sub-committees, currently Site Geohazards, Drilling Operation sub-committees are considered. The expertise of the member of CSRC will be, drilling operations, marine operations, hole stability, ship safety, ship engineering, as well as geology and geophysics and CSRC reports to the CIB and makes a recommendation to the CDEX director general. The basic reviewing concept will be after a full proposal is designated as a project, Site Geohazards sub-committee review a safety package prepared by the proponent, once a drilling program is made by CDEX, Drilling Operation sub-committee review the program and verify operational feasibility/safety and report to the CSRC. The CSRC then gives verification and necessary advice/recommendation based on feedback from those sub-committees to the CDEX director general. S. Humphris reminded everyone that the EPSP reviews for riserless proposals would occur after the proposal had been forwarded to the CIB for evaluation.

6

Chair G. Kimura moved to address the PAT and then the PCT and Workshop structure. Proposal Advisory Team (PAT) (15:37 h.) N. Eguchi began discussing the PAT terms of reference (ToR), asking the CIB to reject, revise, or endorse the current PAT ToR. The discussion centered on the composition of the PAT, which CDEX recommends comprising 5-8 members. The PAT would take the role of CDEX-identified multi-disciplinary advisors to the Work Shop organizers; its function varies from organizing the workshop to technical advice to the workshop participants. The PAT would include PIs, TAT members, and other science community members. C. Moore expressed the need to avoid a top-down structure. CIB_Consensus_0713-04: The CIB recommended including CIB selected scientists on the Proposal Advisory Team (PAT) membership in its terms of reference. Project Coordination Team (PCT) (15:50 h.) N. Eguchi presented the general PCT terms of reference as currently exists, but expected the actual ToR to shift as the proposals dictate. CDEX envisions the PCT essentially the same as the current Project Management Team (PMT). The membership includes the operator, engineers and scientists, a core group of 5-8 members. Experience shows this to be a good core group. Other can be brought in as needed. CIB_Consensus_0713-05: The CIB approved proposed Project Coordination Team (PCT) Terms of reference. Proposal Work Shop Guidelines N. Eguchi described the workshop (WS) structure: the CIB recommends a WS, JAMSTEC funds the WS, and then the WS organizers submit reports to CIB following the WS. Y. Tatsumi asked about the connection between PEP and CIB evaluations; N. Eguchi clarified that the CIB evaluates the WS proposal, and uses the PEP evaluation as a reference. H. Villinger suggested that the WS results be published, either in EOS or Scientific Drilling. Consensus agreed with this proposal. CIB_Consensus_0713-06: The CIB recommended including submission of the workshop report to community-wide publications (e.g., EOS, Scientific Drilling) in the Chikyu IODP Full Proposal Development Workshop Funding Guidelines. (16:00 h.) The Riser ad-hoc PEP and ToR N. Eguchi read the ToR to begin the discussion. This continued the discussion started earlier about the utility or need for an “Ad-Hoc” PEP. H. Villinger and G. Lericolais pointed out that the current PEP already has sufficient depth and breadth of experience and disciplinary expertise. D. Kroon added that with the SCP and the PEP being combined, this is even more so. Since the PEP is a JRFB panel, and the CIB is making use of it, there is no real need to duplicate effort and manpower to simply have a new panel. Chair G. Kimura noted that the consensus was that a new statement was needed, clarifying that the “Ad-Hoc” PEP is not needed in a new ToR, to be worked out between D. Kroon and N. Eguchi. Engineering development & CDEX Technical Advisory Team (TAT) (16:35 h.) Nori Kyo gave an overview of TAT. C. Yeats suggested that this should not fall under the purview of the CIB; N. Eguchi noted that as part of the PAT and PCT, these are in fact CIB issues. Chair G. Kimura proposed that the CIB recommend scientists connected to the pre-

7

proposal be included at PAT members; N. Eguchi recommended that these scientists not include the PIs. Chair G. Kimura moved that a revised version of the ToR be reviewed tomorrow before reaching consensus. (Day 2, 09:00 h.) (09:00 h.) Chair G. Kimura began the session by reviewing the results of the Executive meeting. Some of the consensus items include:

1. No more “Ad-Hoc” PEP, instead external members will be invited to join PEP on a case-by-case basis. This leaves scientists and the technical experts to drive the proposal advancement.

2. Proposal submission deadlines will be twice a year, in April and October. There will not be different deadlines for riser proposals.

3. CIB workshop oversight details remain unfixed. Chair discussed this with MEXT and the IO (CDEX); the CIB can decide on accepting WS proposals and form the PAT. This should be done at the next regularly scheduled CIB meeting in March 2014. The target date for the workshop should be at the end of November, so the IO can also check the WS proposal in preparation for the March meeting. There should be a once yearly deadline for the Riser WS.

N. Eguchi began a summary of the riser scheduling process. Will the CIB accept the 3-year process described by K. Moe? Following this, the Riser proposal flow for Chikyu was reviewed. The CIB needs to make an official request to JRFB about the role and use of the JRFB advisory panels. The CIB would also like to use EPSP for riserless expeditions. Proposal submissions will be set at 1 April & 1 October for both pre- and full proposals. The TORs for PAT and the WS guidelines have been revised. H. Villinger asked about the CIB plans for EPSP usage, and N. Eguchi said it would be covered later. N. Eguchi asked if there was consensus on the following changes in the comprehensive process toward Chikyu expedition flow chart:

• If PEP likes a proposal, riser pre proposal will be forwarded to CIB. • The CIB then electronically reviews/confirms the proposal for science. Initial pre-

scoping by CDEX will begin. • CIB will recommend proponents to submit WS proposal. • Proposal reviewed by CIB. Then CIB recommends WS funding & establish PAT

(Proposal Advisory Team). • PAT will help support WS organization and support engineering/tech side of WS.

Proponents develop full proposal based on the workshop outcome, then submit full proposal to the program.

• PEP evaluating riser Full proposal (with CIB recommended specialists). • SCP reviews Site Survey Data Package. • External review reviews & forwards to CIB.

C.Yeats asked about the holding bin for proposals, are they a dead end? N. Eguchi and D. Kroon used the PEP holding bin as an example. When the sticking points keeping a proposal in the holding bin are resolved, it comes out. These will be specific to each proposal, however. There was discussion on what is required for proposal prep for review by the CIB, and getting scheduled. CIB designates proposals as projects, then ranks prioritizes the projects, and makes recommendations for their implementation to JAMSTEC. JAMSTEC makes the final decision, based on technical and budgetary realities. M. Kinoshita and B. Gatliff made the point that more than one project should be in the planning stages so that a

8

project will always be ready to move forward. N. Eguchi agreed, saying that connected with this, smaller, riserless expeditions also need to be part of the “mix”. Yoshi Kawamura asked what kind of preparation is required to get a project prioritized. K. Moe stated that minimum requirements include geotechnical cores and sufficient seismic surveys. If these are missing in the first year the proposal will need to be set in the holding bin. Y. Kawamura asked if this would be funded by JAMSTEC. N. Eguchi stated that prioritization is need for JAMSTEC to release funds for these studies. H. Villinger asked about the role of the EPSP, but was told that this panel is only for riserless projects. N. Eguchi continued with the PAT ToR, amended to include the membership description, and the WS funding guidelines. On H. Villinger’s recommendation, added this “recipients are required to submit a WS report to a community wide publication – EOS, SD, etc.”. Chair G. Kimura confirmed that these items are now agreed upon by consensus. Based on the above discussion, the CIB made the following consensus statements. CIB_Consensus_0713-07: The CIB recognized that there is no need for “ad-hoc Riser PEP”. CDEX personal and specialists as well as CIB selected additional selectees may join regular PEP meeting as needed when Riser Full proposal to be reviewed. CIB_Consensus_0713-08: The CIB endorsed proposed general three-year Chikyu riser expedition scheduling process. CIB_Consensus_0713-09: The CIB endorsed the revised comprehensive process toward Chikyu expedition flow chart. CIB_Consensus_0713-10: The CIB made a request to JRFB to use PEP and SCP for all pre and full proposals. CIB_Consensus_0713-11: The CIB made a request to JRFB to use EPSP for Chikyu riserless operation. CIB_Consensus_0713-12: The CIB endorsed to use a biannual proposal submission deadline (1 April and 1 October). CIB_Consensus_0713-13: The CIB endorsed to evaluate Riser full proposal workshop proposal once annually (March). CIB_Consensus_0713-14: The CIB endorsed slightly modified (CIB_Consensus_0713-05) Proposal Advisory Team (PAT) terms of reference. CIB_Consensus_0713-15: The CIB endorsed slightly modified (CIB_Consensus_0713-06) Chikyu Riser full proposal workshop funding guidelines. 9. Chikyu Budgetary Overview Summary of Previous Expeditions (16:55 h.) W. Azuma gave a summary of past expedition costs, back to stage 1. S. Hida mentioned that in this summary of budgets and costs, the Shimokita expedition (Exp. 337) costs were

9

borne by MEXT/JSPS. C. Moore asked if Chikyu is owned by JAMSTEC, and if there is an amortization fee included annually in these summaries. N. Eguchi stated that Chikyu is owned outright by JAMSTEC. Budgetary Guidance of JFY2013 (17:00 h.) W. Azuma presented the CDEX basic budget overview, showing incoming constant funds, constant outgoing costs, and required outside funds to cover costs for the specific requirements as determined by the science goals. Non-IODP income is a required component of this budgetary outlook. H. Villinger asked if non-IODP contracts are already secured, or are they in process of negotiation. W. Azuma responded no, and the reality of fluctuating crude prices makes budget plans dependent on market forces. 10. Outline of Ship Schedule for JFY2014 and 2015 NanTroSEIZE Planning Update & IODP window (17:10 h.) Chair G. Kimura excused himself as having a COI with NanTroSEIZE discussions; therefore, Vice Chair K. Nealson took over chairing the meeting. N. Eguchi presented two scenarios for post 2014 operations. There are 130 days of operations (Exp. 348) this year, and then there is the follow up expedition. There are 2 plans. One (A) has late 2014 to early 2015 NanTroSEIZE C0002F Megasplay Riser drilling, then Fall Oct 2015 NanTroSEIZE C0010 LTBMS riserless operation. The other plan (B) has the same schedule for 2013. Then do Aug 2014 NanTroSEIZE C0010 LTBMS riserless work with 2015 NanTroSEIZE C0002F Megasplay Riser drilling. Y. Yamada pointed out the dependency of these plans on securing commercial work. He also mentioned the upcoming BOP re-certification work that will be required. N. Eguchi also described the planned IODP Expedition 348 drilling plans and the potential GeniusPlug recovery operations. H. Villinger noted that this would signal the completion of NanTroSEIZE operations, and the availability of Chikyu to work on other riser projects. Vice Chair K. Nealson noted that without any further questions, it seemed consensus was on completing the NanTroSEIZE project as described here. He then closed the meeting until tomorrow. CIB_Consensus_0713-16: The CIB endorsed JFY 2014 and 2015 NanTroSEIZE operations as proposed by CDEX (assuming funding is appropriately allocated). Chair G. Kimura announced that the meeting would reconvene tomorrow at 09:00 h. 1800- Reception A BBQ reception was held immediately after the meeting, in the YES Cafeteria.

10

Day-2 Wednesday, 24 July 2013 11. Chikyu +10 Workshop report (09:00 h.) Chair G. Kimura proposed to postpone Agenda Item 8 and suspended the session after Agenda Item 11 for an Executive Session held next door. The meeting reconvened after the executive meeting. CIB_Consensus_0713-17: The CIB approved a suggested change in the agenda: postpone Agenda Item 8 and holding executive session regarding remaining items for Agenda Item 7. Chair G. Kimura began the meeting by asking Shinichi Kuramoto to deliver the Chikyu+10 report. S. Kuramoto summarized the main points and conclusions of the Chikyu+10 meeting. H. Kawahata asked if NanTroSEIZE was included in the Chikyu+10 projects, as it’s in the list. S. Kuramoto replied, yes, until the current plans are completed. 12. Proposals Overview Science Support Office (SSO) activities (11:05 h.) Chair G. Kimura reconvened the meeting beginning with Holly Given’s Support Office presentation. The Science Support Office (SSO) will begin from 1 October 2013 at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD. The SSO will have 8 staff, and the basic tasks are 1) logistical support for JRFB and its advisory panels, 2) oversight of proposal review process, 3) management of the existing Site Survey Data Bank (SSDB) and 4) supporting IODP website. Integration of the proposal database and the SSDB is in the scope. However, the SSO tasks will not include publications, curation, scheduling/review expeditions, coordination between platform providers. No media, outreach, or program representation. The SSO is 100% supported by NSF funds and has only one fulltime staffer (Michiko Yamamoto). The presentation included detailed explanation of SSDB activities. H. Villinger asked if a map with proposal sites will be available online, and Michiko Yamamoto said the map will be available. H. Given reiterated that no SEDIS support would be available. Proposals ready for scheduling & Proposals at PEP (11:30 h.) D. Kroon reviewed the proposals currently at OTF and PEP, and focused on riser proposals (CRISP-B (537B), NanTroSEIZE (603), IBM-4 (698), Hikurangi: Riser (781B) and KAP (707). Among those proposals, CRISP-B (537B) and IBM-4 (698) are at OTF stage. G. Lericolais suggested that Stuart Henrys was in COI over Hikurangi, but Chair G. Kimura stated that's as this was presentation only, no one was in COI. Some other projects included the Indian ridge Moho (800) proposed to JR and then Chikyu to follow on as needed for deep penetration (not scheduled yet), and the Mohole to the Mantle (805), but seismic data and money needed (1 billion USD) as well as the final site selection and 4,000 m riser development. Another proposal East Asia Margin (618) is also at the OTF stage and potential riser/non-riser operation, however PEP recognized this proposal is not quite ready to go and still waiting for lead PI response. Site Characterization Panel (SCP) proposal reviews (12:05 h.)

11

Chair G. Kimura called for G. Lericolais to present on the SCP reviewed proposals, followed by comments. CRISP-B (537B) still have issues, SCP only reviewed data attached to Full2 but not Full4 (most current version), 3D seismic data acquisition was done but the data has not submitted to the SSDB yet. IBM-4 (698) and East Asia Margin (618) are ready to go. The SCP has not yet reviewed the Hikurangi riser (781B), KAP (782), M2M (805), or Indian Ridge Moho (800) proposals. Chair G. Kimura, with no comments called for the close of the morning session. Reconvene at 13:30 h. after lunch. LUNCH 1330 h. Chair G. Kimura reconvened the meeting with a suggestion that the discussion begin with Agenda Item #13, and then take a coffee break, and then convene another executive breakout meeting. Y. Tatsumi asked if he should leave due to his COI, and the Chair ruled he should recuse himself once the IBM discussion began. 13. Long-term Planning (13:35 h.) S. Hida reviewed the long-term schedule of Chikyu for the next 5 years. The IODP 2017 section is the first post-Nankai window, with 3 years remaining to reach this point. CRISP initial scoping presentation (13:35 h.) K. Moe presented a status update on CRISP, including an update on JR drilling related to revision of the new riser drill site, for which CDEX has requested and received a geotechnical core. K. Moe presented some initial estimates based on the 3.5 kmbsf target hole, and on accomplished and ongoing items. 2D seismic, bathymetry, backscatter, and sub bottom profiler data were already processed and interpreted. 3D seismic processing is ongoing. Geological prognosis, hazard assessment, geomechanics study and metocean study remain pending items. IBM initial scoping presentation (13:45 h.) Kan Aoike presented a status update on IBM. The location of proposed riser hole IBM-4 is corrected to 2 km to the west of Site 792. Although, this site is near a submarine cable, JAMSTEC regulations state that the drilling distance from the cable should exceed water depth, so it should not be a problem. Presently, geotechnical coring is scheduled for the upcoming JR Expeditions. This site is exposed to the Kuroshio Current, much like NanTroSEIZE; weather patterns are also similar (Typhoons, etc.). K. Aoike presented an operational data readiness update given. No high-res bathy data are available. K. Aoike discussed the data still needed for scoping, including required metocean, and shallow shear-strength data sets. One-year ocean current monitoring by mooring system is planned to take place early JFY2014, followed by riser analysis. With no questions, Chair G. Kimura moved onto the cost estimates for these proposals. Time and cost estimates of CRISP and IBM (14:00 h.) N. Eguchi provided some rough estimates for these expeditions. CRISP: 235 straight days at $118 M USD. 312 days (multi year) at $156 M USD (these estimates were based on proposed minimum penetration depth in the original proposal, 3,600 mbsf). Transpacific

12

transit is 30 days one-way; 60 days round trip. Casing plans still very “rough”. “Planned” 200 m core for 1st yr, 600 m in the 2nd yr. with a 15% time operational contingency days inclusive. Still many unknowns here including final site location, but this is the scale envisaged. Chair G. Kimura asked if the coring interval were from the proposal. N. Eguchi repeated these are rough estimates to develop some kind of “base” operation time scale. Y. Kawamura noted that these times estimates include the 60 days transits, so really only envisage 3 months drilling per year. S. Humphris asked if the project could be drilling in “one go”. N. Eguchi noted that this would be preferred – better use of time, and cuts down on extraneous expenses involved in repeated cross-Pacific transits. Chair G. Kimura suggested organizing a PCT to work out operational details. C. Yeats asked about the possibilities of commercial work in the area, N. Eguchi replied that this would be preferred but none has been looked into yet. N. Eguchi proceeded with the IBM estimates; straight one stop drilling for 414 days at $207 M USD, while 513 days on a split schedule at $257 M USD. This 4-year plan is also very “rough” estimate as for CRISP. The time estimates also include a 20% operational contingency days, with the assumption that NanTroSEIZE Kuroshio and Metocean data are equivalent. ROP is also slow due to expected hard rock formation and affect the time/costs estimates. Chair G. Kimura began the question session asking about “hard formation” drilling estimates. N. Eguchi replied that ROP in harder formations is lower & requires more frequent bit changes – all consuming extra operational time. M. Kinoshita asked about the estimates for wireline logging operations, N. Eguchi stated that wireline days are separate from LWD days and LWD operation is “default” operation for a riser drilling. A discussion began on the cost estimates, with H. Kawahata asking about the apparent anomaly in CRISP and IBM operation costs, compared with the proposed budget base of $50 M USD. S. Kobayashi stated that the calculation simply made by operation days multiply by the average day rate (0.5 M USD/day). The cost estimate is consistent with the proposed budget base. The end of NanTroSEIZE drilling was discussed, with H. Villinger asking about the 2015 riserless drilling window. N. Eguchi explained that this represented the NanTroSEIZE LTBMS riserless installation. He went on to explain that while riserless operations on Chikyu are not as cost-efficient as JR, there are some cases where Chikyu should take on riserless drilling projects, such as for operations beyond JR spec or feasibility. The CIB should think about how to approach this issue for the August JRFB meeting. Chair G. Kimura moved to discuss whether or not IBM/CRISP should be designated as a “Chikyu project”. If so, the CIB should decide if they need a PCT, and move forward. Non-riser project availability should be addressed for implementation and the CIB should think about this and discuss this with the JRFB. H. Villinger asked if one or both get designated PCTs? With Y. Tatsumi in COI, he recused himself from the discussion. C. Yeats suggested that the CIB should not limit itself to only IBM and CRISP, but that the suggestions coming out of the Chikyu+10 should also be considered. C. Moore emphasized that the CIB should be flexible enough to deal with opportunities for scientific drilling as they arise, while planning for IBM and CRISP. D. Kroon added that there are also long-term projects to think of, such as MOHO. Chair G. Kimura agreed that long-term strategy is also important but to discuss this one, more information especially regarding cost and engineering development is needed. C. Moore

13

made the observation the MOHO proponents are so far unable to agree on an initial drill site, and that this important step needs to be clarified first. B. Gatliff pointed out that at their FB meeting, the ECORD FB prioritize all the MSP proposal on the table, so the CIB can do the same. Chair G. Kimura mentioned that prioritization at this meeting (at least) is difficult since both proposals were recognized as high impact science proposals. Chair G. Kimura proposed that both IBM and CRISP be focused on right now, and establish them as projects, if the CIB agrees upon. The CIB should also ask CDEX to do the initial groundwork for other short-term projects. B. Gatliff and S. Humphris emphasized the need to remain focused on the ‘big picture” and long-term prospects. Chair G. Kimura agreed with their assessment that this should be the purview of the IODP Forum. M. Kinoshita pointed out that until the SCP gives a green light, the PCT should not be established. Chair G. Kimura agreed, but also noted that other projects are in an even less ready state. However, if a “JFAST-type” project arises, another evaluation would be needed. For the moment, the Chair asked if there was consensus on designating IBM and CRISP as projects, and direct that PCTs be established for each. CIB_Consensus_0713-18: The CIB designated both IBM and CRISP as Chikyu Projects. (15:30 h.) Y. Tatsumi returned to the meeting. Riserless Proposals for Chikyu (15:45 h.) N. Eguchi explained possible Chikyu riserless scenarios. Chair G. Kimura opened discussion, which began regarding Chikyu riserless proposals. H. Given suggested that it’s inappropriate to write a riserless proposal for Chikyu. Proponents submit proposals, and then the PEP evaluates the proper platform. It wouldn’t advertise specifically for the Chikyu. N. Eguchi agreed that the PEP should be the group advancing one platform or the other as appropriate. The CIB may make a list of potential Chikyu riserless proposal to JRFB and vice versa. J. Allan mentioned that upcoming JR expeditions in IBM would be challenging. Scientists might want to go back to drill deeper, and these are good examples of appropriate Chikyu riserless targets. S. Humphris and D. Kroon noted that close communication between the CIB and the JRFB would help in evaluating which platform would be best for which proposal. Chair G. Kimura will join the JRFB in August, to help with coordination. CIB_Consensus_0713-19: The CIB endorsed Chikyu riserless operation in the below criteria (but not limited to). • Riserless operation beyond JR capability (e.g., ultra deep water). • Riserless operation in the regions where JR will not be for many years (e.g., W. Pacific

after FY2014). • Riserless operation on the way to/from e.g., industry operations. 14. Toward project advancement Following the designation of Chikyu projects under Agenda Item 13, the CIB made consensus on PCT establishment and its procedure. C. Yeats suggested that the PIs be contacted to suggest a list of qualified scientists to serve on each respective PCT. N. Eguchi agreed with this, and also said CDEX would move to identify who it would like to nominate from CDEX for PCT membership.

14

Consensus was made with respect to asking the CIB to contact the IBM and CRISP PIs to nominate PCT scientists. The CIB will review the lists and pick two additional scientists as PCT members. CIB_Consensus_0713-20: The CIB recommended to establish a PCT for IBM and CRISP. CIB_Consensus_0713-21: The CIB recommended the following PCT membership selection procedures: • CIB chair contacts to PI and ask a list of additional scientists for PCT member. • CIB review the list and pick 2 additional scientists as PCT member. • CDEX provides operational/engineering members. W. Azuma asked if the CIB was recommending the start of the WS process. Chair G. Kimura stated that both IBM and CRISP are now at this stage. To start soliciting workshop proposal, CDEX/JAMSTEC needs to create workshop proposal format prior to its advertisement. . Chair G. Kimura moved on to skip TAT and first discuss the new berth exchange outline. 15. International collaboration S. Hida briefly discussed the US/ECORD & Japan berth exchange. First US/Japan: the total is 16/yr. T. Janecek pointed out that the NSF/MEXT arrangement is simply 1-to-1 parity. S. Hida mentioned that the agreement has already been signed between JAMSTEC and USIO with the endorsement of MEXT and NSF. Y. Kimura was unclear about the ECORD arrangement; scientists per expedition should be 1, and with another $1 M USD membership, this increases to 2. There was some confusion over the European situation, and what constituted a full slot. S. Hida stated that at this point the agreement between JAMSTEC and EORD has not been signed yet, but to be completed in this fall. Chair G. Kimura moved that as a non-riser operation issue, this would be again discussed at the August 2013 JRFB meeting. Attending from CDEX will be N. Eguchi, CIB Chair G. Kimura, Y. Kimura from MEXT and Akira Ishiwatari as a JRFB member. Chair G. Kimura moved to break out again for the CIB executive session, and to reconvene the regular meeting from 09:00 h., Thursday on 25 July 2013. Day-3 Thursday, 25 July 2013 Note; The discussion took place before morning coffee break was the summary of the executive session regarding Agenda Item 7, and recorded under Agenda Item 7 above. 16. Chikyu Facility Procedures, Guidelines and Policies Environmental Protection and Safety Policy Sample, Data and Obligation Policy Proposal Confidentiality Policy Staffing Procedures Proposal Submission Guidelines Onboard Measurements Guidelines Third Party Tool Guidelines Site Survey Data Requirements Second Post Expedition Meeting

15

(09:35 h.) Chair G. Kimura returned to Agenda Item #16. N. Eguchi noted that the agenda book lists the policies (p 242) and descriptions. Without sufficient time to review in great detail, some discussion is still needed. The IODP Environmental Policy, made by JRFB and ECORD FB, kicked off a large discussion. W. Azuma mentioned that JAMSTEC would like to review this policy before commenting. When asked about specific points that JAMSTEC wished to and, the discussion turned to the general principles regarding IODP environmental stance. S. Humphris and T. Janacek referred to the purposely broad and general statements as part of a cross-platform document. H. Villinger pointed out, and B. Gatliff agreed, that referring to ‘marine mammals’ would be better classified as for ‘marine life’. J. Allen agreed, and with B. Gatliff reminded everyone that any specific environmental laws and regulations would be determined by the local laws governing the seas being drilled in; these will likely change with every expedition. H. Villinger also pointed out that this is not a legally binding document. Chair G. Kimura received confirmation from W. Azuma that JAMSTEC would review and resubmit this policy for review to the CIB within 2 weeks – in plenty of time to be presented at the August 2013 JRFB. CIB_Consensus_0713-22: The CIB in principle agreed upon a common platform “IODP Environmental Principles”. The CIB will review CDEX proposed revisions, in time for August 2013 JRFB meeting. N. Eguchi began with the IODP sample data policy. S. Humphris confirmed the importance of a cross-platform policy, with simplified policy and standardized curatorial procedures and sample & data access. The JRFB wants to revise the data policy. ECORD also wants to ask the CIB to get the three curators to create a common sample application process across the repositories. H. Villinger agreed, with the need for revising the policy. T. Janecek said the Curatorial Advisory Board is most likely the best group, according to IWG+ conclusions. The FBs should weigh in as needed, but for general questions, the IODP Forum would be the best venue. S. Humphris noted there is already a group in place to address this: T. Janecek, J. Allen, N. Eguchi, and D. Divins. S. Humphris answered M. Kinoshita’s question about revision by stating that the group above should have a report ready for the JRFB in August. CIB_Consensus_0713-23: The CIB agreed upon a common platform “Sample, Data and Obligation Policy”. Three FB chairs send a message to curators requesting implementing procedures. (10:05 h.) N. Eguchi continued with the proposal submission guideline. S. Humphris noted that the version here is an old one, having been revised by D. Kroon, Gabriel Filippelli, and G. Camoin. One for riser expeditions will be forwarded to the CIB. D. Kroon added the need to state that proponents writing for the Chikyu riser proposal need to go thru the pre-proposal route. S. Humphris confirmed that this would be ready by October 2013. CIB_Consensus_0713-24: The CIB agreed upon a common platform “Proposal Submission Guidelines”. Small working group across FBs will work some modification prior to the next proposal submission deadline of 1 October 2013. N. Eguchi broached two more policies: 3rd party tools and measurements and the onboard measurement guidelines. There is not much in the way of changes, but the CIB should endorse cross-platform measurements, with platform specific differences. Chair G. Kimura asked if this already exists between Chikyu and JR? N. Eguchi replied no, so Chair G. Kimura stated that the CIB agrees, and this should be presented at the March CIB.

16

CIB_Consensus_0713-25: The CIB agreed upon a common platform “Onboard Measurements Guidelines”. Small working group across FBs will work its contents and the CIB support office will inform CIB at the next meeting. CIB_Consensus_0713-26: The CIB wait for Chikyu version of “Third Party Tool Guidelines” at its next meeting. 17. Core Curation (10:45 h.) Chair G. Kimura moved on with Agenda Item #17, with M. Kinoshita presenting an update on the Kochi Core Center. KCC plan to conduct, curation of samples according to the IODP geographical model (including the legacy cores), Chikyu and JR “mirror” site for post expedition sampling party, encourage more intensive use of sample materials, facilitate access to analytical facility of KCC, and collaboration with other IODP core repositories. Also curation specific research, such as monitoring core quality changes over long-term storage and J-DESC related core school and pre-cruise training are in their scope. M. Kinoshita then introduced “virtual core viewer” “sample availability” webpages of the KCC which help sample requesters. KCC will construct a new additional core repository by Spring 2014; the capacity of core storage will then reach about 250 km from the current capacity of about 100 km. Some details shared regarding biological sample sharing. Japanese government signed the Nagoya Protocol on the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2010. The protocol includes regime of the Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) for use of genetic resources (e.g., any organisms, DNA, RNA, enzyme, etc.). The ABS regulation will be in force in Japan by 2015 and may be effective retroactively on the data that Japan ratified the CBD. Because of this, KCC and CDEX looking to form a Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) for biological material transfer for sample from exclusive economic zone of Japan. Also, extremely expensive to ship frozen bio samples to scientist. KCC starts considering those extra cost of shipping will covered by sample requesters. One of Dr. Kinoshita’s important questions was regarding the Curator Advisory Board (CAB). Will it continue? The new IODP has no Science Technology Panel (STP), would the STP roles (for curatorial matters) be transferred to CAB? Chair G. Kimura opened the floor for questions. H. Villinger pointed out that the STP mandate covered a broad range of aspects and transferring this mandate to the CAB is not an option. Either a new group is formed to take those roles, or they get left behind. K. Nealson asked if any other core repositories can store microbiological samples at -80ºC. H. Villinger confirmed not in IODP. K. Nealson suggested that these samples be combined into one location. J. Allen pointed out that Microbio samples in IODP are severely underused. K. Nealson suggested that this might be a case of poor advertising, since these are very valuable samples. A potential tripping point, transport of these frozen samples might not be as severe as once thought. K. Nealson said shipping at -20ºC sufficient. K. Nealson will follow up with Fumio Inagaki at KCC. CIB_Consensus_0713-27: The CIB agreed that the chairs of the boards (CIB, JRFB and ECORDFB) ask the three curators at the core repositories to update the Sample, Data & Obligation Policy, especially that they split up the document in a fairly short (two to three pages) policy statement and an implementation plan which contains all the details (see also CIB_Consensus_0713-23). The role of the Curatorial Advisory Board should also be defined in this document. The CIB encouraged that the geographic core distribution model should be kept as it is.

17

18. Data Management 19. Publication (11:18 h.) Sean Toczko presented the CDEX Data Management and Publication structures. No SEDIS support planned for new IODP Phase. All data will be stored on SiO7 and also in the JCORES database. C. Moore asked if legacy data is available on website. S. Toczko replied that all data from IODP expeditions kept on SiO7. CDEX is working on maintaining current IODP Publication roles and duties. TAMU might remain contracted Editors and the publisher. CDEX will take over the role of approving 2nd Post Cruise Meetings from IODP-MI. CIB_Consensus_0713-28: The CIB endorsed maintaining same quality and format of IODP expedition related publications. CIB_Consensus_0713-29: The CIB endorsed continuing to use the TAMU Publication team for Chikyu-related IODP expedition documents. 20. Outreach Program (11:35 h.) Tamano Omata presented CDEX/JAMSTEC Outreach activities including CHIKYU TV, CHIKYU Hakken newsletter, and Chikyu visual tour for iPad, media collaboration with several TV Company/web Company, and education opportunities for students/educators. K. Becker asked if there were any plans to have annual IO meetings. N. Eguchi responded that nothing is officially planned, but using the FB meetings would be one easy way to make it happen. Chair G. Kimura closed the meeting for lunch, the meeting to reconvene at 13:00 h. 21. Review of Consensus Statements and Action Items (13:00 h.) Chair G. Kimura reconvened the meeting at 13:00 h. N. Eguchi began reading out each consensus item, and opened each one, in turn, for discussion. H. Villinger asked when the CIB would hear from the JRFB about the panel access and use policy. S. Humphris confirmed the August 2013 meeting would finish this. The Executive meeting items are listed in these consensus items, to keep them complete and in line with the Agenda, in answer to H. Villinger’s question. H. Villinger asked about consensus on having the curators providing a sampling policy document? D. Divins replied that this would be resolved at the JRFB meeting. S. Humphris confirmed that the FB Chairs need to send letters to their curators requesting an updated implementation procedure. N. Eguchi added consensus item 0713-27 and 0713-28 “CIB using TAMU publication services. All consensus items were otherwise agreed upon (See 19. Publication section). 22. Next CIB meeting Chair G. Kimura raised the question of scheduling the next CIB meeting, consensus on next CIB meeting will be 11-13 March 2014; the ECORD FB will be 4-6 March 2014.

18

CIB_Conenesus_0713-30: The CIB chose its next meeting for 11 – 13 March 2014 in Yokohama. Note; this consensus item has been amended after the meeting, the final meeting schedule of next meeting is 18 – 20 February 2014. 23. Any Other Business H. Villinger asked if the US operator been selected; T. Janacek stated that no announcement has been made. Chair G. Kimura noted that the meeting consensus items this will be published today on basecamp, with other updates published online in one week. K. Becker, IODP Forum Chair, asked to review the CIB targets for the new program at the next meeting in May. The CIB Chair agreed. Chair G. Kimura, with no other questions, called the meeting to a close at 1315 hrs.

Agenda Item 6 Approval of CIB TOR revision

CIB revised TOR

Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) Terms of Reference

Ver.12.0 1. Mandate The Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) will discuss and/or review the matters described below concerning the planning and the operations of Chikyu IODP expeditions and relevant programs, and provide suitable recommendations for JAMSTEC and other relevant parties.

• Annual Chikyu IODP Implementation Plans for the following Japanese fiscal year.

• Long-term Chikyu IODP Implementation Strategies for the following 4-5 years.

• Data management, core curation, publications, capacity building, outreach programs, and other related activities.

• The establishment necessity of funding riser full-proposal formation workshops.

• The establishment of Proposal Advisory Team (PAT). • The establishment of Project Coordination Team (PCT). • Other related issues when a need arises.

2. Membership The CIB will consist of the CIB Members, the Liaisons, and the Observers. CIB Members - Six leading scientists (three scientists from Japanese organizations and

three from foreign organizations) - Chikyu Regular Members - Chikyu Project Members - Director/IODP, MEXT - Director of the Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX) of JAMSTEC Liaisons - IODP Forum Chair - PSEP Chair - Science Support Office (SSO) - USIO - ESO

- Kochi Core Center (KCC) Observers - NSF - Chikyu Partnership Members - Program Member Offices - Others as appointed by JAMSTEC Secretariat - CDEX of JAMSTEC 3. Chair and scientific members The Chair will be selected among leading Japanese scientists. The Chair will attend meetings of the IODP Forum and other relevant international scientific conferences (The transportation and accommodation cost will be borne by JAMSTEC.) The Chair shall serve for two years. The other five scientific members shall serve for three years. 4. Decisions The CIB will make decisions by common consent of the CIB Members present. In the case the CIB Members present fail to reach consensus, the Chair can make a final decision. 5. Meetings The CIB will convene at least once a year. JAMSTEC will bear the transportation and accommodation cost for six CIB Scientific Members, including the Chair, to attend CIB meetings.

Agenda Item 8 CIB Action Item Status

CIB Action Item Status

CIB Action Item Status

To Do Action CIB_Consensus_0713-22: The CIB in principle agreed upon a common platform “IODP Environmental Principles”. The CIB will review CDEX proposed revisions, in time for August 2013 JRFB meeting.

Done

CIB_Consensus_0713-23: The CIB agreed upon a common platform “Sample, Data and Obligation Policy”. Three FB chairs send a message to curators requesting implementing procedures.

Done

CIB_Consensus_0713-24: The CIB agreed upon a common platform “Proposal Submission Guidelines”. Small working group across FBs will work some modification prior to the next proposal submission deadline of 1 October 2013.

Done

CIB_Consensus_0713-25: The CIB agreed upon a common platform “Onboard Measurements Guidelines”. Small working group across FBs will work its contents and the CIB support office will inform CIB at the next meeting.

Will be done at this CIB meeting.

CIB_Consensus_0713-26: The CIB wait for Chikyu version of “Third Party Tool Guidelines” at its next meeting.

Will be done at this CIB meeting.

CIB_Consensus_0713-27: The CIB agreed that the chairs of the boards (CIB, JRFB and ECORDFB) ask the three curators at the core repositories to update the Sample, Data & Obligation Policy, especially that they split up the document in a fairly short (two to three pages) policy statement and an implementation plan which contains all the details (see also CIB_Consensus_0713-23). The role of the Curatorial Advisory Board should also be defined in this document. The CIB encouraged that the geographic core distribution model should be kept as it is.

Done

Agenda Item 9 Chikyu Membership Status

Chikyu Membership Status

Agenda Item 10 Chikyu Operation Update

- IODP Exp. 348

Agenda Item 11 Chikyu Budgetary Overview and

Outline of Operation Schedule for JFY2014-2015

- Budgetary Guidance of JFY2014 and beyond

Agenda Item 12 Other FB and IODP Forum Activities

1. JR FB

A) Minutes ( Aug.2013) B) Minutes ( Apr.2014)

2. ECORD FB A) EFB report B) Minutes (Mar.2014)

3. IODP Forum A) Consensus and action list B) Minutes (May 2014) C) Proposal vs Science Plan Themes/Challenges Table

4

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board Meeting: 26-‐27 August 2013 Washington, DC USA

Monday 26 August 2013 09:00-‐18:00

1. Welcome and Introductions JOIDES Resolution Facility Board (JRFB) Chair Susan Humphris welcomed the group and reviewed the needs for this meeting. She then asked for introductions around the room of all Members, Liaisons, and Observers. 2. Approval of Agenda Susan Humphris reviewed the agenda. She noted that during consideration of the JR Facility FY14 Annual Program Plan (Item 13 on the Agenda), the JRFB must decide upon ground rules for dealing with commercial work requests. In particular, the group needs to discuss one specific case that will potentially influence the FY14 APP.

Additional items added:

• Discussion of the timing of the IODP forum meetings • Update by David Conover (NSF’s Division of Ocean Sciences Director) on the status of the

approval of the new IODP program • Discussion of one specific commercial work request that could influence the FY14 Annual

Program Plan, and development of a plan to deal with these in the future

Consensus 1 The JRFB approves the Agenda with the changes discussed. 3. Approval of March 2013 JRFB Meeting Minutes Susan Humphris asked if the level of detail in the Minutes is sufficient? Consensus is that the minutes read well and included an appropriate level of information.

Consensus 2 The JRFB approves the March 2013 JRFB Meeting Minutes with no changes. 4. Architecture of the new IODP Tom Janecek displayed and described a diagram that shows the flow of advice/work and the flow of funds. Discussion of how best to depict the inter-‐relationships included:

• Usefulness of multiple and/or separate diagrams to show proposal flow, information flow, and money flow for use outside of IODP

• Inclusion of an image of the cover of the Science Plan in the vicinity of the Forum to show that they are the custodians of this plan

• An indication that all parties contribute to the Forum • Illustration of communication flow of EPSP and their reporting relationship.

Action Item 1 Tom Janecek will send the diagram around to get input on modifications and/or design. He will work with the Science Support Office and appropriate outside parties to develop illustrations that will show proposal flow, information flow, and money flow in a useful and understandable way.

5

5. JR Facility Board Terms of Reference Consensus 3 The revised JR Facility Board Terms of Reference are approved with the following changes:

• The JRFB may go outside of the Facility Board to select a Chair should they deem it appropriate.

• The U.S. Science Support Program will conduct an open nomination/application process for scientific representatives on the JRFB, and recommend new members to the JRFB for its approval.

The Facility Board Chairs agreed that an appropriate mechanism for Facility Board interactions is to have the Chairs of each Facility Board (or an alternate if necessary) attend all Facility Board meetings. 6. Advisory Panels A Terms of Reference: EPSP The Board reviewed the revisions to the EPSP Terms of Reference. Humphris noted that the CIB plans to use EPSP for riserless drilling proposals, but that riser drilling proposals would go straight to the Chikyu safety panel for evaluation. When EPSP is reviewing a Chikyu riserless drilling proposal, a Japanese representative will be sent to the meeting. ECORD plans to use EPSP.

Consensus 4 The JRFB approves the revised EPSP Terms of Reference with no changes. B SCP/PEP Interactions

o Reports from Recent PEP & SCP meetings PROPOSAL EVALUATION PANEL (PEP) Meeting Report Dick Kroon reviewed the status of each proposal they had reviewed. There was concern that seven of nine pre-‐proposals were deactivated: either the instructions for pre-‐proposals are flawed, or expectations of the level of detail are too great. There was also a concern that the panel has transferred the churning of proposals to the pre-‐proposal stage rather than multiple revisions of full proposals. Dick Kroon stated that while “deactivation” is a poor word, the panel notes if deactivation is “with encouragement” or “without”. In response to a question as to why some pre-‐proposals continue to be “encouraged” even after multiple deactivations, Kroon responded that some of the watchdogs are still interested in these proposals. Jamie Allan stated that the panel is training themselves and the community to not use the review system for fleshing out proposals and he noted that this process make take a few cycles to come into effect. He also noted that proposal reviewers need to be aware of and consider potential environmental issues – the recommendation was made to modify the proposal sheet to ensure that proponents consider whether there is environmental mitigation to plan for. SITE CHARACTERIZATION PANEL (SCP) Meeting Report Dave Mallinson summarized the site survey status of proposals reviewed at the SCP meeting. Jamie Allan pointed out the difficulty some proponents were having accessing proprietary data submitted for an earlier expedition to the same location.

6

The EPSP Chair noted that the number of sites proposed is usually not sufficient. There need to be alternate sites: ideally double the number of sites proposed. The advisory panels need to get that message to proponents.

Action Item 2 The Science Support Office will determine whether links to previous original site survey data can be created, and investigate the best way to obtain permission for release of such data.

o Recommendation on SCP/PEP Interactions Dick Kroon presented the PEP and SCP’s arguments supporting their proposal to merge into one Science Evaluation Panel. They believe the key is having watchdogs from PEP and SCP assigned to each proposal, and communicating with one review letter and one set of recommendations to the proponents. The Panels also recommended initially keeping all existing members, but a reduction in membership could be considered once they see how a merged panel will work. Advantages to the merger are:

• One meeting instead of two relieves the schedules and budgets of those who normally attended both meetings and reduces the planning efforts of the Science Support Office.

• The eventual reduction of panel size (if implemented) might ease increasing financial pressures.

• Proponents will receive one comprehensive and complete list of what they must do in their resubmittals.

• Having Co-‐chairs for the SEP will permit a “spread” of responsibilities across issues and would better assure one or both can attend other meetings.

• All supporting data will be considered at the same time, producing a more coherent assessment of the proposals, and resulting in better award decisions.

• Panel interaction will improve each sides understanding of how the other side works, which will also result in better decisions.

Disadvantages to the merger are: • The number of proposals will be large (at first), as the two groups are not in sync. • The merged panel will have 54 members, which makes reaching consensus difficult and

selecting a reasonable meeting time and location critical. • The merged panel, if reduced in size, could decrease or marginalize the impact of the

scientific community. • Proposal submittal/review and site survey data submittal/review are not in sync and

getting them in sync could prove difficult. Discussion centered around the need to develop a common submission process for proposals and supporting data because a full examination of the proposal cannot happen until critical SSD are in the databank. The SSO has funding to implement the development of such a process and the Panels are working toward this with revisions to their guidelines.

Consensus 5 The JRFB approves the merger of the SCP and PEP into a single review team (the Science Evaluation Panel). The SEP will initially keep all existing members and it will meet twice a year.

o SEP Terms of Reference The JRFB reviewed the draft SEP Terms of Reference and recommended that they be revised to reflect that the PMOs appoint or recommend members and the JRFB approves their recommendations. If alternate members are necessary, the JRFB Chair should be notified of the recommended alternate, but JRFB does not need to approve the alternate.

7

Consensus 6 The JRFB approves the SEP Terms of Reference with the changes discussed above. Action Item 3 Tom Janecek will communicate with the PMOs what their panel membership allocation is prior to the start of the new program. It will be critical to have more nominations than slots if the panels are to achieve a balanced distribution of expertise. C Chikyu IODP Board Request Consensus 7 The JRFB welcomes the CIB in using JRF Advisory Panels. 7. JR Facility Conflict of Interest Policy Consensus 8 The JRFB approves the revised JR Facility Conflict of Interest Policy. 8. Procedures & Guidelines for JR Expeditions A Staffing Procedures Document Mitch Malone summarized the revisions and the general policy for the Board. Consensus 9 The JRFB approves the JR Staffing Procedures document. B Standard Measurements: Shipboard & Logging Mitch Malone provided a quick summary of the changes/simplifications made to this document. He noted that scientists (who are not routinely scheduled for expeditions) perform the microbiological cell counting and contamination testing so these measurements cannot be elevated to “routine” at this time. Heiko Palike recommended that the JRFB review the document every two years. Susan Humphris stated that a group of microbiologist is working to draft procedures for contamination and preservation that could be applied across platforms. Malone stated that major deviations should be identified in the proposal or prospectus. The Facility Operator could address deviations from the policy (if it is an “at sea” decision) and, for other decisions, the JRFB Chair, the SEP chair, or the co-‐chief scientists/IO responsible could address the deviations. Susan Humphris asked if this list of standard measurements was applicable for the other platforms? Karsten Gohl suggested that the ECORD Board will have a separate but similar document, with some modifications and flexibility. Nobu Eguchi stated that the CIB will develop its own based on this document. These documents should have as much commonality as is feasible. Action Item 4 Mitch Malone will revise the wording as discussed. The ECORD FB and the CIB will use the document as a basis for development of their own standard measurements policy. The JRFB will review the document every 2-‐3 years. C Third Party Tools Guidelines

8

This document needs more work. In particular, it needs to address how observatory data and samples will be handled; e.g., what is the moratorium, where are the data archived, are samples from observatories curated by an operator facility? In addition, the document doesn’t mention insurance (or lack there of), which is usually the responsibility of the PI. The document is also silent on whether a “development” tool or instrument is permitted to stay in “development” (indefinitely) or is the natural procedure to develop the instrument for certification. Action Item 5 R. Murray (lead), K. Becker, Jamie Allan and Dave Goldberg will revise the Third Party Tools document for review at the next JRFB meeting. Heiko Palike raised the issue of available software for determining borehole depth scales. The Correlator tools are used in nearly every expedition to aid the core recovery process via visualization and interaction, but there are difficulties with update software in getting data into and out of the database. If interpretation is one place where each shipboard party wants to use a different tool, the JRFB could provide hard specifications stating what must be gathered and let the scientists choose what to use. Mitch Malone indicated that he is working on a document that will address this problem and there should be a draft before the next meeting. D EPSP Safety Review Guidelines Barry Katz provided a review of the revised Safety Review Guidelines document. Dave Mallinson asked that the text be changed from “raw (digital data), SEGY and/or data image format” to just “and”. The proponents should know they must have all data formats. Consensus 10 The JRFB approves the EPSP Safety Review Guidelines document with minor revisions. 9. IODP Environmental Principles Susan Humphris noted that this is a program-‐wide document that has been reviewed by both the ECORD Facility Board and the CIB. Consensus 11 The JRFB accepts the revised IODP Environmental Principles document. Neville Exon pointed out that the “green” movement is very strong in New Zealand and he asked if IODP might want to generate some PR to show that the program is doing everything possible to not harm the marine environment. The SSO will think about this when working on the website: perhaps a statement for placement with other core values. 10. Core Curation Brad Clement noted the complexity of curation as the JR cores are housed at three repositories, and ideally the curation processes should be consistent at each location, although each repository will no doubt have some differences in procedures (e.g., microbiology samples). Jamie Allan noted that another critical aspect of the policy is who pays for shipping (the users)? Susan Humphris indicated the plan is for the Facility Board Chairs to request that the curators of the three repositories provide a common implementation plan for core curation and sampling once the sample policy is revised. Jamie Allan requested a draft copy to provide input.

9

Action Item 6 The Facility Board Chairs will prepare a letter to the core curators requesting the development of a common implementation plan for core curation and sampling. 11. IODP Sample, Data and Obligations Policy David Divins presented his major changes to the document, which included removing the curatorial policy (appendix 4). He suggested that some of the information be presented as an FAQ document because the standard text is too dry. Jamie Allan reiterated that post-‐expedition data is covered by the data policies of the agencies providing the funding for the work. There is still more work to be done on this document before the curators can be asked to develop an implementation plan. Action Item 7 David Divins (lead), Nobu Eguchi, Wataru Azuma, Jamie Allan, Keir Becker and Ursula Röhl will revise the Sample, Data and Obligations Policy by mid-‐October for circulation to the JRFB and other Facility Boards. Tuesday 27 August 2013 8:30 – 18:00 12. Update on Renewal of IODP David Conover gave a short presentation and indicated that a plan would be presented to the NSB in November. Heiko Palike asked David Conover to state NSF’s view of leveraging. Would leveraging continue to be part of the JR’s operations or would commercial use funds be used to cover shortfalls in the program? David Mallinson added that the importance of the contributions of international partners cannot be overemphasized because their support of operations is based on an expectation of expeditions. David Conover stated that NSF will strive to strike the right balance between what is reinvested in the program and what they use to reduce costs. He stressed that IODP’s ability to leverage and implementation of leveraging (through both members (contributions and CPPs) and commercial use) will be vital in making the case to the NSB to continue the program. David Conover stated that he anticipates the concern of the science community (in the decadal survey) regarding the imbalance in NSF’s investments in facilities vs. science. He stated that NSF is not prescribing what the ratio ought to be, but will analyze the entire facility portfolio. He stressed that NSF is reviewing all OCE programs, and the OCE’s actions to reduce facility costs include no increase in the overall number of research vessels, and forcing the reduction of the OOI’s O&M costs to $55M (from $70M). With these harsh budget realities, the IODP’s ability to leverage is a powerful case to make before the National Science Board. Marcio da Castro Silva Filho (Brazil), Neville Exon (Australia/New Zealand), Shouting Tuo (China), and Gilbert Camoin (ECORD) expressed their support of ocean drilling and their concerns regarding NSF’s budget issues, the potential impact on the cruise schedule, and their countries’ willingness to continue funding the program if the number of expeditions is decreased. David Conover stated that NSF’s

10

message to the scientific communities of IODP’s international members is that NSF recognizes the value of scientific ocean drilling and the unique role of the JR. NSF is looking for solutions to the budget crisis and they will find one that will both please and displease all parties. In the meantime, NSF will continue funding the JR (at some level) at least until they get the results of the decadal survey. Terry Quinn asked if NSF knows their budgetary constraints? David Conover stated that NSF has been told to plan for no additional resources beyond current levels (with corrections for year-‐to-‐year inflation). NSF is permitted to suggest new initiatives that would require more money, but their budget must prioritize these initiatives. David Conover concluded by saying that he wasn’t aware of any previous point in history where funding uncertainty was at a higher level than now. This means that every program must be conservative in their planning. 13. Overview/Discussion of JR Facility FY’14 Annual Program Plan David Divins presented an overview of the USIO (US Implementing Organization) Facility Annual Program Plan, the process for developing the program plan, and some areas of interest in the plan. Brad Clement provided background and pricing information regarding the potential purchase of a cryogenic magnetometer. Tom Janecek pointed out that FY14 is an extension year, and there is a possibility of no operations and closeout after that, so he would have difficulty justifying the purchase of new equipment. Tom also stated that the standard justifications for new equipment have been safety first, then measurements for operational decisions, and finally to capture ephemeral properties. While the Board may have a natural desire to augment shipboard capabilities, in this time of austerity, he suggested the Board keep to these justifications. Terry Quinn stated that the measurements provided by the magnetometer are fundamental to the science of the JR. Jamie Allan stated that, while we may have to cut the 2014 budget, we cannot cut operations (and the cost of the replacement magnetometer was lower than expected) so he supported the purchase. Brad Clement and David Divins also noted that our guidance from NSF has been to plan as if the program will continue. Consensus 12 Recognizing the fundamental importance of the cryogenic magnetometer to the science of the JR, the JRFB recommends that a new instrument be ordered as soon as possible. Susan Humphris asked, if the South China Sea (SCS) CPP expedition is added, how would the budget be impacted (a Complimentary Project Proposal (CPP))? Jamie Allan replied that the SCS expedition adds $2.3 million to the budget. Neville Exon asked whether there would be a shortfall of ~$4M if the IBM expeditions go and the SCS CPP doesn’t? Jamie Allan confirmed that the cashflow to NSF would be reduced by $4M from its international partners and stated that, in that scenario, NSF would have to contribute more, or cut the current budget. Consensus 13 The JRFB approves the JR Facility FY’14 Annual Program Plan with no changes, and hopefully with the inclusion of the South China Sea CPP. Commercial work opportunity in 2014 – David Divins reminded the Board that the USIO can pursue commercial work if NSF has no need of the vessel. At this point, the 2014 expeditions are staffed, so including the potential commercial work would seriously disrupt schedules. Brad Clement stated that the client will issue an RFP in October and if the USIO submitted a proposal, they would have a lead-‐time of 9 months or less. The timing for the commercial work couldn’t possibly be worse. Jamie Allan agreed

11

that the typical non-‐IODP operation 4-‐month window is the ideal time to contract commercial work. This particular commercial opportunity is really tough because of the short lead-‐time and the need for schedule changes that would likely not be acceptable to the science community. Dave Goldberg reminded the Board that last summer’s commercial work experienced the uncertainty at the end of the commercial contract, which could/would impact the net benefit in terms of dollars. Jamie Allan asked if the USIO could propose on the commercial work, while keeping the current expedition schedule in place in case the proposal failed? David Divins said that the USIO would want NSF approval to do that. He indicated that the USIO doesn’t need to change the schedule today, but they don’t want to prepare the RFP if NSF decides to not change the schedule. Jamie Allan acknowledged that this would also impart a state of uncertainty in the budget. Consensus 14 The JRFB recommends that the USIO/NSF not pursue the potential commercial work opportunity in 2014. Commercial work guidelines – Susan Humphris asked for input regarding the general mechanism and guidelines for determining if commercial opportunities are appropriate to pursue. David Divins stressed that the guidelines should permit the USIO/NSF to keep their credibility with industry as well as the science community. After discussion, the following guidelines were established:

• Once the Annual Program Plan is approved and the budget determined, the schedule cannot be disrupted significantly to incorporate commercial work

• There needs to be some flexibility to allow short (1-‐3 week) commercial opportunities • Leveraging rather than cost avoidance is critical in accepting commercial work – the science

program must benefit. 14. Overview/Discussion of Science Support Office Annual Program Plan Holly Given presented a summary of the SSO APP. She recommended the development and use of an ad hoc web site users group to provide feedback from the community point of view. She recommended that the group include the Forum Chair, a JRFB rep, an Operations rep, and the SEP Chairs. Jamie Allan stated that NSF normally takes longer to make a new award for a Cooperative Agreement, but that this one was rushed. He thanked Kiyoshi Suyehiro and Holly Given for working hard to seamlessly transition the SSO under difficult circumstances. He expressed his gratitude for the efforts of Kiyoshi, Holly and their staffs. Consensus 15 The JRFB approves the SSO Annual Program Plan for FY14. The Board recommends the engagement of a user group for feedback on changes to the web site. 15. Update on Proposal Action Items The JRFB discussed several proposals for which the Board had requested additional information. Such information has been received for proposal 505 and 693-‐APL (Wheat, Fryer) and proposal 781 (Saffer). These were reviewed in order to provide feedback to the proponents. Action Item 8 Susan Humphris will follow up with letters providing additional feedback to those proponents who have responded. 16. Chikyu Drilling of Riserless Legs

12

Susan Humphris informed the JRFB that at the CIB meeting, three criteria were developed in consideration of transferring proposals written for riserless drilling on the JR to riserless drilling on the Chikyu:

1) Those beyond JR capability (e.g., ultra-‐deep water) 2) Operations in regions where the JR will not be for many years 3) Operations when Chikyu is enroute to or from, from example, industry operations

Because the platforms are very different (Chikyu can be slow with many holes, but faster with one deep hole), each transferred proposal would require fundamental re-‐examination for the new platform, especially as most proposals are written with a specific platform in mind. Transfer of any proposals should be considered at the SEA and JRFB level when looking at schedules, but this situation is likely to occur only occasionally. Consensus 16 The JRFB concurred that the three criteria appropriate for the transfer of proposals for riserless operations to the Chikyu are:

4) Those beyond JR capability (e.g., ultra-‐deep water) 5) Operations in regions where the JR will not be for many years 6) Operations when Chikyu is enroute to or from, from example, industry operations.

17. Proposal Submission Guidelines The many documents related to proposal submission have been revised and simplified by a small sub-‐group, and further revised after the CIB meeting to reflect the Chikyu proposal process. Because the Oct. 1 call for proposals is published, the revised document has been posted on the web site for proponent use in this upcoming cycle. Further suggested revisions include:

• Update the FAQ with better questions or remove it • Extend the statement about encouraging proponents to contact the IO in advance of proposal

submission to include all platforms • Update the Table of Requirements currently posted on the website • Create a flow diagram of the proposal process and include turnaround times for each stage

Consensus 17 The JRFB accepts the revised Proposal Submission Guidelines with the revisions described above. Action Item 9 Susan Humphris will work with Nobu Eguchi to build a proposal flow diagram for all platforms from the basis of the Chikyu diagram already developed. Action Item 10 The Science Support Office will update the Table of Proposal requirements to coordinate with the revised Proposal Submission Guidelines. Gilbert Camoin requested a summary of this document in a leaflet or handout style for use at meetings and conferences. There is no overarching entity to fund such documents, but it needs to happen through the good will of member organizations. Tom Janecek confirmed that a champion will have to bring a proposal to the Facility Boards and the FBs will have to determine if they want to support such an effort. Holly Given stated that she and her team, because they are not full time as the SSO, would have the time, but funds would need to be found. The IODP Forum could be another potential organization to do this.

13

Action Item 11 The JRFB Chair will pass the suggestion of a brochure re: the IODP proposal process on to the IODP Forum. 18. JOIDES Resolution Facility Policies Consensus 18 The JRFB approves the following revised documents:

• IODP Proposal Confidentiality Policy • IODP Site Survey Confidentiality Policy • IODP Science Evaluation Panel: Guidelines and Rationale for Site Characterization Data.

19. Membership Rotation and Approval of new Members Susan Humphris noted that this was the last meeting for Gabe Filippelli and Akira Ishiwatari, and she thanked both for the contributions. The USSSP ran an application process to provide recommendations for replacements, and recommended Andrew Roberts and Rio Anma. While these recommendations change the international balance of the Board, they re-‐emphasize the importance of the international partners. The lack of women on the JRFB was noted, and the JRFB asked to please think of women who could serve on this Board. Consensus 19 The JRFB accepts the recommendations of the USSP for two new members of the Board for three-‐ year terms staring October 1, 2013. The JRFB thanks Gabe Filippelli and Akira Ishiwitari for their service and contributions to the early days of the JRFB. 21. Other Business and Next JRFB Meeting The next meeting of the JRFB is schedule for 23rd and 24th of April 2014 in Washington DC. Other business –

1) The issue of approval of the second post cruise meeting now that IODP-‐MI will no longer exist was brought up. Jamie Allan indicated it is the responsibility of the science party to do that planning and there is no centralized funding for that, although there is funding through individual partners. It is up to the party to meet wherever they want to meet, but a fallback position would be at College Station.

2) We need to move ahead on planning the FY’15 expeditions. All the PMOs have requests for nominations of co-‐Chiefs and staffing needs to begin. It is now necessary to post the schedule on the web and start the process of putting an ad in EOS with the caveat that the expeditions are pending funding.

3) Nobu Eguchi will talk with CIB members regarding rescheduling the CIB meeting so that the ECORD Facility Board and the CIB meeting are not in consecutive weeks.

1

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board Meeting: 23-‐24 April 2014

Washington, DC USA

Summary of Consensus Statements and Action Items

Consensus Statements Consensus 1 The JRFB approves the Agenda with the changes discussed. Consensus 2 The JRFB approves the August 2013 JRFB Meeting Minutes with no changes. Consensus 3 The JRFB affirms the need to maintain the ability to do Fast Track reviews of proposals, but recommends that the SEP request them in only exceptional circumstances. Consensus 4 The JRFB accepts the JOIDES Resolution Third Party Tools and Instruments Policy with one minor revision to be made before posting on the website. Consensus 5 Based on the availability of proposals ready for scheduling, and on considerations regarding geographic location, costs and minimizing transit times, the JRFB recommends the following proposal for scheduling in FY’16 and into the first part of FY’17:

Proposal 820 (Maldives Monsoon) with Proposal 849-‐APL (Indian Peninsula Paleoclimate) Proposal 800 – Expedition 1 (Indian Ridge Moho) Proposal 702 (South African Climates) with Proposal 845-‐APL (Agulhas LGM Density Profile) Proposal 837 (Sumatra Seismogenic Zone) Proposal 799 (Western Pacific Warm Pool)

Consensus 6 The JRFB reiterates that, based on current and anticipated proposal pressure, the JOIDES Resolution will follow a path from the western and southwestern Pacific Ocean, through the Southern Ocean, and into the Atlantic Ocean for opportunities for drilling there starting in 2018 and 2019. Consensus 7 The JOIDES Resolution Facility Annual Program Plan is approved in principle. A final plan will be circulated for approval by e-‐mail in July 2014. Consensus 8 The Science Support Office Annual Program Plan is approved in principle. A final plan will be circulated for approval by e-‐mail in July 2014.

2

Consensus 9 The combined Sample, Data and Obligations Policy and Implementation Plan is approved in principle. The final Policy will be circulated for e-‐mail approval in the next two weeks. Consensus 10 The JRFB approves an increase in its science representative membership from 5 to 6 to include 3 U.S. members. Consensus 11 The JRFB approves the appointment of Rick Murray as its next Chair beginning on 1 October 2014. Consensus 12 The JRFB thanks Susan Humphris, the inaugural chair to the JRFB for her service. She started the group off in a fantastic way! Consensus 13 The JRFB thanks the current USIO members (David Divins (COL), David Goldberg (LDEO), and TAMU) for their contributions over the last 10 years to the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program. They leave behind a legacy of a highly successful program! Action Items Action Item 1 The Science Support Office will review pages 5 and 9 in the Proposal Guidelines for inconsistency between “requested” or “not requested” documentation. They will also work to define which of the multiple versions on iodp.org is the current document. Action Item 2 David Divins will finalize the Sample, Data & Obligations Policy and include the input from the curators on the Implementation Plan. The document will be circulated to the JRFB for review and approval within two weeks. Action Item 3 Susan Humphris will draft a letter to the editors of Nature, Science, and Nature Geoscience regarding sanctions against publications based on the existence of the Preliminary Report for Expeditions. This will be circulated to the JRFB for review and a decision as to whether it should be sent. Action Item 4 Susan Humphris will revise the JRFB Terms of Reference to change the number of science members to 6, including 3 U.S. members. Action Item 5 USSSP is requested to conduct a process to nominate two new U.S. members of the JRFB for terms starting in October 2014.

3

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board (JRFB) Meeting Roster: 23 – 24 April 2014 Washington, DC USA

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board – JRFB -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ James Allan National Science Foundation, USA Ryo Anma University of Tsukuba, Japan Brijesh Bansal Ministry of Earth Science, India Marcio da Castro Silva Filho1 Coord. for Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), Brazil David Divins US Implementing Org., Consortium for Ocean Leadership (COL), USA Neville Exon2 Australian IODP Secretariat, The Australian National University, Australia Susan Humphris, Chair Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA Gil Young Kim Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), ROK <not attending> ECORD Managing Agency Rick Murray Boston University, USA Heiko Pälike University of Bremen, Germany Andrew Roberts The Australian National University, Australia Jianzhong Shen Ministry of Science and Technology, China Liaisons, Guests, and Observers -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ Rita Bauer IODP Science Support Office, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA Keir Becker IODP Forum Chair, University of Miami, USA Holly Given IODP Science Support Office, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA Barry Katz EPSP Chair, Chevron Corporation, Houston, TX, USA Dick Kroon SEP Co-‐Chair, The University of Edinburgh, UK Shin’ichi Kuramoto Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan Dave Mallinson SEP Co-‐Chair, East Carolina University, USA <not attending> European Science Operator (ESO), British Geological Survey, UK Donna Blackman National Science Foundation, USA Brad Clement USIO, TAMU, USA Nobu Eguchi CDEX, JAMSTEC, Japan Katie Fillingham USSSP, COL, USA Karsten Gohl ECORD Facility Board Chair, AWI-‐Bremerhaven, Germany Dave Goldberg US Implementing Organization, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, USA Cleverson Guizan Silva CAPES, Brazil Bob Houtman National Science Foundation, USA Akira Ishiwatari Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J-‐DESC), Japan John Jaeger US Advisory Committee, University of Florida, USA Thomas Janecek National Science Foundation, USA Yoshi Kawamura JAMSTEC, Japan Gaku Kimura Chikyu IODP Board Chair, University of Tokyo, Japan Yuzuru Kimura Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Tech. (MEXT), Japan Mitch Malone US Implementing Organization, Texas A&M University, USA Charna Meth US Science Support Program (USSSP), COL, USA Jeff Schuffert USSSP, COL, USA Meagan Thompson National Science Foundation, USA Shouting Tuo IODP-‐China Office, Tongji University, China Dominique Weis ECORD FB Member, PCIGR3, Canada Michiko Yamamoto IODP Science Support Office, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA Ping Zhong Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the USA, China

1 Alternate for Manoel Cardoso 2 Alternate for Chris Yeats 3 Pacific Centre for Isotope and Geochemical Research

4

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board Meeting Notes: 23-‐24 August 2014 Washington, DC USA

Wednesday 23 August 2014 08:00-‐18:00

1. Welcome and Introductions JOIDES Resolution Facility Board (JRFB) Chair Susan Humphris welcomed the group and reviewed the needs for this meeting. She then asked for introductions around the room of all Members, Liaisons, and Observers. 2. Approval of Agenda Susan Humphris requested we add three items to the agenda: Under Agenda Item 4 Proponents and Reviews of Proposals

Use of expedited reviews Communications with proponents

Under Agenda Item 21 Schedule of this meeting in relation to the schedule of the advisory panels of this board.

Consensus 1 The JRFB approves the Agenda with the changes discussed. 3. Approval of August 2013 JRFB Meeting Minutes Susan Humphris asked if the members had recommended changes? None are voiced.

Consensus 2 The JRFB approves the August 2013 JRFB Meeting Minutes with no changes. 4. Science Support Office Report Holly Given presented a summary of activities and accomplishments at the Science Support Office since August 2013. Her highlights were that:

• Board and Advisory Panel membership is stabilizing. • 2014 meetings were scheduled too close together. • Submission deadlines, and SEP/JRFB meeting dates should be reexamined.

Her concerns included:

• There is no standard definition of the “fast track e-‐review” process • The impact of the “fast track e-‐review” on the integrity of the proposal review process • The perceived fairness of the proposal review process • Confusion caused by unclear communication channels • The stress to SSO resources created by the “fast track e-‐review” (too many, too complex)

Holly acknowledged that, in general, a common submittal date (for proposals and site survey data) is not in the foreseeable future; it would certainly require significant thought as to how the process might work.

5

Finally, Holly pointed out that the SSO’s website mission is different from the website mission of the IODP-‐MI; the SSO’s priority is to keep accurate content on the most active pages. NSF representative, Jamie Allan. stated that NSF would like to retain IODP legacy documents currently on the web page, and that NSF received funds from MEXT to assure that legacy materials were supported going forward. Jamie thanked MEXT for these funds and stated that there will be further discussion regarding implementation of retention, access and storage of these documents. Dave Mallinson expressed a desire to “merge” the PDB and SSDB systems such that Proposals and Site Survey data were available in one location (easy access for reviewers). Holly added to this the desire to move to a more “online” review system. While the SSO acknowledges these desires, there has not been time to think about a technical approach or workload estimate due to the intense 2014 schedule. 4a. Use of expedited reviews Susan Humphris pointed out that recently, the SEP has been using a “fast track e-‐review” process to get some highly rated proposals near the ship track to the JRFB for scheduling. However, if this is done for a large number of proposals, there is a danger/possibility that the review process could be compromised because of the speed of the reviews. Holly Given pointed out that the SSO had no dedicated staff to support this year’s “fast track” effort, and with an extremely high volume of uncontrolled e-‐mail communication, some mistakes were made. Michiko Yamamoto pointed out that it’s difficult to get reviewers when they have such little time to perform their review. This increases the workload of the SSO to find a sufficient/fair number of reviewers. The SSO’s position is that the current level of fast-‐track reviews in unsustainable without increased human resources. Susan also pointed out that a long-‐term cruise track is now published, so proposals should follow that cruise track, diminishing the need for fast track reviews. Jamie Allan pointed out that NSF designed the Science Support Office to be “lean and mean,” and the use of the “fast track e-‐review” strains their limited resources. Susan and others recommended that we retain the flexibility of the “fast track e-‐review”, but implement it only on rare occasions (for only a few critical proposals) and in exceptional circumstances, sticking to the principle of what we expect of our external review process. Consensus 3 The JRFB affirms the need to maintain the ability to do Fast Track reviews of proposals, but recommends that the SEP request them in only exceptional circumstances. 4b. Communications with proponents Susan Humphris asked the board, liaisons and observers to define/determine when communications with or from proponents should be included in the official proposal package, and when communications should not. Jeff Schuffert, Rick Murray, and Keir Becker agreed that the Proposal Guidelines document defined when and how proponent related communications are managed.

6

Action Item 1 The Science Support Office will review pages 5 and 9 in the Proposal Guidelines for inconsistency between “requested” or “not requested” documentation. They will also work to define which of the multiple versions on iodp.org is the current document. Michiko Yamamoto pointed out that some proponents are hesitant to submit unsolicited letters providing additional information about their proposal because this type of letter is not mentioned in the Proposal Guidelines document. She recommended that to accept these letters, the JRFB should modify the Proposal Guidelines document to give proponents direction. After some discussion on various options, Holly stated that the SSO will receive and catalogue any information that is important to the proposal package, but asked that the JRFB give the SSO a few weeks to discuss internally on how this might best be done. Jamie Allan stressed the importance of formal documents being incorporated into the official record. Dick Kroon defined formal documents as those that have an impact on the program or the proposal. Heiko Pälike suggested that the SSO look into available tools (for example, those used by journal editors) to manage e-‐mail traffic. Susan Humphris concluded that the SEP Co-‐Chairs have a good sense when correspondence should go to the SSO. In relaying specific recommendations to the proponent, the SEP Co-‐Chairs should copy the SSO. Proponents should be reminded that formal replies must be submitted as an Addendum or a PRL (as defined in the Proposal Guidelines). 5. Facility Board Reports ECORD – Karsten Gohl reported on the most important items from the March 2014 ECORD Facility Board (E-‐FB) meeting. He stated that their next meeting was scheduled for March 25-‐26 2015 in Aix-‐en-‐Provence (France). Karsten pointed out that the E-‐FB agreed to change their agenda as follows: The first day would be used to discuss proposals and the second day would be used to review discussion points, decide upon schedule, and address other business items. The E-‐FB also agreed that they needed a terminating strategy for proposals that cannot be drilled in the current IODP Phase. Karsten proposed that this might be a topic for the IODP Forum. Chikyu – Gaku Kimura reported on the consensus items from the last CIB meeting, and Nobu Eguchi reported on progress of Chikyu expeditions completed since the last meeting. The next CIB meeting is scheduled for July 10-‐11, 2014. Barry Katz noted that the Environmental Principles document has already received review and comments and those comments should be/will be run by all of the operators and boards. Susan Humphris stated that the CIB had approved the Environmental Principles document (in principle). If necessary, the CIB may wish to re-‐discuss or perhaps they will accept it as it’s currently worded. 6. Report on SEP Meeting #1 Dick Kroon presented a summary of the January SEP session and asked for Board input on how we might improve the meeting. He also asked for Board input regarding the addition of a 5th (Implementing Organization (IO)) Watchdog.

7

Susan Humphris stated that the integration of the Science considerations with the Site Survey data was powerful and effective, and she recommends that the Co-‐Chairs give the Watchdogs a maximum number of slides allowable for their presentations. Mitch Malone stated that the USIO fully supported the Co-‐Chairs assigning an IO Watchdog, as it cements their involvement. Karsten Gohl stated that ECORD also supports the 5th WD, and if the assignment were considered an official function, ECORD would send someone to the SEP meetings. Shin’ichi Kuramoto stated that CDEX would be happy to send a representative as a 5th WD when Chikyu pre-‐proposals were being considered. 7. Remaining Policies/Procedures Third Party Tools Guidelines Rick Murray summarized the changes made for this version as:

• Accommodating large-‐scale engineering devices or even individual instruments (not part of standard IODP inventory) without compromising safety and quality.

• Decoupling of accommodation from funding. The PI will seek external support (not from the IO itself) and this funding is no guarantee that the instrument would be used while on board.

• PIs working closely with the IO in terms of use of the instrument/device in the laboratory: staffing implications, the type of data generated, etc.

• Removing the discussion regarding certification, as it is no longer relevant to the program. Mitch Malone clarified that the PIs must consult with the IO prior to shipping instruments/devices and asks for this to be changed in the document. Dave Goldberg questioned if there should be a statement regarding motivation for third-‐party tools. Mitch, Jamie Allan, and Rick agreed that while third-‐party tools are almost always a challenge, they are necessary. The program doesn’t have the funds to do R&D, so the need for third-‐party tools won’t go away. Susan Humphris suggested that while we should not change the policy, we might want to state levels of encouragement or discouragement on the website. Consensus 4: The JRFB accepts the JOIDES Resolution Third Party Tools and Instruments Policy with one minor revision to be made before posting on the website. IODP Sample, Data & Obligation Policy David Divins summarized how the new draft brought obligation requirements into reality:

• Science party members have obligations. o Post-‐moratorium data and obligations. Scientists are requested to provide data, regardless

of if or when they publish. o No one will police what happens several years down the road, so scientists are asked to

contribute within 36 months (longer is fine, but shorter is encouraged). Jamie Allan asked the Board to adopt a document at this meeting and consider additional comments in the next cycle. David Divins took comments from the JRFB overnight and presented a final draft document on April 24.

8

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION FROM 24 APRIL David presented a revised document as per yesterday’s discussion. He worked to maintain the simplicity of the document, while removing confusing aspects and contradictions. David stated that the substance of the document hadn’t changed from the previous drafts.

• Under Section 2, Sample Data Requests: The review team reduced the categories to two: moratorium and post moratorium. The new text walks the user through the web link to show which form the user must fill out.

• Under Moratorium Expedition Requests: The review team was more specific on the role of the Sample Allocation Committee.

• Under Section 3, Obligations: The review team clarified the definition of Research Scientist and science party members.

• In multiple locations: The review team changed references to the term for publishing and submitting data to consistently state: Submit a publication or make the data otherwise available in 36 months.

• In multiple locations: The review team now directs all Requests for Press Embargoes or Moratoriums to the chair of the respective facility board (page 7, last paragraph, under science party). Susan Humphris, Karsten Gohl, and Gaku Kimura approved having the appropriate chair make this decision unilaterally.

• In the section regarding Editorial Review Board (ERB): The review team revised the current text to recommend that all submitted manuscripts go to the ERB.

Heiko Pälike asked that the curators make available (on-‐line) to investigators the records of samples taken (the samples and who has them). He stated that it would be useful to investigators to know if someone has gotten samples on something they’re requesting. Susan stated that she must talk to the curators to see what they can do. She noted that while the curators could likely do this, it would be a low priority task (but the JRFB will encourage the curators to move in that direction). Upon finalization of the JRFB approved document:

• The CIB and E-‐FB will review it and provide comments to the JRFB. • The SSO will post the approved document to the website. • The JRFB will (at future annual meetings) adjust the document (based on E-‐FB and CIB

comments). • The E-‐FB will do an e-‐mail approval process as soon as the final version is out.

Consensus 9 The combined Sample, Data and Obligations Policy and Implementation Plan is approved in principle. The final Policy will be circulated for e-‐mail approval in the next two weeks. Sample Policy Implementation Plan Susan Humphris asked the meeting attendees if the previously discussed policy meet the needs of the implementation plan? Jamie Allan stated that the problem is that each repository has a different software system. For the purposes of this program, it’s more important (and equally acceptable) to have software systems that permit the scientists to submit their data to any of our repositories in a somewhat similar format. Neville Exon stated that it would be ideal if the scientists could go to one person or one location to search for samples or obtain data. Jamie and Susan confirmed that this is not possible (at least not at

9

present). Jamie identified the web site map (that defines where the cores are stored), as the closest thing we have to a “single source” for core information, thereby reducing the burden on the researchers. He also noted that advances are being made in technology to make things more discoverable. Rick Murray and Susan discussed the conflict between the sample policy and implementation plan regarding the selection of the curatorial advisory board (CAB). Susan stated that the Boards (JRFB, E-‐FB, and CIB) could approve nominees, but that recommendations to the CAB would come from the curators. Jamie asked if each FB would like to assign a member to the curatorial board? Karsten Gohl and Susan agreed that each FB should have the option of assigning a member to the CAB (or not). Mitch Malone and Jamie pointed out that having the FBs approve CAB member selection assures the curators have a large say in the CAB membership. Action Item 2 David Divins will finalize the Sample, Data & Obligations Policy and include the input from the curators on the Implementation Plan. The document will be circulated to the JRFB for review and approval within two weeks. 8. Progress towards science challenges and themes Keir Becker summarized his own assessment of progress toward the science plan in the new program since the Forum has not yet met to conduct its own assessment. The Board discussed the new science plan as it related to the new IODP. Susan stated that the JRFB would have to start developing arguments for program continuation in 2-‐3 years given the current Cooperative Agreement is only for five years. Rick Murray recommended that the JRFB implement a selection/scheduling process that emphasizes both cost effectiveness and scientific outcomes. Susan stated that, given the program will need to be renewed, the JRFB may need to deviate from the most cost-‐effective scenario to get the best science (within reason). 9. Overview of All Proposals at the Facility Board Michiko Yamamoto summarized the proposal list with the SEP and the JRFB. The Board discussed the removal of “old” proposals and Susan recommended the Board implement the previous policy of removing those with no activity for five years; no conclusion was reached on this. 10. Overview of JR Proposals Ready for Scheduling Prior to the JRFB discussion of potential schedules, Susan Humphris identified direct conflicts (Karsten Gohl for 839 and 732, and Dick Kroon on 595 and 778) and stated that the group would review the question of conflicts when they began the scheduling discussion. Rick Murray self-‐declared as a proponent on 830-‐APL. Dave Mallinson and Dick Kroon presented their review of proposals ready for scheduling. Andrew Roberts asked Susan to instruct the Board Members as to scheduling proposals if the data are incomplete. Susan stated that it’s reasonable to consider those proposals where data are known to exist, and the proponents would be pushed for the data prior to finalizing the schedule. 11. Options for a FY’16 JR Schedule Mitch Malone presented the rationale for the possible 2016 schedule:

10

• To set up the IODP for renewal for its next five years • Understanding that we cannot do them all, per funding and schedule restrictions

Dick Kroon presented the list of the proposals that meet these requirements, including an overview of the SEP priorities as established in January 2014. 11a. JR and Security Concerns Mitch Malone presented the piracy status for the sites in areas impacted by piracy. While incidents have decreased, piracy is still a significant risk that precludes scheduling of several proposals. 12. Discussion of the FY’16 Scheduling Options Susan led several hours of discussion of potential schedules, their scientific importance and impact, as well as cost implications, and asked Mitch to prepare some alternate schedules for discussion in the morning. Thursday 24 April 2014 8:30 – 18:00 13. Development of a FY’16 JR Schedule Consensus 5 Based on the availability of proposals ready for scheduling, and on considerations regarding geographic location, costs and minimizing transit times, the JRFB recommends the following proposal for scheduling in FY’16 and into the first part of FY’17:

Proposal 820 (Maldives Monsoon) with Proposal 849-‐APL (Indian Peninsula Paleoclimate) Proposal 800 – Expedition 1 (Indian Ridge Moho) Proposal 702 (South African Climates) with Proposal 845-‐APL (Agulhas LGM Density Profile) Proposal 837 (Sumatra Seismogenic Zone) Proposal 799 (Western Pacific Warm Pool)

Consensus 6 The JRFB reiterates that, based on current and anticipated proposal pressure, the JOIDES Resolution will follow a path from the western and southwestern Pacific Ocean, through the Southern Ocean, and into the Atlantic Ocean for opportunities for drilling there starting in 2018 and 2019. Susan Humphris asked the meeting attendees to keep the selected expedition schedule completely confidential until the proponents are informed of the status of their proposals by the Science Support Office. 14. Overview of JR Facility Draft FY’15 Annual Program Plan Brad Clement presented an overview of the JR Facility Annual Program Plan. Susan Humphris asked that this draft be discussed and approved (in principle) and the group will follow up with a final approval by e-‐mail. 15. Discussion of Facility Annual Program Plan Dick Kroon asked if unspent budget could be used on following years. Jamie Allan stated that, with NSF approval, the USIO could consume unused funds in following fiscal years. He also noted that NSF reduced the FY13 program plan by $2.5 million from the savings from commercial work.

11

Jeff Schuffert asked whether logging costs were being passed off to Program Member Offices if the IO would no longer staff a logging scientist. Brad Clement questioned if the facility should be doing science, which included wire-‐line logging? John Jaeger asked if the Board anticipated requiring logging on every expedition? Mitch Malone reminded the attendees that the JRFB had adopted a standard measurement plan that stated, in principle, that every site should be logged. Brad stated that the JR currently logs only when it advances the science objectives, but that at the pre-‐cruise meetings the operator will strongly encourage logging. Because they currently log 12 to 14 days per year, it’s more cost effective to contract Schlumberger to log. Jamie stated that NSF is looking to help maintain current levels of logging support, but they will take this opportunity to see how the new awardee, and their different approach, will work. NSF plans to convene a panel (annually) to review facility performance. Brad said getting industry work is very challenging; they have to be the “right tool, in the right place, at the right time.” However, in the model for keeping the ship affordable, ODL sees their profit margin shrink with oil prices rising, so they are motivated to do industry work. Brad noted that the budget he presented included publication closeout costs ($1.4 M) from the previous program; these will show a rapid ramp-‐down over the next several years. Susan Humphris and Jamie Allan clarified for the Board that they were approving (in principle) the activities presented by the Operator, but not the financial aspects of those tasks. NSF must approve a budget and make an award prior to the start of FY15. Because NSF is changing their fund management system, the award might be later than normal. Consensus 7 The JOIDES Resolution Facility Annual Program Plan is approved in principle. A final plan will be circulated for approval by e-‐mail in July 2014. 16. Overview of Support Office FY’15 Annual Program Plan Elements Holly Given presented a summary of the financial and task aspects of the SSO Annual Program Plan for FY2015, including estimates for the additional resources needed if fast-‐track e-‐reviews become the norm, and if faster developments to the e-‐systems for PDB and SSDB or the website are desired. 17. Discussion of Support Office Annual Program Plan Jamie Allan stated that the performance of SSO has been outstanding, even under great stress, but that there aren’t resources at NSF for increasing the scope or budget of the SSO. Jamie also clarified that SSO support of the Forum was not in the NSF solicitation, nor was it budgeted. Holly will remove any reference to supporting the IODP Forum and make that a liaison function in the program plan. Consensus 8 The Science Support Office Annual Program Plan is approved in principle. A final plan will be circulated for approval by e-‐mail in July 2014. 18. Publications in the New IODP Brad Clement gave a presentation about TAMU’s approach to publications in the new program. Brad requested feedback on a new layout that is better suited to digital publications. Susan thought it looked good and no other Board Members voiced opinions or concerns.

12

Brad summarized an emerging issue regarding the Expedition Preliminary Reports. IODP researchers who plan to publish in major journals have started requesting that IODP Publications embargo the Preliminary Report, so journals don’t view the work as “already published.” The Board discussed the pros and cons of embargoing the Preliminary Reports, protecting them behind a password so they are not considered published, etc. The JRFB felt that a letter could be sent to prominent editors to ask why IODP Preliminary Reports are considered “publications” when there are many counter-‐examples involving other cruise reports. Susan Humphris agreed to write such a letter but viewed this as a short-‐term fix that would change with the editor. In the interim, Susan felt we must live with the policy as currently practiced and perhaps find a way to raise the bar for future requests for embargoes. Rick Murray suggested that we review successful interactions with editors, and based on those, generate standard guidance for the Co-‐Chiefs to respond to publishers. There was also a discussion about whether the expected content of the Preliminary Report could be changed to address this issue. Action Item 3 Susan Humphris will draft a letter to the editors of Nature, Science, and Nature Geoscience regarding sanctions against publications based on the existence of the Preliminary Report for Expeditions. This will be circulated to the JRFB for review and a decision as to whether it should be sent. 19. Membership of JRFB Susan Humphris proposed an increase to the JRFB US science membership from 2 to 3 and increasing the total Board science membership from 5 to 6. The US science community feels the US should have more representation. In addition, since the chair needs to be a US scientist, it then provides greater options for succession planning. Susan asked for Board Member input, and she interpreted their silence as approval of the proposal. Consensus 10 The JRFB approves an increase in its science representative membership from 5 to 6 to include 3 U.S. members. Action Item 4 Susan Humphris will revise the JRFB Terms of Reference to change the number of science members to 6, including 3 U.S. members. After asking Rick Murray to leave the room, Susan stated that the Board must appoint a new chair to take effect with the fiscal year, on October 1, 2014. She said that the Board could ask for external applications or they could select/appoint Rick Murray (the other US science member). All Board members voiced their support for Rick. Susan welcomed Rick Murray back into the room and asked him to accept the position of Chair. Consensus 11 The JRFB approves the appointment of Rick Murray as its next Chair beginning on 1 October 2014.

13

Action Item 5 USSSP is requested to conduct a process to nominate two new U.S. members of the JRFB for terms starting in October 2014. 20. Review of Consensus Statements and Action Items The Board collectively added the following Consensus Items: Consensus 12 The JRFB thanks Susan Humphris, the inaugural chair to the JRFB for her service. She started the group off in a fantastic way. Consensus 13 The JRFB thanks the current USIO members (David Divins (COL), David Goldberg (LDEO), and TAMU) for their contributions over the last 10 years to the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program. They leave behind a legacy of a highly successful program. 21. Other Business and Next JRFB Meeting Several APLs and proposals in the Holding Bin were discussed. 830-‐APL could potentially be scheduled with Pacific Warm Pool (FY2017) but needs some work to clear the Holding Bin. 770 will be asked for a Response Letter and 777 will be reminded that their site survey data is awaiting SEP review. 3) 2015 schedules for various meetings were discussed:

• E-‐FB is scheduled for March 25-‐26, 2015. • EPSP can move to September in 2015. • Forum cannot move next year, as the host (Australia) had only a 4-‐week window to support the

2015 meeting. A move in 2016 might be possible. • JRFB agreed to meet next May 12-‐13, 2015.

Holly said that the SSO would like to see some meetings be scheduled the second half of the year. Dick and Holly agreed to discuss the SEP schedule. No other business was raised. The Board thanked the Consortium for Ocean Leadership for the meeting arrangements and NSF (Tom, Jamie) and Brad for the reception. Meeting adjourned at 3:00 pm.

ECORD Facility Board (EFB) Brief report by Karsten Gohl

to CIB meeting on 10-11 July 2014 EFB members: Science Board: Karsten Gohl (Chair) Antonio Cattaneo Dominique Weis Gerald R. Dickens Marta Torres ECORD Executive Bureau (ECORD Council, EMA, ESO, ESSAC, E-ILP) Funding agencies (NSF, MEXT)

Annual meeting of the EFB on 5-6 March 2014 in Bremen

The EFB had to decide on the scheduling of MSP expeditions for the next years. Five proposals had already been forwarded to the EFB by the Proposal Evaluation Panel (PEP) at last year’s meeting: 548 (Chicxulub Crater), 581 (Coralgal Banks), 637 (New England Hydrogeology), 716 (Hawaiian Drowned Reefs), and 758 (Atlantis Massif). Unlike the situation at the EFB meeting in March 2013, the constraints given by the ECORD budget and the cost estimates for expeditions became better known earlier this year, forcing the EFB to reconsider all of the five proposals. Two additional proposals, 708 (Arctic Paleoclimate), 813 (Antarctic Paleoclimate), were forwarded by the Science Evaluation Panel (SEP) and also considered for scheduling at this year’s EFB meeting. Given the current ECORD budget and its expected projection until 2018, the EFB developed a strategy for scheduling until 2018 when the first 5 years of the new IODP phase will end. The budget constraints allowed the EFB to recommend the scheduling of one high-cost drilling expedition within a first 5-year operational plan. Drilling in the Arctic Ocean is a high priority for ECORD, as expressed in the ECORD Memorandum of Understanding and in document such as ‘The Future of ECORD: 2013-2023’. Such an expedition is expected to be of high costs. The EFB addressed the high priority by ECORD and recommended the scheduling of an Arctic expedition in 2018, or in 2017 if the budget permits. The decision on whether proposal 708 or another Arctic proposal, after a successfully completed evaluation and review, can be scheduled will likely be made at the next EFB meeting in March 2015. Only relatively inexpensive expeditions (e.g. with seabed drilling systems or long-piston coring) are likely be scheduled for the other years from 2015 to 2018. The EFB decided to recommend the scheduling of a seabed drilling expedition to Atlantis Massif in 2015. In the next 12 months, it is likely that a low-cost expedition can be scheduled for 2016, and another one possibly for 2017. Which expeditions these will be depends on ECORD priorities, on the maturity of proposals, and on the availability of seabed drilling systems as well as suitable research vessels to operate these systems in those years. At its meeting, the EFB could not recommend a specific schedule of low-cost expeditions beyond 2015.

2

Summary of approved actions, motions and consensus resulting:

Consensus 14-01-01: The EFB approves unanimously the meeting agenda. Consensus 14-02-01: The EFB supports the adoption of the MSP Standard Measurements and the following addition to its text: “if practical and within the budgetary constraints”. ACTION: G. Camoin to communicate to A. Moscariello that ECORD should consider collaborating with other industry sectors, such as hydrogeology. ACTION: U. Röhl to provide the two parts of the “Policy and IODP Curators Implementation Plan” document to all EFB members. K. Gohl to issue a call for an email vote from the EFB members on the Policy documents that will be provided by U. Röhl. ACTION: U. Röhl to remove the word “generally” from the text under Section 2 of the IODP Curators Policy document, in order to avoid any ambiguity. The correction should read: "IODP imposes a moratorium, generally one year from completion of an expedition, during which sample access is restricted to members of the expedition science party. Completion of an expedition is designated as the date when shore-based sampling related to the expedition is officially concluded. The one-year term may be modified ahead of the expedition in certain cases, such as when significant funding derives from external sources."

Progress on IODP Sample, Data & Obligations Policy: The EFB had a consensus vote to approve the latest draft document of the policy and implementation plan on 30 May 2014.

Consensus 14-03-01: The EFB decides to leave the Reporting Policy for Expeditions, as it is currently. Consensus 14-04-01: The EFB recommends the following rotation scheme : - Marta Torres and Antonio Cattaneo will rotate off on December 31st, 2015; - Karsten Gohl will step down as Chair on December 31st, 2015 and will serve one more year as EFB member; - Gerald Dickens and Dominique Weis will rotate off on December 31st, 2016. The EFB decides to hold the call for the new EFB Chair either in late FY14 or early FY15. Consensus 14-05-01: The EFB decides to hold the next EFB meeting on March 25-26, 2015 in Aix-en-Provence, France. Consensus 14-06-01: The EFB decides that in light of K. Gohl’s COI, he is to remain in the room, but not participate and vote when the #708 proposal is discussed. Consensus 14-07-01: The EFB decides that in light of G. Frueh-Green’s COI with the #758 proposal, she is to leave the room during this specific discussion and may be present, but not participate, when the other proposals are ranked. Consensus 14-08-01: The EFB decides that in light of G. Dickens’ COI with the #581 and #637 proposals, he is to remain in the room, but not participate and vote when the proposals #581 and #637 are discussed. ACTION: D. Mallinson to communicate to the #581-Full2 proposal proponents that they should submit their data to the SSDP. Motion 14-01-01: The EFB recommends to the Council to schedule proposal #758 Atlantis Massif in 2015, provided that the budget constraints are met.

3

K. Gohl moved, G. Dickens seconded. All approved. G. Frueh-Green abstained. Motion 14-02-01: The EFB recommends to schedule a low cost expedition in 2016, e.g. a seabed drilling expedition, provided that the budget constraints are met. K. Gohl moved, D. Weis seconded. All approved. Motion 14-03-01: The EFB recommends the attempt to schedule a low cost expedition in 2017, e.g. a seabed drilling expedition, provided that the budget constraints are met. K. Gohl moved, D. Weis seconded. All approved. Motion 14-04-01: The EFB recommends the scheduling of an Arctic expedition in 2018, or in 2017 if the funds are available. K. Gohl moved, D. Weis seconded. All approved. Motion 14-05-01: The EFB recommends to hold a virtual discussion by May 31th, 2014 to further consider which proposal to schedule in 2016, with the purpose of scheduling the seabed drilling equipment, subject to exchanges between ESO and the proponents. G. Dickens moved, M. Torres seconded. All approved. Consensus 14-09-01: The EFB recommends that proposals not scheduled for the first five years of the IODP program are to be kept with the EFB and considered along with new proposals forwarded by the SEP for potential scheduling after the first five years of the program. Consensus 14-10-01: The EFB endorses the joint calls for co-funded ICDP-IODP proposals. Consensus 14-11-01: The EFB thanks MARUM for hosting the meeting.

4

ECORD Facility Board Meeting

5th and 6th March 2014

MARUM, University of Bremen, Germany

Minutes

AGENDA

Wednesday, 5th March 8:30 – 17:30 8:30 Beginning

1. Introduction

1.1 -‐ Call to order and opening remarks (K. Gohl) 5’

1.2 -‐ Welcome and meeting logistics (M. Schulz) 5’

1.3 -‐ Introduction of participants (K. Gohl) 5’

1.4 -‐ Rules of engagement (COI policy, etc.) (K. Gohl) 5’

1.5 -‐ Meeting agenda approval (K. Gohl) 5’

2. Brief reports of ECORD Facility Board (EFB) and other ECORD entities

2.1 -‐ EFB: Report on main activities since last meeting (K. Gohl) 10’

2.2 -‐ ESO: Drilling operations and technical developments (D. McInroy) 10’

2.3 -‐ ESO: Expedition 347 Baltic Sea operations (D. McInroy) 10’

2.4 -‐ Co-‐Chief 347: Expedition 347 Baltic Sea science outcome (T. Andrén) 15’

2.5 -‐ ESO: Curation activities and update on measurements, sampling and data policies

(U. Röhl) 10’

2.6 -‐ ESO: Downhole logging data and core petrophysics measurements (S. Davies) 10’

2.7 -‐ ESSAC: activities and educational/outreach issues (G. Früh-‐Green, A. Stevenson) 10’

2.8 -‐ ECORD Industry Liaison Panel: recent activities (G. Camoin) 10’

2.9 -‐ ECORD Vision Task Force: recent activities (G. Camoin) 10’

2.10 -‐ ECORD Council: important issues of Executive Bureau (G. Lüniger) 10’

2.11 -‐ EMA: ECORD budget (G. Camoin) 10’

3. Brief reports of other facility boards and IODP entities on recent activities

2

3.1 -‐ JOIDES Resolution Facility Board (S. Humphris) 10’

3.2 -‐ Chikyu IODP Board (N. Eguchi, H. Villinger) 10’

3.3 -‐ Science Support Office (H. Given) 10’

3.4 -‐ Science Evaluation Panel (D. Kroon, D. Mallinson) 10’

3.5 -‐ IODP Forum; addressing themes & challenges of IODP Science Plan (K. Becker) 20’

12:30-13:30 Lunch

4. Procedures and issues regarding EFB activities and MSP operations

4.1 -‐ ECORD forward look (G. Camoin) 10’

4.2 -‐ ECORD budget for ESO operations of MSPs (G. Camoin) 10’

4.3 -‐ ESO Annual Program Plan (preliminary) (D. McInroy) 10’

4.4 -‐ MSP options, costs and tender process (D. McInroy) 20’

4.5 -‐ Prioritising/ranking proposals according to cost categories (K. Gohl, G. Camoin) 20’

4.6 -‐ Procedures for co-‐funded IODP-‐MSP and ICDP expeditions (K. Gohl, G. Camoin) 20’

4.7 -‐ Collaboration between ECORD and industry (G. Camoin) 20’

4.8 -‐ Implementing MSP-‐CPPs (G. Camoin) 20’

4.9 -‐ Modifying measurements and sample & data policies to MSP needs (U. Röhl) 15’

4.10 -‐ Policy on IODP/MSP expedition reports and publications (K. Gohl, G. Camoin) 15’

4.11 -‐ Outreach and Education (A. Stevenson) 15’

4.12 -‐ Selection of next EFB Chair and Science Board members (K. Gohl) 10’

4.13 -‐ General issues: Adjustments of EFB-‐TOR; IODP logo; etc. (K. Gohl) 10’

17:30 End

19:00 Dinner at “Bremer Ratskeller” (old city center)

Thursday, 6th March 8:30 – 16:00

8:30 Beginning

5. Review of the MSP proposals

5.1 -‐ 548-Full3 Chicxulub K-T Impact Crater (scheduled but needs revision) 20’

5.1.1 -‐ Summary of objectives, SSD and previous EFB decision (A. Cattaneo)

5.1.2 -‐ Drilling operations and costs (D. McInroy)

5.2 -‐ 758-Full2 Atlantis Massif Seafloor Proc. (scheduled but needs revision) 20’

5.2.1 -‐ Summary of objectives, SSD and previous EFB decision (D. Weis)


5.3 -‐ 581-Full2 Late Pleistocene Coralgal Banks (revision) 20’

3

5.3.1 -‐ Summary of objectives, SSD and previous EFB decision (K. Gohl)


5.4 -‐ 637-Full2+Add6 New England Shelf Hydrogeology (revision) 20’

5.4.1 -‐ Summary of objectives, SSD and previous EFB decision (M. Torres)


5.5 -‐ 716-Full2 Hawaiian Drowned Reefs (revision) 20’

5.5.1 -‐ Summary of objectives, SSD and previous EFB decision (G. Dickens)


5.6 -‐ 813-Full2 East Antarctic Paleoclimate (new) 30’

5.6.1 -‐ Scientific objectives (K. Gohl)

5.6.2 -‐ Site survey data (D. Mallinson)


5.7 – 708-Full Central Arctic Paleoceanography (new) 30’

5.7.1 -‐ Scientific objectives (D. Weis)

5.7.2 -‐ Site survey data (D. Mallinson)


12:00-14:00 Lunch and guided tour of Bremen Core Repository and facilities

6. MSP operation schedule for FY2014, FY2015 and FY 2016 (K. Gohl / All) 60’

7. Review of Consensus, Motions and Actions (K. Gohl, M. Borissova / All) 15’

8. Next EFB meeting (K. Gohl) 5’

9. Any other business (K. Gohl)

16:00 End

4

Roster NAME EMAIL MEMBERS

a) ECORD Exec. Bureau ECORD Council Guido Lüniger* [email protected] ECORD Council Michael Webb* [email protected] ECORD Council Martina Kern-‐Luetsch [email protected] ECORD Council Michel Diament * michel.diament@cnrs-‐dir.fr ECORD Council Mireille Perrin (alternate) [email protected] ECORD Council Anders Kjaer [email protected] EMA Gilbert Camoin [email protected] ESSAC Gretchen Früh-‐Green frueh-‐[email protected] ESO Robert Gatliff [email protected] ECORD ILP Andrea Moscariello* [email protected] b) Science Board Karsten Gohl (Chair) [email protected] Antonio Cattaneo [email protected] Gerald Dickens [email protected] Marta Torres [email protected] Dominique Weis [email protected] c) Funding agencies NSF (USA) Tom Janecek [email protected] MEXT (Japan) Yuzuru Kimura [email protected] LIAISONS

IODP Forum Keir Becker [email protected] Science Support Office Holly Given [email protected] SEP Dick Kroon [email protected] SEP (SCP) David Mallinson [email protected] EPSP Barry Katz* [email protected] EPSP Dieter Strack [email protected] JR Facility Board Susan Humphris [email protected] Chikyu IODP Board Gaku Kimura* [email protected]‐tokyo.ac.jp Chikyu IODP Board Heinrich Villinger vill@uni-‐bremen.de CDEX – JAMSTEC (Japan) Wataru Azuma* [email protected] CDEX – JAMSTEC (Japan) Nobuhisa Eguchi [email protected] J-‐DESC (Japan) Akira Ishiwatari [email protected] USIO (USA) David Divins [email protected] USSSP (USA) Jeff Schuffert [email protected] KIGAM (Korea) Gil Young Kim* [email protected] IODP India Dhananjai Pandey* [email protected] IODP China Shouting Tuo [email protected] ANZIC (Austral./N. Zeal.) Neville Exon [email protected] ANZIC (Austral./N. Zeal.) Chris Yeats* [email protected] CAPES (Brazil) Marcio de Castro Silva Filho * [email protected] CAPES (Brazil) Sidney Luis De Matos Mello* [email protected]

5

OBSERVERS/GUESTS

VSEGEI (Russia) Daria Ryabchuk [email protected] VSEGEI (Russia) Vladimir Zhamoida [email protected] VSEGEI (Russia) Evgeny Petrov [email protected] Co-‐Chief Exp. 347 Thomas Andrén [email protected] ICDP Ulrich Harms ulrich.harms@gfz-‐potsdam.de IMPRESS (IMAGES2) Frank Lamy [email protected] MARUM Michael Schulz [email protected] MARUM Gerold Wefer [email protected] MARUM Tim Freudenthal [email protected] German IODP Office Jochen Erbacher [email protected] ESO David McInroy [email protected] ESO David Smith [email protected] ESO Alan Stevenson [email protected] ESO Albert Gerdes* [email protected] ESO Ursula Röhl [email protected] ESO-‐EPC Sarah Davies [email protected] ESO-‐EPC Johanna Lofi [email protected]‐montp2.fr EMA Milena Borissova [email protected] EMA Patricia Maruejol [email protected]‐nancy.fr USIO (USA) Mitch Malone [email protected] * Apologies

LIST OF ACRONYMS ACEX Arctic Coring Expedition, Expedition 302 ANZIC Australia-‐New Zealand IODP Consortium AP Advisory Panels APL Ancillary Project Letter APP Annual Program Plan BGS British Geological Survey BoG IODP-‐MI Board of Governors CIB Chikyu IODP Board CMO Central Management Office CPP Complementary Project Proposals DIS Drilling Information System DLP Distinguished Lecturer Program EB Executive Board EC European Commission ECORD European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling EDP Engineering Development Panel E-‐FB ECORD Facility Board EMA ECORD Managing Agency EPC European Petrophysical Consortium EPSP Environmental Protection and Safety Panel ESO ECORD Science Operator ESSAC ECORD Science Support and Advisory Committee

6

ETP ECORD Technology Panel FB Facility Board ICDP International Continental Scientific Drilling Program IGSN International Geo Sample Number ILP ECORD Industry Liaison Panel IMAGES-‐IMPRESS International Marine Past Global Changes INSU-‐CNRS Institut National des Sciences de l'Univers, France IODP Integrated Ocean Drilling Program IODP International Ocean Discovery Program IODP-‐MI IODP Management International, Inc. IOs Implementing Organizations JAMSTEC Japan Marine Science & Technology Center JFAST Japan Trench Fast Drilling Project JR JOIDES Resolution KCR Kochi Core Repository KIGAM Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources LAs Lead Agencies MDP Multi-‐phase Drilling Proposal MEXT Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology

MOST The People's Republic of China Ministry of Science and Technology

MoU Memorandum of Understanding MSCL Multi Sensor Core Logger MSPs Mission-‐specific platform NanTroSEIZE Nankai Trough Seismogenic Zone Experiment NERC Natural Environment Research Council, UK NJSS New Jersey Shallow Shelf NSF National Science Foundation, USA NSF-‐OCE NSF Ocean Sciences NWO Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research ODP Ocean Drilling Program OSP Onshore Science Party OTF Operation Task Force PCT Project Coordination Team PEP Proposal Evaluation Panel PMO Program Member Offices PMT Project Management Team POC Platform Operation Costs PPO Project Partner Office RMS Routine Microbiological Samples SAS Science Advisory Structure SEDIS Scientific Earth Drilling Information Service SIPCOM Science Implementation and Policy Committee SCP Site Characterization Panel SO Support Office SOC Science Operation Costs SPC Science Planning Committee SSC Magellan Plus Science Steering Committee

7

SSDB Site Survey Data Bank ToR Terms of Reference USAC U.S. Science Advisory Committee USIO U.S. Implementing Organization USSSP U.S. Science Support Program US-‐JR FB/ JR-‐FB U.S. JOIDES Resolution Facility Board VTF Vision Task Force

8

Wednesday, 5th March

1. Introduction

1.1 - Call to order and opening remarks (K. Gohl)

K. Gohl welcomed all of the meeting participants.

1.2 - Welcome and meeting logistics (M. Schulz)

M. Schulz welcomed the meeting participants to MARUM. A tour of MARUM -‐ Center of

Marine Environmental Sciences will be given on Thursday. He discussed the

development of the new MeBo system and logging tools.

1.3 - Introduction of participants (K. Gohl)

The meeting participants were introduced.

1.4 - Rules of engagement (COI policy, etc.) (K. Gohl)

K. Gohl said that in the case of a very high conflict of interest, the proponent or co-‐

proponents will have to leave the room during the discussion. The second and lesser COI

level is an institutional conflict of interest. The person may stay or leave the room, but

cannot take part in the discussion. He asked all participants to announce their COI to M.

Borissova.

K. Gohl has a COI with the Arctic #708, as some of his colleagues are proponents.

1.5 - Meeting agenda approval (K. Gohl)

More details on the presentations are available in the EFB#2 Agenda Book.

Consensus 14-01-01: The EFB approves unanimously the meeting agenda.

2. Brief reports of ECORD Facility Board (EFB) and other ECORD entities

2.1 - EFB: Report on main activities since last meeting (K. Gohl)

The current EFB membership consists of the Science Board, the ECORD Executive

Bureau and the Funding Agencies.

K. Gohl reviewed the results of the current EFB working group.

9

The following items were completed: revised guidelines on IODP ethical and

environmental principles, which are also applicable for MSPs; comments and

contributions to revised IODP proposal guidelines; contributions to revised IODP Site

Survey Data guidelines; and revised the IODP Measurement Policy and Sample and Data

Policy. The curators were asked by the FB Chairs to draft an implementation plan and

the microbiological samples will be included in a future addendum, which both will be

discussed at this EFB 2014 meeting. Furthermore, in this meeting it will be needed to

determine/revise the IODP policy on reporting and publications for the MSPs.

A workshop on microbiological samples is planned to be held later in the year.

All progress will be noted on the Working document of the agenda motions, actions and

consensus, the minutes and the past EFB meetings documents, which are to be posted

online on the EFB webpage.

The EFB working document shows the work progress on the list of actions, motions and

other activities and is regularly updated and archived after a new meeting.

Meetings Attended

A list of the key decisions and results was reviewed from several meetings.

The PEP/SCP took place in Santa Barbara on June 17-‐21, 2013 was attended by S.

Davies, Robert Gatliff and K. Gohl. The meeting concluded with new revised guidelines

for the site survey data, in order to allow more flexibility with regard to the used

platform, drilling targets and region). The decisions will be made on a case-‐by-‐case. The

EPSP may place additional restraints and requirements.

The JR-‐Facility Board tool place in Washington D.C. on August 26-‐27, 2013 and was

attended by G. Camoin and K. Gohl. The following topics were discussed: the merger of

the SCP and PEP into a single review team, the SEP; the EPSP Safety Review Guidelines

document was approved with minor revisions; the revised IODP Environmental

Principles document was approved; the revised Proposal Submission Guidelines with

the revisions discussed was accepted; and the guidelines and Rationale for Site

Characterization Data was approved.

The SEP took place in San Diego on the January 6-‐9, 2014. The meeting was attended by

S. Davies and K. Gohl. The following MSP proposals were evaluated:

The 708-‐Full proposal (by Stein et al.) covered the topic of the Arctic Ocean

Paleoceanography towards a continuous Cenozoic record from a greenhouse to an

10

icehouse world (ACEX2). SEP decided that the proposal was to be sent for external

review in fast-‐track mode in time for the EFB meeting in March 2014.

The 813-‐Full proposal (by Williams et al.), which underwent an external review, covered

the topic of the Greenhouse to Icehouse Antarctic paleoclimate and ice history from

George V Land and Adélie Land shelf sediments. SEP decided that it is an excellent

proposal and should be forwarded to the EFB.

Issues discussed at the previous EFB meeting

Last year, five proposals were discussed. K Gohl reviewed the decisions for each of the

proposals:

The 581-Full2 was not scheduled, but the proponents were asked if they can lower the

penetration depths. No response has been received and the EFB is to reconsider the

proposal during the March EFB 2014 meeting. It must be discussed whether the use of

the MeBo is an option.

The 637-Full2 was not scheduled, but the proponents were requested to give feedback

to ESO on how the expedition costs could be reduced if some of the sites are changed.

The proponents may also look for funds from outside ECORD. Their response was

received and they will discuss the available options with ESO. The EFB will re-‐consider

this proposal, including 637-‐Add6, at the EFB 2014 meeting.

The 716-Full2 was not scheduled. The EFB considered this proposal with high priority

for scheduling in the first years after 2015 by using a seabed drill in order to try

reducing the expedition costs, provided that proposed science objectives are met.

The proponents were offered three options: (1) accept the low recovery results risks in

a JR operation, (2) wait until MeBo200 operational, or (3) find alternatives to MeBo. The

proponents’ response was that they will possibly consider a seabed drilling system, e.g.

MeBo200, in discussions with ESO. The EFB will further re-‐consider this proposal at the

EFB 2014 meeting.

The 548-Full3 was scheduled for the end of 2014, provided that the budget permits. A

response from the proponents was requested on whether the foreseen scenarios are

suitable for them. The proponents responded that they will approach additional funding

11

sources, e.g. ICDP, in order to lower the costs. After a large increase of cost estimates

above US$20M, the proposal will have to be re-‐considered at the EFB 2014 meeting. The

proponents are in contact with ESO and submitted an ICDP proposal in January 2014.

The 758-Full2 was scheduled, aiming for 2015, provided that the budget objectives are

met. A response was requested from the proponents on whether the foreseen scenarios

are suitable for them. The proponents have been in contact with ESO regarding the cost

reductions and scheduling. An updated cost estimate of US$4.5M forces the EFB to re-‐

consider this proposal at the EFB 2014 meeting.

2.2 - ESO: Drilling operations and technical developments (D. McInroy)

In terms of ESO Engineering Development for FY14, the focus will be on the

development of logging tools, borehole sealing, and fluid sampling technology for seabed

drills.

The BGS and MARUM (MeBo) have agreed to collaborate on developing tools that can

work on both drills, a process that started at the 1st ECORD Technical Panel meeting,

involving a: dual induction resistivity probe; magnetic susceptibility probe; drill string

plug for fluid sampling; and a packer system. Once agreed, the plan and budget will be

submitted to ECORD for approval. The cost estimate is $855k USD.

2.3 - ESO: Expedition 347 Baltic Sea operations (D. McInroy)

D. McInroy said that IODP Expedition 347 Baltic Sea Paleoenvironment was very

successful. The expedition schedule was pushed back due to contractual issues for the

vessel. The offshore phase took place from September-‐November 2013 and the onshore

Science Party took place on January-‐February 2014.

The Greatship Manisha reaches a maximum borehole depth of 275 mbsf and a water

depth of 34-‐451m. Over two km of pipe were available for this expedition. It used the

same coring tools as the 2004 ACEX. The drilling services were provided by Island

Drilling Singapore & Geoquip Marine. The Greatship Global Offshore Services provided

the vessel and Weatherford performed the logging services.

D. McInroy mentioned that the mobilization of vessels is very challenging to organize

and liaise with the drillers. This took place in early September. There are various

containers, refrigerated storage, etc.

12

The IODP Expedition 347 map of route and sites was reviewed.

The team ran across some ammunition dumps and polluted areas. Overall, the result

was a very high recovery of core, or about 1.6km.

Five coring tools were used, of which all belong to the BGS Marine system: extended

coring; non-‐rotating rotary coring; push coring; and a hammer sampler.

The conclusion is that Expedition 347 was a very technical and successful mission. The

cores were split a few weeks ago and the microbiologists are very pleased with the

results.

ESO had invested into some new containers and new IT equipment. They used for the

first time a microbiology container, a tracer injection system, in the microbiology

sampling program. The samples are now distributed to all of the institutes that

requested them.

D. McInroy showed a 6-‐minute video of the operations on the vessels. The video

displayed images of a sediment coring procedure; ROV use; downhole logging; a core

and core reception container; and stratographic correlators. The weather was overall

13

good for the expedition to progress quickly.

G. Dickens asked about the estimated cost. D. McInroy said that it was estimated that he

expedition cost about $9M USD and eventually cost $7.5M USD. The day rate was $75.5k

USD.

2.4 - Co-Chief 347: Expedition 347 Baltic Sea science outcome (T. Andrén)

T. Andrén gave a presentation on some of Expedition 347’s outcomes. He said that the

Baltic Basin is a sedimentary sink, so it is expected that they will see a long climate

record in the Basin.

He reviewed the Baltic Sea basin history in the past 150 000 years, as well as during the

last c. 16000 years. There is a lot that is not known. He reviewed the history of the Baltic

Ice Lake.

T. Andrén showed a map of the requested drill sites for Expedition 347. He looked at the

regression of sediments as one of the measurements. Diatom experiments and sea-‐level

changes measurements also took place.

The expedition had some unexpected outcomes. There are indications that there was a

warmer climate and richer formanifera, but there were non-‐existent diatoms. T. Andrén

reviewed images of the recuperated varved glacial clay and laminated gyttja clay, which

provided an annual sedimentation record.

Summary

He gave a summary of Expedition 347’s results. The team recovered: an intriguing

possible Eemian -‐ Weichselian -‐ Holocene sequence at BSB-‐1, Anholt; a c. 50 meter-‐long

Holocene sequence at BSB-‐3, Little Belt and a sequence indicating the drainage of a local

ice lake; an extremely expanded Holocene sequence and a c. 50 meters long varved

sequence, possibly the entire Younger Dryas at BSB-‐9, Landsort Deep; forams and

ostracodes in the sediments from BSB-‐10, Ångermanälven, previously not reported so

far north in the Baltic Sea; laminated sediments indicating oxygen free bottom

conditions under a thick sequence of varved glacial clay at BSB-‐7, Bornholm Basin; and

three cores of diamicton from BSB-‐5, Hanö Bay. In addition, the team successfully

collected all the offshore samples needed for meeting microbiological objectives.

D. Kroon asked about the use of carbon-dating on the sites. T. Andrén said that Sites 59 and

60 have a lot of microfossils present for carbon dating to be done, but it can be problematic

where no microfossils are present.

14

A question was asked if the pore water absolute dating was used. T. Andrén said that no

pore water dating was done as there are other calibrations done with the chemistry data.

2.5 - ESO: Curation activities and update on measurements, sampling and

data policies (U. Röhl)

U. Röhl introduced the core dostribution map for the three IODP Core Repositories. The

Bremen Core Repository (BCR) archives all IODP/ODP/DSDP cores form the Atlantic

and Arctic Oceans and Mediterranean, Black and Baltic Seas.

The BCR

There were 5,293 total sample requests from cores now stored at BCR

(DSDP/ODP/IODP; since 1969), and 1,504,053 total samples were taken from BCR

cores, since 1969. About 2,940 individual scientists were involved since 1994. The BCR

holds about 154 km of cores from the phases of IODP, ODP, and DSDP.

Development of the BCR Core Archive

The core archive has developed significantly between 2003-‐2013, shown next.

15

Samples taken at BCR 2003-2013

U. Röhl showed two graphs of total the sample distribution by country and region.

Curation Offshore Expedition 347

There were 8 sites, M0059-‐M0067, where 30 holes were drilled, resulting in 1623m of

core recovery and the retrieval of 5849 samples. Some of the offshore sampling included

whole round sampling.

16

Onshore Science Party (OSP)

The OSP finished 10 days ago. The phase took 30 days. Over 26000 samples were taken.

The team conducted analysis of diatoms, palynology, smear slides, TOC, IC, ICP OES,

MAD, Pwave, and NRM.

Repository Database Curation

U. Röhl introduced the Drilling Information System (DIS) for Curation and

Expeditions, which is a tool to establish and manage an information system for drill site

and core repositories. For the first time in IODP, the system uses the International Geo

Sample Number, where each of the samples is assigned a unique code.

U. Röhl explained that the International Geo Sample number (IGSN) is similar to DOI

for articles and data. Expedition 347 represents the first Expedition within the IODP

program to apply the IGSN, found at www.igsn.org, an alphanumeric system of unique

identifiers. Each sample is assigned a unique code, potentially enabling the IODP Core

Repository and investigators to track all samples accurately, even when shared between

different laboratories.

This method will also provide a central registry for investigators in the future to be able

to build on previous work as new techniques and methodologies are developed.

She also showed the online MSP portal for the BCR curation data, and the Scientific

Earth Drilling Information Service (SEDIS) web based data and publications.

ECORD summer schools

U. Röhl reviewed the Bremen summer school topics since 2007.

2007: “Paleoceanography”

2008: “The Deep Subseafloor Biosphere”

2009: ”Geodynamics of Mid Ocean Ridges“

2010: “Dynamics of Past Climate Changes“

2011: ”Subseafloor fluid flow and gas hydrates”

2012: “Submarine Landslides, Earthquakes and Tsunamis”

2013: “Deep Sea Sediments: From Stratigraphy to Age Models”

2014: "Subseafloor Biosphere: Current Advances and Future Challenges"

17

The goal is to provide an environment that combines a practical on the IODP style

“shipboard” methodologies, lectures and interactive discussions on the main themes of

IODP.

U. Röhl briefly mentioned the two new IODP policies to be represented and then

discussed in the afternoon session 4.9.

2.6 - ESO: Downhole logging data and core petrophysics measurements (S.

Davies)

S. Davies presented the different aspects of downhole logging for the MSP expeditions.

Downhole logging on Expedition 347

She showed images of the logging tools. For the expedition the Downhole Logging Team

included D. Neuhaus and C. Sedlatschek from Weatherford Wireline, and A. Fehr from the

EPC.

The Downhole Logging Measurements included Weatherford Compact Tools: Gamma

Ray (MCG); Spectral Gamma Ray (SGS); Induction (MAI); Sonic (MSS); Microimager

(CMI). There were the following Logged Holes: M0059B, M0059E; M0060B; M0062D;

M0063A; M0064D; M0065A and M0065C. The toolstrings was about 7.5 to 10m in

length.

Offshore Petrophysics Team

The team included Physical Properties Scientist A. S. Fanget, ESO Petrophysicis A.

McGrath, and Petrophysics Staff Scientist A. Fehr.

Capability Development in the Offshore Container

The container equipment consists of a Standard Multi Sensor Core Logger (MSCL) that

18

measures Gamma density; P-‐Wave Velocity; Electrical Resistivity; and Magnetic

Susceptibility. This is a dedicated system for rapid magnetic susceptibility core logging.

Fast-track results

The MSCL 152 enabled timely stratigraphic correlation and rapid logging of cores for

microbiological analysis.

The pre-‐onshore science party petrophysics measurements took place between

November 25th, 2013 and January 17th, 2014. The team worked at 4 C° to measure 4.6

km of core and used a different system as time was limited. The whole cores were

analyzed with natural gamma and Radiation (NGR), and were measured for thermal

conductivity (TC).

Capability Development

The tram developed and tested a more rapid NGR core logging system using a BGO,

rather than NaI (TI). The testing in April 2013 prior to IODP Expedition 347 was

successful. Used during the pre-‐onshore measurement phase and measured 1.6 km of

core completed before the OSP.

The thermal conductivity measurements were conducted with a TeKa TK04 system.

The petrophysics measurements included color reflectance, digital images, moisture and

density, and P-‐wave velocity.

S. Davies reviewed hole 59D’s physical properties measurements in porosity and density

changes. The changes in density were driven primarily by porosity rather than

mineralogical changes.

M. Torres asked how quickly the core can go through the fast track. S. Davies said that it

takes a few minutes for every 1.5m of core.

2.7 - ESSAC: activities and educational/outreach issues (G. Früh-Green, A.

Stevenson)

A map was shown of the IODP-‐USIO expeditions since 2004 up to 2014-‐2015.

19

G. Früh Green reviewed the nominations and staffing.

Completed Expeditions

In FY2013 ECORD’s scientists sailed on all three platforms: 1 MSP, 1 Chikyu and 4 JR. A

total of 51 ECORD scientists were invited to participate, including 4 Co-‐chief Scientists.

For the Baltic Sea Paleoenvironment Exp. 347, 17 ECORD scientists sailed, including

the 2 co-‐chiefs. The nationality representations were the following: 3 Sweden, 4

Germany, 3 Denmark, 2 UK, 1 France, 2 Finland, 1 Netherlands, and 1 from Poland.

The OSP took place from January 22-‐ February 20, 2014. A media conference was held in

Bremen on February 13, 2014.

Summary of Staffing in USIO

USIO Expedition 353 Indian Monsoon took place on November 29, 2014-‐19, January

2015. The co-‐chiefs were S. Clemens and W. Kuhnt. The objectives are the Late

Cretaceous-‐Holocene sediments to better understand the physical and Climatological

mechanisms underlying changes in monsoonal precipitation, erosion, and run-‐off across

multiple time scales. The deadline for applications was January 15, 2014 and the

deadline for nominations is March 15, 2014.

There were 24 applicants:

Germany: 5; UK: 6; Italy: 1; Sweden:1; France: 8 (+1); Canada: 1; and Israel: 1.

20

USIO Expedition 354: Bengal Fan

The expedition will take place on January 29 -‐ March 31, 2015, from Singapore to Sri

Lanka. The co-‐chiefs are C. France-‐Lanord and T. Schwenk. The objectives are to obtain a

Neogene and late Paleogene record of Himalayan orogeny and climate. The goal is also

to investigate the interactions among the growth of the Himalaya and Tibet, the

development of the Asian monsoon, and processes affecting the carbon cycle and global

climate. The deadline for applications was January 15, 2014 and the deadline for

nominations will be April 15, 2014.

There were 30 applicants: Germany: 4; Spain: 2; Italy: 1; Sweden: 2; Switzerland: 1

France: 14; the UK: 5; and Israel: 1.

The Next Calls for the JR Expeditions will be: IODP Expedition 355 Arabian Sea

Monsoon, to take place from 31 March-‐31 May, 2015; and IODP Expedition 356

Indonesian Throughflow to take place on 31 July-‐30 September, 2015. The deadline to

apply is May 8th, 2014, due to conflicts with other deadlines and the EGU.

ESSAC quotas

G. Früh Green reviewed the FY14 IBM expeditions quotas.

21

G. Früh Green mentioned that there is a need to maintain attention to quotas in the new

program, as the UK, Germany and France make up 79% of the funding and need to make

sure their participation in the expedition corresponds to their financial contribution.

Currently, the UK is over-‐quoted. Spain has still not committed to the new program and

not paid for the past 3 years. Hence, the Spanish applicants cannot be considered until

they pay for the program.

ECORD Membership on Science Advisory Panels

D. Kroon will be SEP Chair until FY15.

22

In red on table, the indicated scientists will be replaced.

There were ten applicants for the Site Survey Panel: D. Aslanian (F); V. Bout-‐

Roumazeilles (F); C. Basile (F); S. Berné (F); A. Mazaud (F); E. Cauquil (F); B. Ildefonse

(F); G. Lericolais (F); M. Rebesco (I); and A. Sánchez (Spain).

The deadline for the open call for the nomination of the ECORD Panel Membership in the

Environmental Protection and Safety Panel is February 28, 2014. There were 3

applicants: D. Lang (UK); D. Mosher (Canada); and J. Thorogood (UK).

Future Activities

G. Früh Green is the convener of a 2014 IODP-‐ICDP “The Major Achievements and

Perspectives in Scientific Ocean and Continental Drilling Forum”. So far 40 abstracts

were submitted. G. Früh Green said that there is a good collection of projects related to

IDOP and ICDP, some resulting from the MagellanPlus.

The MagellanPlus Workshops

G. Früh Green reviewed the recently scheduled MegallanPlus workshops.

23

There are also some newly approved workshops.

Future Activities: Education & Outreach

Two summer schools will take place in 2014: one in Bremen and one in Urbino. The

Urbino Summer School in Paleoclimatology 2014 will take place on July 9-‐24, 2014

and the ECORD Bremen Summer School 2014 on the Subseafloor Biosphere:

Current Advances and Future Challenges, will take place on September 22-‐October 3,

2014. Some scholarships will be offered. The applications deadline for scholarships is

April 2, 2014. There will be a new call for summer schools in 2015, with a deadline of

May 2, 2014.

The total ESSAC budget is $20 000, where $10 000 are awarded in grants per school.

There is an effort to increase the number of summer schools per year.

24

Distinguished Lecturer Program

There has been a new call for the DLP. The deadline is March 31, 2014. In total, so far 26

lectures were requested.

N. Exon asked if the DLP can come to New Zealand/Australia. G. Früh Green explained that

ECORD cannot attend unless the institution’s host pays for the lecturers’ flight or

accommodations. G. Früh Green proposed that Australia could pay for the flight and

ECORD could pay for the accommodations. N. Exon agreed to further discuss this question

with G. Früh Green.

2.8 - ECORD Industry Liaison Panel: recent activities (G. Camoin)

G. Camoin presented for A. Moscariello. He discussed the ILP’s purpose and

membership.

Purpose

The ECORD Industry Liaison Panel acts as a link between academia and industry to

promote scientific and technologic collaboration.

Membership

There is a membership of representatives from interested industries and

representatives from academia with a strong experience of collaboration with industry.

Academia’s representatives include: the University of Geneva; University of Newcastle;

University of Leicester; the University of Tromso; and Delft University (ICDP).

Industry is represented by the already involved: TOTAL; EXXON-‐MOBIL; BP; ENI;

Anadarko; Fugro-‐Robertson; Badley Geoscience; Geotek; and DrillingGC. There has been

also expression of interest from SHELL, Noble, Statoil, and Repsol.

ARCTIC (3P conference)

A meeting was proposed for the ILP to take place on October 16th. There was little

response from industry, where 2 out of 6 companies responded. There were some

interesting ideas but the conversations were short due to a very busy schedule. It is

preferred that industry visits the booth.

MEDITERRANEAN (DREAM Project)

The DREAM project objectives were reviewed. The workshop was successful and well-‐

conducted.

25

The E-‐ ILP was invited to attend the 2nd DREAM MagellanPlus workshop that was held in

Paris on January 20-‐23, 2014. Anadarko provided useful information related especially

to drilling and logging sub-‐salt deep wells. ENI and ExxonMobil expressed a lot of

interest, but could not attend the meeting. The participation of industry’s

representatives at MagellanPlus workshops is recommended as they can bring a sense

of reality, e.g. about drilling, during the discussion on site selection and deep objectives.

Ad hoc meetings were organized with the Geological Survey of Israel, which made the

liaisons between locally operating companies, e.g. Noble Energy, and ECORD. Topics

such as data exchange, e.g. seismic, cuttings, etc., were discussed.

A second E-‐ILP meeting will take place in June 2014, and will be possibly held in Bremen

or Edinburgh. Discussion items will include a presentation of IODP proposals with some

interest for the industry, e.g. Arctic proposals, DREAM proposal etc. ICDP, CDEX and

USIO are invited to attend.

A question was posed regarding the planned drilling depth for DREAM. J. Lofi said that the

deepest drill is 7 km and another pre-proposal plans for a 3-4 km depth.

26

2.9 - ECORD Vision Task Force: recent activities (G. Camoin)

G. Camoin reviewed the purpose and mandate of the VTF.

Purpose

The ECORD Vision Task Force (E-‐VTF) is the ECORD strategic entity, in charge of

identifying long-‐term scientific, technological challenges and funding opportunities.

Mandate

The VTF’s mandate is to identify new scientific challenges; Advise ESSAC on ECORD

long-‐term planning and scientific and operational strategy, including science, technology

and partnership; Assist EMA to establish a European infrastructure focused on sub-‐

surface sampling and observing systems; Identify co-‐funding opportunities from

industry, EC, national funding agencies, etc.; Plan the relationships with industry and

other science programs and organizations; and Identify potential new members and

take the appropriate actions.

Forward look to the MSP Proposals and Expeditions

There are 16 MSPs in the system, highest ever, two of which are a mixed MSP-‐JR. Ten of

the proposals are led by US scientists, 5 by European and 1 by ANZIC.

27

New opportunities for the ECORD Education Program

Some non-‐ECORD countries have expressed interest in ECORD’s education and outreach

activities, by applying to ESSAC. The objective is to offer the possibility to non-‐ECORD

countries to participate to the ECORD Educational activities, such as the MagellanPlus

Workshop Series, Distinguished Lecturer Program, ECORD Summer Schools, ECORD

Scholarships, ECORD grants).

How?

Since an annual contribution is needed, it was proposed to charge a fee of $10k USD for

access. Non-‐ECORD countries will get the same rights to access the ECORD Educational

program.

The benefits will be community building, establishment of privileged relationships with

new potential partners, development of ECORD educational activities, e.g. New Schools,

more ECORD Grants, and opening of the ECORD Educational program to Developing /

Emerging Countries.

T. Janecek asked which countries have expressed interest in this program. G. Camoin said

that Korea, Brazil have expressed interest in this program.

ESSAC and the Council have endorsed this idea via ESSAC Consensus 13-‐11-‐04 and

ECORD Council Consensus 13-‐04-‐2.

Status of “ECORD Associated Members”

The status of ‘ECORD associated members’ has been approved by the Council ECORD, via

Council Consensus 13-‐06-‐2.

The objective of this idea is to open the possibility for non-‐ECORD IODP countries to

offer in kind contributions, e.g. ship time and drilling equipment, in exchange of berths

on any MSP expedition. The benefits could be access to the most appropriate

ships/platforms; potential cost savings for MSP expeditions; and establishment of

privileged relationships with other IODP members.

28

2.10 - ECORD Council: important issues of Executive Bureau (G. Lüniger)

&

2.11- EMA: ECORD budget (G. Camoin)

A diagram of the ECORD structure was introduced.

G. Lüniger is the new Council Chair, M. Webb will be the vice Chair until June and then

replaced by a French rep in July. M. Diament, M Kern and A. Kjaer are the current

Executive Bureau. The current ESSAC Chair is G. Früh Green and J. G. Pastor is the ESSAC

Coordinator.

ECORD Annual Report

The ECORD Annual 2013 report is ready to be printed in the week of March 10th.

ECORD Headlines

The ECORD’s headlines online section was created to announce key current events. This

is a new communication tool for a direct and real time information ("breaking news ») of

the ECORD/IODP community. It is intended to show most important topics, e.g. MoU

signatures, new members, expedition scheduling etc., in addition to the ECORD

29

Newsletter. The tool will be available to all ECORD entities, such as EMA, ESO, ESSAC, E-‐

FB, and the E-‐ILP.

ECORD MoU and contracts

The all-‐members-‐signature page will be sent for signature by all funding agencies. The

MoU is a 49-‐page document that was sent to the ECORD funding agencies on February

25, 2013, and was reviewed and approved by the CNRS Legal Department. The ECORD

MoU has been approved by most ECORD countries, except for Spain. Iceland will

withdraw from the program in FY15.

ECORD-NSF MoU

The ECORD NSF-‐MoU is currently being reviewed by the NSF, and should be signed by

mid-‐or late spring. The MoU is a 13-‐page document that was written in November 2012.

Annexes C and D were revised in January 2013. There were a few changes requested by

NSF, which were accepted in August 2013. The MoU is also reviewed by the CNRS Legal

Department in review at NSF’s changes regarding the program period of five instead of

ten years.

30

ECORD-JAMSTEC MoU

The ECORD-‐JAMSTEC MoU was written in March 2013, amended in July-‐August 2013,

and approved by the CNRS Legal Department. The signing ceremony took place on

February 17th, 2014 at the Delegation of the European Union in Tokyo.

ECORD partnerships

ECORD will contribute to the annual funding of the JOIDES Resolution with $7M USD for

the access of 8 ECORD per JR expedition.

The co-‐chief scientists are not counted against the participation levels on all IODP

expeditions. ECORD will contribute to the annual funding of the Chikyu with a $1M USD

minimum for the access of more than 3 ECORD berths per Chikyu expedition. If the

Chikyu comes to European waters, the Council could consider to fund it up to $10M USD.

The level of funding to the Chikyu will be defined each year by the ECORD Council. The

MSP expeditions allot more than 10 berths to ECORD, 13 to the US and its associated

members and 4 to Japan.

There may be 1-‐3 co-‐funded projects. Some extra berths may be provided to ECORD’s

« Associated Partners », in the case that in-‐kind contributions are provided for the MSP

expeditions.

ECORD FY13 Budget

G. Camoin presented the FY13 budget.

31

The positive balance is $1.615M USD. The ECORD FY04-‐FY13 budget was reviewed next.

The budget has been constant overall.

Germany, the UK and France have contributed 79% of the total ECORD budget, or about

$173 M USD in total over the past IODP phase. Most ECORD members have either

increased or maintained their current level of contribution. For example, Canada

increased before FY13 and the Netherlands, and Spain increased before FY11. Other

members, such Austria, Belgium, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Norway and Poland

32

have maintained their contributions. Denmark has decreased its contribution after the

first 4 years before it began to maintain the contributions at a constant level. Poland

joined IODP in FY12.

G. Dickens asked what is the positive balance for the MSPs. G. Camoin said that the budget

is about $9.6M USD and he plans to address this in further detail later in the day.

3. Brief reports of other facility boards and IODP entities on recent activities

3.1 - JOIDES Resolution Facility Board (S. Humphris)

S. Humphris reported on the JR-‐FB. She explained that the JR-‐FB provides oversight to

the advisory panels.

JR-FB Role

The JR-‐FB role is to: Determine the operations schedule of the JOIDES Resolution;

Approve the JOIDES Resolution Annual Program Plan and the IODP Science Support

Office Annual Program Plan; Provide oversight of the JOIDES Resolution Facility’s

advisory panels by maintain communications with, and receive feedback from, other FBs

regarding the effectiveness of the advisory panels in meeting their needs; and Develop

and monitor policies for data collection, pre-‐ and post-‐cruise publications, and core

curation associated with the JOIDES Resolution.

JR-FB membership

Susan Humphris, Chair Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA

Ryo Anma University of Tsukuba, Japan

Rick Murray Boston University, USA

Heiko Pälike University of Bremen, Germany

Andrew Roberts Australian National University, Australia

James Allan National Science Foundation, USA

B.K. Bansal Ministry of Earth Science, India

Gilbert Camoin European Management Agency, CEREGE, France

Manoel Cardoso Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nivel

(CAPES), Brazil

David Divins USIO, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, USA

Gil Young Kim Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM),

Republic of Korea

33

Jianzhong Shen Ministry of Science and Technology, China

Chris Yeats ANZIC, Australian Resources Research Centre, CSIRO, Australia

Approval of JR Facility FY’14 Annual Program Plan

28 January–30 March 2014: Expedition 349: South China Sea CPP

30 March–30 May 2014: Expedition 350: Izu Bonin Mariana: Rear-‐arc

30 May–30 July 2014: Expedition 351: Izu Bonin Mariana: Arc Origins

30 July–29 September 2014: Expedition 352: Izu Bonin Mariana: Forearc

S. Humphris mentioned that Expedition 349 is a CPP. The cost calculation is not included

in the current budget. Its funding depends on external funding sources.

Recommendation of JR Facility FY’15 Schedule

29 November 2014–29 January 2015: Expedition 353: Indian Monsoon

29 January–31 March 2015: Expedition 354: Bengal Fan

31 March–31 May 2015: Expedition 355: Arabian Sea CPP

31 July–30 September 2015: Expedition 356: Indonesian Throughflow

JR Facility Policies and Guidelines

There is an attempt to maintain some policies across all of the platforms. An

international subcommittee provided revisions of the policy.

The FB has approve the: Conflict of Interest Policy; JR Staffing Procedures; JR Standard

Measurements; SEP Site Survey Guidelines; and the EPSP Safety Review Guidelines. The

Third Party Tools & Instruments Policy is currently in Revision.

IODP Policies

The JR-‐FB has approved the: IODP Environmental Principles; IODP Proposal

Confidentiality Policy; IODP Site Survey Data Confidentiality Policy; and the IODP

Proposal Submission Guidelines. The IODP Sample, Data and Obligations Policy is in

revision.

Facility Board Chairs have requested that the Core Curators develop an Implementation

Plan for the IODP Sample, Data and Obligations Policy by April 2014.

Implementation Plan request

The COI conflict is very much similar to the other FBs, except that the JR FB addresses

34

the advisory panels as well.

JR facility Board Panels

S. Humphris explained that there was a proposition to merge the PEP and SCP, due to

some of the proposals’ results, which lacked some essential site survey data. Hence, it

was decided that the merging of the panels will have a more realistic view for the

scientific merit, readiness of drilling and to improve communication with the

proponents and FBs. The SEP is responsible for the evaluation of all IODP drilling

proposals. It has two co-‐Chairs, one each for the scientific evaluation and the site survey

review.

The first SEP meeting was held in January 2014. Thus the demonstrated synergy showed

that the panel can give the proponents and Facility Boards better advice. The panels are

currently very large, so some changes will be made to reduce its size.

The advantages of creating SEP is that it allows more holistic review of feasibility and

readiness of proposals for drilling and the proponents receive one comprehensive

review letter. The result is that this should result in fewer proposals in the “holding bin”.

There will be one message to the appropriate FBs about the status of the proposal.

The EPSP continues to function as it used to. The Chikyu uses the EPSP only for riserless

drilling, as they have their own evaluation process for riser drilling. The EPSP provides

independent advice with regard to safety and environmental issues associated with

proposed drilling. The EPSP Safety Review Guidelines were updated and approved.

These guidelines will be used by ECORD FB, and the CIB only for riserless proposals. The

riser proposals will go straight to the Chikyu safety panel.

There were two JR-FB meetings in FY13 and one meeting coming up in April 2014.

35

3.2 - Chikyu IODP Board (N. Eguchi, H. Villinger)

H. Villinger gave a summary of the current CIB membership.

The CIB includes six leading scientists: G. Kimura; Y. Tatsumi; H. Kawahata; K. H.

Nealson; J. Casey Moore; and H. Villinger.

CIB Mandate

The Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) will discuss and/or review the matters described below

concerning the planning and the operations of Chikyu IODP expeditions and relevant

programs, and provide suitable recommendations for JAMSTEC and other relevant

parties.

1. Annual Chikyu IODP Implementation Plans for the following Japanese fiscal

year.

2. Long-‐term Chikyu IODP Implementation Strategies for the following 4-‐5 years.

3. Data management, core curation, publications, capacity building, outreach

programs, and other related activities.

4. The establishment of full-‐proposal formation workshops.

5. Discuss other related issues when a need arises.

The CIB Mandate is similar to the EFB and JRFB mandates, as it discusses the annual

Chikyu-‐IODP implementation plan, etc. The CIB met on July 2013 at the JAMSTEC

Yokohoma Institute for Earth Sciences (YES). About 60 participants attended, including

8 members and 8 liaisons.

36

Highlights of the CIB Agenda

Some of the topics that were discussed include a: Roadmap for the Chikyu Expedition;

Outline of Ship Schedule for JFY2014 and 2015; the Chikyu +10 Workshop report;

Proposal Overview; Long-‐term Planning; Toward project advancement; and the Chikyu

facility procedures, guidelines and policies.

The CIB Consensus

There were 30 consensus decisions, reviewed.

CIB_Consensus_0713-10: The CIB made a request to JRFB to use PEP and SCP (now

SEP) for all pre-‐ and full proposals.

CIB_Consensus_0713-11: The CIB made a request to JRFB to use EPSP for Chikyu

riserless operation.

CIB_Consensus_0713-12: The CIB endorsed to use a biannual proposal submission

deadline (1 April and 1 October).

CIB_Consensus_0713-18: The CIB designated both IBM and CRISP as Chikyu Projects.

CIB_Consensus_0713-19: The CIB endorsed Chikyu riserless operation in the below

criteria (but not limited to).

–Riserless operation beyond JR capability (e.g., ultra deep water).

–Riserless operation in the regions where JR will not be for many years (e.g., W. Pacific

after FY2014).

–Riserless operation on the way to/from e.g., industry operations.

CIB_Consensus_0713-20: The CIB recommended to establish a PCT* for IBM and

CRISP.

CIB_Consensus_0713-22: The CIB in principle agreed upon a common platform “IODP

Environmental Principles”. The CIB will review CDEX proposed revisions, in time for

August 2013 JRFB meeting.

CIB_Consensus_0713-23: The CIB agreed upon a common platform “Sample, Data and

Obligation Policy”. Three FB chairs send a message to curators requesting implementing

procedures.

37

•CIB_Consensus_0713-24: The CIB agreed upon a common platform “Proposal

Submission Guidelines”. Small working group across FBs will work some modification

prior to the next proposal submission deadline of 1 October 2013.

CIB_Consensus_0713-25: The CIB agreed upon a common platform “Onboard

Measurements Guidelines”. Small working group across FBs will work its contents and

the CIB support office will inform CIB at the next meeting.

CIB_Consensus_0713-26: The CIB wait for Chikyu version of “Third Party Tool

Guidelines” at its next meeting.

CIB_Consensus_0713-27: The CIB agreed that the chairs of the boards (CIB, JRFB and

ECORD FB) ask the three curators at the core repositories to update the Sample, Data &

Obligation Policy, especially that they split up the document in a fairly short (two to

three pages) policy statement and an implementation plan which contains all the details

(see also CIB_Consensus_0713-‐23). The role of the Curatorial Advisory Board should

also be defined in this document. The CIB encouraged that the geographic core

distribution model should be kept as it is.

CIB_Consensus_0713-28: The CIB endorsed maintaining same quality and format of

IODP expedition related publications.

CIB_Consensus_0713-29: The CIB endorsed continuing to use the TAMU Publication

team for Chikyu-‐related IODP expedition documents.

H. Villinger said that the CIB has established two Project Coordination Teams. The

environmental policies are not reflected on the websites.

The CIB would like to see an all-‐platform common policy on the core repository. The

Curatorial Advisory Board should be defined.

New Concepts

Several New concepts were discussed at the CIB: the Full Proposal Development

Workshop Funding; Proposal Advisory Team (PAT); Project Coordination Team (PCT);

Technical Advisory Team (TAT). H. Villinger explained that the TAT advises the CIB and

JAMSTEC on technical issues.

Two diagrams of the Chikyu Expedition Planning Process were reviewed, showing

Stages 1 and 2 of the process.

38

39

The CIB will meet next in Yokohama in July, possibly for two days.

S. Humphris commented on the revised policy of the Curatorial advisory board. She

reminded that the new policy consists of practices that are employed by all three of the

Facility Boards.

3.3 - Science Support Office (H. Given)

H. Given introduced the Science Support Office, a new entity, located at the Scripps

Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego. The Support Office is supported by the NSF

and JR partners and has been fully operational by October 1st, 2013. Its FY2014 budget

amounts to $880k USD, or about 4.5 person-‐years (FTEs), which amount to 85% of

budget. The office has four tasks: JRFB support, the IODP proposals, the SSDB, and the

website. The support of the SD Journal has been directed to ICDPs office.

The Science Support Team includes: PI D. Norris; Executive Director H. Given; It Director

K. Stocks; Proposal manager M. Yamamoto; Program/analyst D. Clark and A. Sweney; QC

J. Perez; and Project Coordinator R. Bauer.

October 1st, 2013 Proposal Deadline

A PDB e-‐submission system is used for the proposals. Thirty-‐four items were prepared

for SEP’s review in January 2014. There were 16 new proposals, some revisions,

external reviews or SSD.

About 74 user troubles were reported, which were used to improve the system.

Next Deadline April 1, 2014

The office aims to implement further improvements to PDB and to issue clarifications to

the Proposal Submission Guidelines.

November 1st the Site Survey Data Deadline

H. Given said that 958 data files received, where the previous record was less than 300.

About 33% were submitted past the deadline and approximately and 10% needed

proponent remediation, thus affecting 13 proposals.

G. Dickens asked why so many site surveys arrived at this time. It is not known.

40

Next Deadline May 1, 2014

There is a need for stricter policy on accepting late data, as SEP plans to meet in less

than 8 weeks after the deadline.

Observation on Proposal Review

H. Given said that overall the proposal review is working very well. There is a need to

require 8 weeks optimally between the submission deadline and SEP meeting, in order

to be fair to the proponents in the handling of the site survey data. For the external

reviews, the goal is to find ‘unconflicted’ qualified reviewers. It should be noted that the

“Fast track” review path should not become the norm.

Facility Board/Panel Support

The upcoming events are clustered to occur in the first 6 months of the year:

Science Evaluation Panel Jan (San Diego)

ECORD Facility Board Mar (Bremen)

JR Facility Board April (Washington)

Environ Protection & Safety Panel May (Texas)

IODP Forum May (Korea)

Science Evaluation Panel June (USA)

Chikyu IODP Board July (Yokohama)

IODP Website

The IODP website improvements are incremental as the Support Office does not have

the full needed budget to make bigger changes. The central contact email address is

[email protected].

Proposal Submissions

More proposal submission information can be found in the EFB#2 Agenda Book.

G. Dickens said that it necessary to be clear what information is needed for the site survey,

in order to avoid causing a bottle-neck in the proposal system.

41

3.4 - Science Evaluation Panel (D. Kroon, D. Mallinson)

D. Kroon reminded the Support Office’s request for confidentiality regarding the

proposals.

The following policy must be followed:

"The IODP Science Support Office is responsible for all matters related to IODP proposal

handling, including confidentiality and release to the public. Proposals are confidential

documents throughout the nurturing, evaluation, ranking, and scheduling processes in

the JOIDES Resolution Facility Board (JRFB) and its advisory panels, and other Facility

Boards utilizing the JOIDES Resolution Facility advisory panels. The distribution of

proposals is limited to the JRFB or other appropriate Facility Board(s), relevant advisory

panels, and detailed planning groups (DPGs); implementing organizations (IOs); IODP

funding agencies; project scoping or management groups; and external reviewers

designated by the IODP Science Support Office."

List of MSP proposals in the System

42

D. Kroon reported on the first SEP meeting that took place on January 6-‐9, 2014. The

task is to get the proposals ready for drilling. He reviewed a list of the revised proposals

that were submitted as of October 1st 2013. A site survey data watchdogs was assigned

to each proposal.

For the 680-Full Bering Strait Climate Change proposal, PEP asked the proponents to

submit a revised Full proposal with a clearly testable hypothesis with a focus on the

Pleistocene rather than the entire Cenozoic record, and possibly with 750-‐Pre. The PEP

positively recognized the strategy and potentially important insights into Arctic climate

and sea level change. The panel recommended that the proponents hold a workshop to

combine efforts with 750-‐Pre (Polyak). This recommendation takes into consideration

the complexities involved in drilling in this region that may only allow for a limited

number of sites so that coordinating efforts with 750Pre is a more realistic approach

especially given the weather conditions.

ESO’s response for the 680-‐Full is that a suitable platform is likely to be a lift-‐boat or

jack-‐up rig. Given the location, if a lift-‐boat is used there will be logistical issues

regarding re-‐supply. The proponents estimate 7 days of coring per hole, but we envisage

20-‐30 days per hole. Six primary holes to 1000m may take months, and may make the

expedition prohibitively expensive.

For the 750-Pre Beringian Sea Level History PEP has decided that the proponents

should submit a full proposal, possibly with 680-‐Full. The objectives are the history of

Arctic-‐Pacific connections via the Bering Strait gateway; the impact of Late Cenozoic sea-‐

level fluctuations on the high-‐Arctic depositional system and shelf architecture; and the

Paleo sea-‐ice history in relation to climate change.

The proponents have responded that some of the issues related to the history of

Beringia and the Arctic-‐Pacific connection are addressed in the IODP proposal 680

focused on drilling just north of the Bering Strait. However, the evaluation of relative

sea-‐level changes in the Chukchi region requires additional drilling farther north on the

Chukchi shelf and slope, notably in the filled channels

The PEP recommended that the proponents hold a workshop to combine efforts with

750-‐Pre (Polyak).

43

Regarding the 708-Pre2 the Central Arctic Paleoceanography, a new proposal was

submitted on January 6-‐9, 2014 and has been forwarded to the EFB. PEP recommends

that the proponents submit a full proposal. The proposal objectives are to achieve a

Continuous Cenozoic Record from a Greenhouse to an Icehouse World (ACEX-‐2).

PEP’s remark is that the proposal is very much about completing ACEX 1 by recovering

the late Eocene to middle Miocene intervals that were not preserved at the location of

ACEX 1. The proponents will need to satisfactorily demonstrate that the missing time

intervals can be recovered at the proposed sites by integrating core-‐seismic data from

ACEX 1 and using existing and new seismic reflection data. The reprocessing of existing

seismic data, evaluating seismic lines from the HOTRAX expedition, and incorporating

site survey data from the planned Polarstern Cruise ARK-‐XXIII/3 in 2008 will allow the

proponents to determine the positions of the drilling sites. Drilling in the area of the

preliminary sites LORI-‐5B (LORI-‐15A alt): Cenozoic Paleoceanography (long

stratigraphic gap encountered during ACEX 1) and LORI-‐16A: Neogene/Quaternary

high-‐resolution records (skipped by ACEX 1) should enable the proponents to achieve

their scientific goals.

For the 730-Pre2 Sabine Bank Sea Level proposal, PEP recommended that the

proponents submit a full proposal.

The panel generally acknowledges the importance of expanding the record of MIS 3 to 7

by drilling rapidly subsiding coral reefs. However, the panel feels that the scientific

rationale and hypotheses are yet not fully developed. Specifically, the proponents offer

three main objectives: Reconstruct the climate history of the WPWP; Obtain better

estimates of changes in sea level of MIS 3-‐7; and Obtain the vertical tectonic history of

SB to refine the rheology of the Australian Plate.

The panels (SSEP and PEP) feel that objectives 2 and 3 might in fact be dependent

(circular). How can they reconstruct an accurate sea level history if there is no reliable

model of subsidence history? Nevertheless, PEP has asked for a full proposal. For the

756-‐Pre Arctic Ocean Gateway, PEP recommended that the proponents submit a full

proposal.

The two main objectives are: The evolution of the Fram Strait through the tectonic and

rifting history of the Morris Jesup Rise and its subsidence history with respect to the

Yermak Plateau conjugate physiographic feature. And second, the paleoceanographic

44

evolution of the Arctic Ocean Exit Gateway with emphasis on water mass and ice

properties, sources and flux rates.

PEP’s response is that the proposal 756-‐Pre (1 Oct 2009) addresses several relevant

issues in tectonics and paleoclimatology that are highly relevant to the IODP Science

Plan. It is clear that the Morris Jesup Rise is a location well placed to investigate the

Cenozoic evolution of the Arctic Ocean and specifically to monitor variability in the

outflow of waters and from the Arctic Ocean and associated ice dynamics and the

tectonic and rifting history associated with the opening of the Fram Strait.

The 761-Pre South Atlantic Bight Hydrogeology was recommended to submit a full

proposal. The objective is to study five sites in shallow water using a

mission-‐specific platform (MSP) are proposed. The panel (SSEP) recognizes that such a

transect has not been drilled before, has clear ties to the IODP Initial Science Plan (ISP),

and that good scientific hypotheses have been articulated.

D. Kroon said that the panel is enthusiastic about this pre-‐proposal to investigate the

links between the ocean, the subseafloor ocean, and land-‐based hydrogeology.

Monitoring to capture temporal variability in the geochemical signals is an especially

exciting component of the project. PEP recognizes that the proposal aligns well with the

IODP Science Plan Earth in Motion, Challenge 14.

The 796 Full Lingurian landslide proposal proponents were asked to submit a revised

full proposal. The proponents proposed to drill a series of holes at the Ligurian slope

south of Nice where water depths are less than 50 m so that the borehole monitoring

becomes affordable, even in real-‐time. The drill sites aim is to characterize the

metastable slope E and W of the former collapse structure, and the re-‐deposited

material partly occupying the present-‐day landslide scar and deeper portions of the

slope.

PEP has asked that in order to promote success and ascertain a potentially strong

proposal ranking in the future, a few critical points should be clarified/strengthened

before the external review. Following the Proposal evaluation criteria in the Science

Advisory Structure Terms of Reference, the panel consensus is that the proposal would

be further strengthened if the working hypotheses are better organized, focused, and

quantitatively constrained. The strength of this proposal is assessing pore-‐pressure with

45

time. The proponents should focus on this aspect with model-‐based testable hypotheses.

The 806-Pre Beaufort Gas Hydrate and 797-Pre Alaska Beaufort margin proposal

proponents were asked to write a full MDP proposal, either as individual or a combined

proposals.

The objective is to understand the geological processes caused by marine transgression

and the ethane release and geological processes associated with the warming of

permafrost and gas hydrate deposits beneath the Beaufort Sea Shelf and upper slope.

New Proposals list reviewed

For the 812-Pre Ross Sea Glacial History and 813-Pre Antarctic Cenozoic

Paleoclimate proposals, the objective is to study the drilling pro-‐grading sediment

sequences using MeBo.

PEP has recommended that the proponents develop Full proposals, including a well-‐

designed drilling plan. 813-‐Full has been submitted and reviewed in Santa Cruz. Thus

PEP has chosen that it should undergo an external review. The proposal was forwarded

to the EFB.

D. Kroon reviewed a map of the current active IODP Arctic Ocean Proposals.

46

D. Kroon said that at the full proposal level, SEP expects the proponents to update the

site survey data.

The 797-Pre proponents were supposed to submit a full proposal in October 2013 but

they didn’t. The IODP-‐ICDP 806-‐Pre proponents are planning a workshop in May.

The 680-Fulll and 750-Pre proposals were discussed at the Chickchi Sea Workshop in

March 2013. The coordinated full proposals will be submitted by the April 2014

deadline.

Proposals Arctic Ocean Drilling

Decision SPC Meeting Edinburgh, March 2011

645-‐Full3 North Atlantic Gateway was deactivated but a new pre-‐proposal will be

submitted.

680-‐Full Bering Strait Climate Change was forwarded to PEP, and PEP asked in

December 2011 that the proponents submit a revised full proposal.

708-‐Pre2 Central Arctic Paleoceanography was forwarded to PEP, and PEP asked in

December 2011 that the proponents submit a full proposal.

746-‐Pre Arctic Mesozoic Climate was deactivated a pre-‐proposal was to be

submitted.

750-‐Pre Bering Sea Sea Level was forwarded to PEP, and PEP recommended in

December 2011that the proponents submit a full proposal.

753-‐Pre2 Beaufort Sea Paleoceanography was forwarded to PEP, and PEP

recommended in December 2011 to submit a Full.

756-‐Pre Arctic Ocean Exit Gateway was forwarded to PEP, and PEP recommended

in December 2011 that the proponents submit a full proposal.

Decision PEP Meeting Edinburgh, May 2012

794-‐Pre Arctic Slope Stability was deactivated.

797-‐Pre Alaska Beaufort Margin was recommended to develop a full proposal,

possibly a MDP with or without 806-‐Pre.

803-‐pre Greenland Ice Sheet was deactivated.

806-‐Pre Beaufort Gas Hydrate was asked to develop a full proposal possibly a MDP

with or without 797-‐Pre.

47

Decision SEP Meeting San Diego, January 2014

708-‐Full Central Arctic Paleoceanography Send out for external review (Fast

Track)

Now forwarded to the ECORD FB

It was noted that 797-‐Pre (MSP and JR) and 806-‐Pre (MSP and ICDP), Beaufort Margin,

are being developed, but it is unknown when they will submit. The 680-‐Full (MSP) and

750-‐Pre (MSP and JR), Bering Strait, are expected to be submitted this April.

In summary, of the first SEP meeting on January 6-9, 2014 at Scripps, USA.

D. Kroon reviewed a list of the revised proposals (see PowerPoint presentation).

D. Kroon commented that the 702 concentrates on a very important area and is a

potential flagship but on holding bin because there is some site survey data.

For the rest of the proposals:

The 708 is an MSP, a very good proposal that could be an ACEX2.

The 781 seems to have some safety issues and not sufficient number of sites. The EPSP is

working with the proponents to address the safety issues.

The 795 has been scheduled and is working on some site survey issues.

The 813 is a MeBo proposal.

The 819 is in the holding bin, as it needs to resolve some technical issues.

The 821 concentrates on a very important area of drilling

The 823 needs better imaging so was deactivated with the possibility of the proponents

to come back with a shorter proposal.

Decisions on New Proposals

D. Kroon said that 835 (see PowerPoint presentation), needs to be developed into a full

proposal, and it would need a workshop.

839 is developing well.

841 was rejected because it came back the same after the proponents were asked to

revise it.

843 was deactivated because there were way too many proposed sites. This proposal,

however, has potential for multiple proposals.

48

849-‐APL was advised to link up with the Monsoon Drilling proposal and has some

technical issues to be solved.

D. Kroon said that the SEP feels very strongly to see IODP work together with ICDP and

would like to see a call for ocean transects.

The decisions for the revised proposals that were submitted on October 1st, are

summarized as the following:

The decisions on the new proposals submitted as of October 1st are as follows:

49

3.5 - IODP Forum; addressing themes & challenges of IODP Science Plan (K.

Becker)

K. Becker reminded that he has provided a table on p.145-‐146 of the EFB Bremen

Agenda Book, showing the existing proposals versus the themes and challenges. He said

that the proposal pressure is good across most of the IODP-‐defined themes and

challenges.

IODP Forum, as “custodian” of New Science Plan, is charged with assessing new IODP

progress toward addressing science plan. Indicated in green color on the table, the

science themes were defined as top priority challenges. The yellow color stands for the

Chikyu, the unhighlighted color stands for the JR and blue for the MSPs. The table shows

full-‐proposal pressure only, as the pre-‐proposals are not included.

50

Perhaps the EFB is to consider where is the proposal pressure and where it would

recommend to have more proposal pressure.

51

IODP Progress Toward Science

The IODP program was originally envisioned on a 10-‐year cycle, but the NSB authorized

the NSF to plan a 5-‐year renewal of IODP until 2019. M. Webb highlighted in the

November ECORD Newsletter that there will be a mid-‐term 5-‐year review of ECORD

funding by the ECORD partners. Hence, several questions must be considered:

What else is needed, besides the IODP Forum assessment of progress on New Science

Plan, to justify 5-‐year renewal, and when? What specifically is needed to prepare for

reviews for 5-‐year renewal for the US, ECORD, Japan, and JR partners?

52

Are there special scientific focus areas or strategic priorities for MSP operations in first

5 years?

Given the 5-‐yr timeline, is a special Forum meeting needed before the June-‐July 2015

second Forum meeting in Canberra?

K. Becker emphasized that the first question is amongst the most important agenda items

for the May IODP Forum. He said that it should be considered whether the renewal

evaluation will take place in 5 years, and whether a second IODP Forum would be needed.

K. Gohl said that the 5-year strategy may change some of the strategy and proposal

scheduling.

T. Janecek suggested that it may be too early to have a special Forum meeting regarding

an assessment of progress on the IODP Science Plan to determine what is needed for

reviews for the renewal of current phase of the new IODP. The US National Research

Council Decadal Survey of Ocean Sciences will be completed in May 2015. The NSF will be

utilizing the outcome of this Survey report, along with other data, to help guide decisions

about the NSF Ocean Sciences scientific portfolio for the next decade starting in FY2017

and the infrastructure needed to address that portfolio. How the JOIDES Resolution will fit

into this decadal need won’t be know for another year, at least. Thus it is difficult, if not

impossible, for the US at this time to determine what is specifically needed to prepare for a

renewal in 5 years.

M. Torres asked about the APLs, if are clearly advertised in the proposal submission.

S. Humphris said that there was a meeting in the US, which will be advertised in an article.

How widely available is it? Is it clear in the guidelines that an APL is possible? S. Humphris

confirmed that that is the case.

4. Procedures and issues regarding EFB activities and MSP operations

4.1 - ECORD forward look (G. Camoin)

ECORD and the EC: I3 an Integrated Infrastructures Initiative

G. Camoin reviewed the rationale behind the Distributed European Infrastructure for

Subseafloor Sampling and Monitoring (DEISM) proposal that was submitted on October

22, 2012.

The proposed DEISM focused on scientific research into the subseafloor and is designed

to increase and optimize trans-‐national access to cutting-‐edge technologies and

scientific services to the European science community. DEISM aimed to improve the

53

European collaboration in development and sharing of new, innovative technologies for

coring, specialist sampling, downhole logging and long-‐term subseafloor observations,

and it is likely to stimulate further technological developments in these areas.

In parallel, another proposal was submitted the same day by A. Kopf, titled the

Distributed European Drilling Infrastructure (DEDI). The rationale of the proposal

was that DEDI will go beyond the existing activities such as IODP (Integrated Ocean

Drilling Program, and its successor, the International Ocean Discovery Program), as was

explained in more detail in a Consultation statement by the ECORD Managing Agency.

DEDI also planned to overarch other European initiatives such as Eurofleets, now

followed by Eurofleets2, in which drilling (e.g. the MARUM seafloor drill MeBo) is made

available to all European marine scientists for the first time. Other established RIs such

as EMSO, the European Multi-‐Disciplinary Seafloor Observatory, or EPOS (European

Plate Observing System) would benefit from new data in the third dimension collected

using DEDI monitoring technology such as borehole sensors, etc. The DEDI proposal,

mentioned other European initiatives, e.g. Eurofleets, MARUM, EMSO and EPOS.

The resulting EC Assessment Report to the Consultation, listed a recommendation under

section ENV11/ENV12 that the European Research Drilling Infrastructure should

integrate IODP, share technology with ICDP and link with EMSO.

The EC’s Work Programme 2014-‐2015 document also issued a description of the ECORD

proposal text with the recommendation to form a RI.

According to the document, the usual funding of WPs: is between € 5 – 7 M over the time

period of 4 years. The distribution of funds is as follows:

Trans National Access (access to cores and data; ECORD expansion): 20 %

Joint Research Activities (Technological development and innovation: drilling

equipment, instrumentation): 60 to 70 %

Legal and financial long-‐term structure: 5 %

Networking activities (training, workshops): 5 %

Management: 7 %

For example, ECORD could develop the MSPs with MeBo 1 and MeBo2, rockdrills,

oriented drills, log piston coring used by IMAGES-‐IMPRESS and IFREMER.

54

55

Via such an infrastructure funding mechanism, ECORD could develop in several ways:

Science: New drilling/coring targets / scientific issues

Technology: for technological development and the sharing of experience and

capabilities.

Networking: for the creation of a stronger collaboration between the research &and

operational groups across Europe, ECORD/IODP and other programs, e.g. ICDP, IMAGES,

and initiatives, e.g. EMSO.

The additional funding will optimize the use of research vessels and sampling

capabilities, cost efficiency for IODP MSP operations, new opportunities for funding at a

national level, EC, partnership with industry, and SMEs.

A kick off meeting will be held on March 7th in Bremen with the following

representations:

EMA (G. Camoin); ESO-‐BGS (R. Gatliff, D. McInroy, A. Stevenson, D. Smith); ESO-‐BCR (U.

Röhl, H. Wallrabe-‐Adams); ESO-‐EPC (J. Lofi); MARUM (T. Freudenthal); ESONET / EMSO

(C. Waldmann); DS3F (A. Kopf); ICDP (B. Horsfield); IMAGES (F. Lamy); ISOR (Á.

Hjartarson); and IFREMER (A. Cattaneo).

Earth Science Europe

Earth Science Europe will hold its second meeting on April 2-‐3, 2014 on the topic of the

“Role of Geodata and Information”.

ECORD and the other programs

ECORD maintains strong connections with other programs. Several events were

attended:

ICDP Science Conference: Potsdam, Germany, November 2013

EMSO Conference: Rome, Italy, November 2013

IMAGES: The ISOLAT Workshop funded by ECORD and held in September 2013. A

submission of a proposal expected for the April 1st, 2014 deadline.

ANDRILL: meeting at the AGU regarding a potential IODP CPP with ECORD

G. Früh Green asked how the Earth Science Europe (ESE) is different from the DS3F project.

M. Perrin said that it is different. She said that the ESE idea is a roadmap for earth science

for Europe. There were meetings in Paris and a meeting with EPOS to begin working on the

56

preparation.

K. Gohl asked what MSP cost efficiency means. G. Camoin said that it means that with the

help of technological developments, ESO could have its own tools.

4.2 - ECORD budget for ESO operations of MSPs (G. Camoin)

ECORD MSP Expeditions

ECORD is responsible for funding and implementing MSP operations for the

International Ocean Discovery Program as an independent Platform Provider. The

consortium’s aim is to fund and implement one MSP expedition per year on average for

the International Ocean Discovery Program. ECORD will also encourage and help

proponents for MSP proposals to seek for additional funding sources on a project basis,

e.g. EC, industry, increased contributions from ECORD and IODP members, foundation

support, and in-‐kind contributions.

The mission-‐specific platforms might include specifically outfitted polar vessels, jack-‐up

rigs, geotechnical vessels, seafloor drilling systems, long-‐piston coring, anchored barges

and others, as determined by scientific priorities and operational efficiency.

ECORD FY 14 Contributions

Several countries decreased their contributions: Belgium, Canada and the UK. Iceland

will withdraw after FY14. Finland, Italy, Netherlands and Switzerland increased their

contributions.

57

Iceland will withdraw after 2014 and a decision needs to be taken regarding the future

membership of Spain.

In kind-‐contributions are not considered in these figures. Some potential newcomers

might be Russia, the Czech Republic and Luxembourg.

ECORD FY14 Budget

58

The FY13 net balance was $1.615M USD and the expected available amount for ESO in

FY14 is $11.13M USD.

Annual available ECORD for ESO

FY 2014: $7.4 M USD

FY 2015: $17.0 M USD

FY 2016: $26.6 M USD

The CNRS has an account in USD dollars that provides interest rates.

D. McInroy commented that when there is no expedition the ESO running costs are about

$2.5M USD.

G. Dickens asked when an expedition occurs if the ESO running costs are the same. D.

McInroy clarified that when the expedition costs are presented each year, the estimate

includes the ESO running costs. The ESO running costs do not change, however the ESO

expedition costs can change.

K. Gohl said that the running costs should be shown apart from the expedition costs in

order to give a clear idea of what the expedition costs will be.

He said that there is a need for another funding source for ECORD, such as in-kind

contributions, CPPs and new members.

N. Exon commented that there do exist opportunities with the EU operational funds,

however getting involved in the calls is a long process.

G. Früh Green asked when the funds would be available for use. G. Camoin said that he does

not have the details. A. Stevenson said that it takes a few months.

K. Gohl said that not enough funds were in the bank so that a call for tender could not be

issued last year. G. Camoin said that it should be expected to get about $7.4M USD for ECORD by June 2014.

D. Kroon said that this is a better financial situation for ECORD in terms of available funds

in comparison to previous years.

4.3 - ESO Annual Program Plan (preliminary) (D. McInroy)

D. McInroy presented the ESO FY14 Budget Request for October 2013-‐ December 2014.

59

The requested ESO base costs for the planning of new expeditions amounts to $3.2M

USD. ESO will ask for an additional $400k USD for technology updates, the total

requested amount will be about $3.6M USD.

A budget justification is provided in the ESO FY13 Annual Program Plan. The base costs

cover the planning and post-‐expedition work, and there are no new expedition/platform

costs. The platform costs will be requested when next MSP is known.

ESO will request an additional Engineering Development budget to develop new logging

tools for the MeBo and BGS seafloor drills.

G. Dickens asked why a second coring instrument is build when there are not enough funds.

The $855k funds for engineering development are intended for the development of logging

tools.

4.4 - MSP options, costs and tender process (D. McInroy)

D. McInroy reminded that the detailed MSP costs are shown on page 150 in the Agenda

Book.

The source of estimates is from past experience and past bids (IODP and non-‐IODP),

inquiries with companies, and published information, e.g. historical day rates.

The major cost controlling factors are the mobilization and demobilization costs, the

vessel day rate, and logging contract costs. The logging contract costs are significant

figures in the overall budget, but still relatively constrained.

60

The drilling services day rate and ancillary costs, are often combined with the vessel day

rate. In addition, the expedition duration is a cost factor, determined by the coring rate,

total penetration, and transits. The ESO costs are fixed base costs and expedition year

costs.

G. Dickens asked about the base cost in case that there are 2 expeditions per year. The base

cost would be $2.5 M USD and then each of the expedition costs would be additional for

each mission.

MSP Estimates

MSP contracting

D. McInroy explained that the tendering process cannot be used to get accurate quotes

because by the time ESO goes to tender they are in the process of organizing the

expedition.

ESO-‐BGS conducts all contracting under the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council

(NERC). In order to enter a contracting process, the financial resources must be

available and intent must be demonstrated. The companies expect a real work

opportunity, as they will spend significant resources compiling tenders and will attempt

61

to line up surrounding opportunities. The tendering process cannot be used to obtain

accurate quotes. ESO follows the following time line:

A notice of interest is given a period of about 40 days. The invite to tender is sent after

14 days. The tender deadline takes place after 40 days. ESO typically receive 2-‐3 tender

responses per expedition.

It is possible that all bids received are beyond ECORD’s budget, in which case one of the

following occurs, in order of preference:

1. ESO may request additional funds from ECORD (assuming ECORD has those

funds).

2. If extra funding is not available, the scientific scope of the expedition is reduced

through discussion with the Co-‐chiefs/proponents most likely scenario.

3. The expedition is abandoned. This is least satisfactory as it damages NERC’s

reputation in the contracting market.

G. Dickens asked if the budget has been discussed with all of the proponents and if they

fully understand these costs. D. McInroy said that these estimates were sent and almost all

proponents responded, with the exception of the New England proponents who thought

that the estimates are way too high. The New England proponents probably did not

account for the extra container space, berths for scientists and extra space for pipe and

technology. The New England group had acquired the quote from another company but

did not account for these extra costs.

M. Torres asked what is included in the proposal costs. The costs presented are the costs of

the proposal as it is currently done, with the planned logging and drilling holes.

S. Humphris asked about the different funding sources and if these concepts have been

introduced to the proponents. D. McInroy said that the Chicxulub proponents have had

some extra funding, but the other proponents have not brought any funding themselves. G.

Dickens said that a letter was sent to the proponents with this information.

K. Gohl said that if there occur major changes to a proposal and the objectives are

compromised, the proposal may go back to SEP. D. Kroon said that it will have to be

checked if the objectives in a big change are feasible.

In response to comments by K. Gohl and D. Kroon about the need for a proposal to return to

SEP if fewer objectives are achieved due to reduced funding, T. Janecek said that SEP is

merely an advisory group. The SEP does not require that proposals go back to them for

62

review in this type of situation. However, the SEP is willing to make an additional review if

requested, but an additional review is not a “programmatic requirement”. The E-FB has it

in their purview to make any implementation decision on a proposal or any portion of a

proposal.

D. Smith asked if there is a policy in case that a proponent gets co-funding and if they will

get priority in ranking. K. Gohl said that there is no such policy, but this would be

considered on a case-by-case basis.

M. Torres asked that some proponents writing the MSP proposals have a good idea of the

costs. Is it in the guidelines, a statement that the proponents should contact ESO prior to

submission for a funding and feasibility questions.

K. Gohl confirmed that there this is addressed in the guidelines.

M. Torres asked if the previous expedition costs are available for proponents to refer to. D.

McInroy said that there are costs issued in the Annual report and also workshop guidelines.

It is in the MagellanPlus guidelines to involve all proponents in the beginning of the

proposal writing process.

G. Dickens said that the Chicxulub was agreed on $17M USD, and there is now a different

figure. Why is there such a difference? D. McInroy said that the difference is due to a 20%

margin of error.

G. Dickens reminded that last year the EFB pushed forward the Chicxulub proposal with a

$17M USD budget. A few months ago the cruise was labeled as a $21M USD and now the

EFB is considering a $14M USD cost. Is scenario 1 a reasonable cost? G. Früh Green said

that the funds were not available at the time to foresee this change in consideration. G.

Dickens said that if that is the case, then should the proposal be re-considered again as the

budget is not finalized yet. K. Gohl agreed that it is a good question. D. McInroy said that at

the last EFB, ESO was asked to scope the budget costs because the budget was not

confirmed.

K. Gohl said that at the start of the ECORD phase, the situation was not ideal as the best

possible estimates were not available.

The proposal was still reconsidered because of the changing costs.

J. Schuffert asked at what level should a budget be considered. D. McInroy said that it is not

for the operator to decide. They will work with the budget that is available.

D. Smith said that for Chicxulub there is a need to achieve the requested target depth in

order to get the science, so the risk is that the results depend on the available time and

63

money.

4.5 - Prioritizing/ranking proposals according to cost categories (K. Gohl, G.

Camoin)

K. Gohl said that there is a strategy needed to help ranking proposals for scheduling. He

showed a suggested ranking matrix of the MSP proposals. In the table, the vertical order

within each cell represents a ranking order, wheras the top is of highest ranking. The

MSP and possibly ECORD’s priorities should determine the ranking order.

In the future, the EFB should consider that there should be a balance between the

themes, depending on the distribution of forwarded proposals. Following this, the EFB

can split up the categories of high cost, medium and low cost.

There is also a need for a strategy for proposals that will not be drilled due to the science

plan theme categories.

What are priorities for MSPs?

Ranking matrix of MSP proposals

G. Früh Green said that the balance of science plan themes is missing from the ranking of

MSPs.

K. Gohl reviewed several example issues that could be treated as priorities in the

64

ranking of MSPs: shallow seas; ice-‐covered seas; shallow-‐penetration targets with

maximum core recovery; drilling where JR and Chikyu are not an option in terms of

drilling technology; environmentally sensitive targets; and high visibility of drilling

project to help extend the IODP program. Are there other ECORD priorities? K. Gohl said

that regions of high interest must be considered. The polar regions – in particular the

Arctic – have been named high priority regions by ECORD.

He showed a table of the proposals that are to be considered by the current EFB.

M. Torres commented that the list is a mismatch, because the shallow seas are for MSPs

only. So within these priorities, it is the science plan and high visibility that could be

overarching guiding principles in making a decision. Is it the EFB that decides on the

regions of interest?

K. Gohl said that the Council members should voice their opinions on these issues. G.

Camoin said that the 2011 ‘Future of ECORD’ document talks about addressing issues of

societal relevance such as climate change, societal challenges, the biosphere and the Arctic.

G. Dickens said that the high visibility is a strategic move. He said that if ECORD manages

to achieve all of the high-point achievements in the first 5 years of the program, then how

would the funding agencies be convinced to fund the program for the next 5 years.

K. Gohl said that this could be one type of difficulty for the MSPs. S. Humphris has asked

SEP that given that there has to be a JR renewal, what would be the key high visibility

65

projects that could potentially be drilled to position the program for renewal also

recognizing the point that not all key projects should be done right away.

G. Dickens said that according to EFB motion 13-03-01, it was recommended to go forward

with the Chicxulub.

M. Kern said that from the funding agencies’ view, the big projects have to be considered

with an upper budget limit, because a choice that uses up the whole budget of the program

in a few years could discourage the funding agencies from supporting the program in the

future. Is it really wise to allow for a project’s budget that takes up more than one year of

the consortium’s budget?

K. Gohl said that with the potential rising expedition costs, such a limit eventually may

have to be imposed. Proponents are already aware that they need to have a cost estimate

before they proceed to propose a project.

4.6 - Procedures for co-funded IODP-MSP and ICDP expeditions (K. Gohl, G.

Camoin)

It was considered during this discussion that the Chicxulub or ANDRILL, for example, offer

opportunities for a CPP. ANDRILL has submitted a proposal to ICDP. Should there be some

kind of formal agreement between ICDP and IODP who will do the quality control and how

much of the funds will be provided by each side?

U. Harms said that the New Jersey Shallow Shelf is a precedent example. ICDP has a

contract with the principle investigators, but the money is with the ICDP. Some of the

funding for most projects is collected in a pool. ICDP pays invoices that come from

contractors. K. Gohl asked if the New Jersey expedition can be used as an example for the

future. U. Harms said that ICDP funding differs for each project. ICDP has enough flexibility

to react according to each situation, There is no need yet for specific procedures.

M. Torres said that the original contract is done by the PIs, and that this is a step that is

different from the IODP approach.

4.7 - Collaboration between ECORD and industry (G. Camoin)

G. Camoin presented for A. Moscariello.

The start of the new programme can be taken as an opportunity to re-‐think ECORD’s

potential collaboration with Industry.

A different mind-set and time-line

66

Industry looks at the overall IODP program with great interest and can see certainly

mutual benefits in joining forces to carry selected projects forwards. Industry’s interest

in various parts of the world, which are considered ‘new-‐frontiers’: high latitudes

regions, e.g. Artic, Antarctic; subsalt in the Mediterranean basin; and areas not densely

drilled, e.g. North African coast offshore Algeria or Libya, Mediterranean, SE India shelf

(Sri Lanka). Industry’s interest however may vary depending on factors, e.g. economic

and geopolitical), which may induce a sudden drop or rise of attention with a speed

which does not follow necessarily the pace of ECORD scientific program maturation and

realization.

Better communication for improved stake-holder management

E-‐ILP Industry members may be interested to hear about specific drilling scientific

projects. It would find very useful to identify key aspects of each proposal, which may be

presented to individual companies in order to identify common interests and

possible synergies that may be realized in a relative short time frame.

Finding new ways forward: Recommendations

Collaboration with industry should be also an IODP Forum discussion. Early

involvement of Industry on potentially interesting drilling projects is recommended via

ad-‐hoc events, e.g. the MagellanPlus workshops, which can certainly facilitate to build up

a common discussion ground. The companies may be approached to find ‘creative’ ways

to cooperate and possibly drive forward a common project, for example the “DREAM-‐2

experience”. A pro-‐active approach may be more efficient to get Industry partners on

board in several propose ways: easier access to IODP web page/project description;

executive summary with potential interest for industry; facilitate understanding on how

ECORD operates and its possible benefits/tools to respond to Industry requirements

(APL, CPPs); and other modalities of co-‐operation and industry contribution (e.g. data

access, financial) will have to be discussed on a case-‐by-‐case basis.

A. Stevenson commented that arranging workshops is broader involvement, so the reason

that the ILP exists is to facilitate access to industry. He recommended that the engagement

with industry should happen faster. J. Lofi said that industry expects projects to take place

within short rangers of time, a few years, and not in the next 5-7 years. A. Stevenson said

that this is why ECORD should work with industry. If they want the project to go faster

ECORD should invite them to contribute to bring it to reality faster.

A Cattaneo said that perhaps there can be a reverse approach to bring industry to IODP

67

targets.

G. Wefer said that there is a lot of industry interest to work with science, but it rarely

matures to a collaboration.

D. Mallinson said that other sectors of industry exist that need ECORD-type data, such as in

water resources. Hence, there are other industry directions that ECORD could pursue. The

EFB agreed that this is a good suggestion.

4.8 - Implementing MSP-APLS and CPPs (G. Camoin)

APL - Ancillary Project Letters General Guidelines

An APL is a project with valuable science objectives requiring less than 10-‐15% of

dedicated platform time, including transit, from an already scheduled expedition. APLs

can require an investment of drilling, logging, and technician time, as well as a platform

berth. Therefore, the IODP will strive to integrate such projects with an appropriate

drilling proposal as early as possible in the normal planning process.

MSP APLs

One of the topics that was discussed at the VTF is whether an APL call is to be issued

when the proposals are forwarded to the EFB.

ECORD VTF ’s input

The MSPs are operated in a different way than the JR and the Chikyu. Long-‐term

planning by the EFB is critical for the APLs in MSPs, before the program goes to tender.

The duration of APL needs to be defined since APLs are “fast-‐tracked” by SEP, although

excellent science, i,e. an APL vs. a drilling proposal. The duration of an APL will also

depend on the available budget. The two-‐step process consists of the proposals

consideration by the EFB for long-‐term planning and the Science Support Office, which is

to issue a call for APLs with indication of platform time and facilities. A proposal could

result in more than one short APL being implemented.

The VTF suggested that a call should be issued for the APLs not only when the

expeditions are scheduled, but also when the proposals are forwarded to the EFB so that

the science community could respond quicker.

G. Dickens said that adding an APL to the 5 proposals that are considered would just

increase the costs. G. Camoin said that if an APL is considered for a lower cost expedition

then there will be some added scientific value to the expedition.

68

H. Given commented about the APL review. The review is not really fast-tracked, as it is not

as complicated, but it does follows the normal review process. Still, it takes a lot of work to

fast-track a proposal just to have it ready on time.

So far there have been no APLs for the MSPs. G. Camoin said that the advantage of an APL

would be to explore the opportunities and the possible cost saving.

D. Kroon mentioned that the APLs do not have external reviews.

K. Becker reminded that the MSP-APLs are defined in the guidelines.

Complementary Project Proposals (CPPs) Guidelines

A CPP is a Full Proposal that has a commitment from a third party source outside IODP

for a substantial amount of financial support, usually 70% of the total costs of a drilling

program. Early discussions of potential plans with staff at the Science Support Office or

appropriate IO before a CPP is written. The CPPs should be prepared as regular IODP

Full Proposals but, in addition, must include a description of the formal / to-‐be-‐arranged

financial commitment from a third party to support the estimated platform operating

costs for the proposed expedition(s).

The SEP assessment is based on the same criteria as that of a regular Full Proposal. If

fast-‐track consideration is required by the situation, e.g., funding source, operational

plans, etc. the SEP may conduct an internal science review, and then forward the

proposal directly to the relevant IO(s). If fast track is not required, SEP follows the

normal procedures for the Full Proposals. The final decision regarding the

implementation of a CPP is made by the FB overseeing the scheduling of the platform in

question. The FB may negotiate with the proponents on details of the external funding.

The proposal must satisfy all EPSP requirements before it can be implemented. The CPP

expeditions follow the normal IODP rules for designation of co-‐chief scientists, scientific

staffing, and the IODP Sample, Data and Obligations Policy that defines the data

moratorium, data access, and publication responsibilities.

There are two options depending on the situation: fast track and normal track. The

Executive Bureau recommended that these options should be considered very carefully

and on a case-‐by-‐case basis without being too strict about the rules. There are no CPPs

currently for the MSPs. ECORD is in contact with ANDRILL about a possible CPP.

A common practice for different case scenarios may also have to be considered. How

would a 50% funding be dealt with in a CPP?

69

T. Janecek said that all possibilities should be carefully considered. But some things cannot

be decided on a case-by-case basis, such as access to data and samples. If the free access

and data transparency are limited, that would change the principles of IODP. The

moratorium period could be negotiable and should be discussed with the other FBs as they

would too be affected by such a decision. G. Dickens mentioned that the CPPs originated

because of vessel costs. M. Torres said that ECORD could offer the labs, expertise and

technical assistance. M. Malone added that if an entity wants exclusive rights to data

access, then they would have to finance the whole expedition.

N. Eguchi said that the CIB has not discussed yet the CPPs, but the 70% funding rule should

probably be maintained.

4.9 - Modifying measurements and sample & data policies to MSP needs (U.

Röhl)

U. Röhl discussed the policies and guidelines for the standard measurements. There

are differences between the JR and MSP standard measurements, highlighted in red. The

rest of the categories are about the same as the JR, except that the definitions are slightly

different.

Policies/Procedures/Guidelines

The policies have been forwarded to the FBs to be approved and discussed.

The program wide policies include measurements, samples and data during the term of

the IODP 2003 -‐ 2013. The JR-‐FB working group JOIDES Resolution Standard

Measurements, August 2013 can be found online at www.iodp.org/doc_download/3892

2013 august jr standard measurements.

The JR Standard Measurements

JOIDES Resolution (JR) standard measurements are those that should be made on all JR

expeditions if practical for the material being drilled or recovered. Deviations from

standard measurements should be identified in the Scientific Prospectus. In addition, the

Implementing Organization may require additional measurements to meet safety

requirements and protocols. The measurements include:

1. Core Characterization Measurements

70

2. Rig Floor Measurements: Driller depth; Heave compensation; Weight on bit;

Penetration rate; Mud pressure; Mud logging (important for Expeditions with

Microbiology component); and Pump rate.

3. Downhole Logging and Measurements

Once per site, as practical: Natural gamma ray; Spectral gamma; Density; Porosity;

Resistivity; Sonic; Borehole imaging; Caliper; and Formation temperature.

JR Supplemental Measurements

Supplemental measurements are defined as additional measurements that may be

needed to meet expedition objectives, and are conducted where possible and

scientifically justified.


Anhysteretic Remanent Magnetization (ARM) and Isothermal Remanent Magnetization

(IRM) with step wise acquisition and demagnetization; Shear strength; Cell counts;

Contamination testing; Microbial activity measurements using radiotracers; Whole rock

major and trace elements (sediments); Rock maturity analysis; X ray diffraction; Micro

imaging; and Whole round core digital surface photography (hard rock).


71

These include: Magnetic susceptibility; Borehole temperature; Vertical seismic profile or

check shot (requires permitting); Magnetic field; Formation pressure; Logging and

measurements while drilling; and Packer tests.

MSP Operations

The MSP Operations consist of an Offshore phase and an Onshore science party.

EFB working group

A working group was created, including U. Röhl, A. Cattaneo, J. Dickens, and D. Weis, to

work on the Mission Specific Platforms (MSP) Standard Measurements draft version

from November 2013.

T. Janecek asked if SEDIS is being just maintained or also developed. U. Röhl said that it is

maintained and there are likely plans to further develop it at the MARUM, by the PANGEA

group.

M. Torres asked about the Baltic expedition. Riser samples and stand-up press samples

have been taken immediately on the ship.

Mission Specific Platforms (MSP) Standard Measurements

The Mission Specific Platforms (MSP) standard measurements are those that should be

made on all MSP expeditions, if practical for the material being drilled or recovered.

Deviations from standard measurements should be identified in the Scientific

Prospectus. In addition, the Implementing Organization may require additional

measurements to meet safety requirements and protocols. The measurements include:


U. Röhl reviewed the edited text of the MSP Standard Measurements Core

Characterization section.

72


Once per site, as hole conditions allow: Natural gamma ray; Spectral gamma; Density;

Porosity; Resistivity; Sonic; Borehole imaging; Caliper; and Formation temperature.

3. Rig Floor Measurements

Involve Driller depth; Heave compensation; Weight on bit; Penetration rate; Mud

pressure; Mud logging (important for Expeditions with Microbiology component); and

Pump rate.

Supplemental MSP Measurements

Supplemental measurements are defined as additional measurements that may be

needed to meet expedition objectives, and are conducted where possible and

scientifically justified.


These could include: Anhysteretic Remanent Magnetization (ARM) and Isothermal

Remanent; Magnetization (IRM) with step wise acquisition and demagnetization; Shear

strength; Cell counts; Contamination testing; Microbial activity measurements using

73

radiotracers; Whole rock major and trace elements (sediments); Rock maturity analysis;

X ray diffraction; Micro imaging; Whole round core digital surface photography (hard

rock); and whole round non contact resistivity.


May include: Magnetic susceptibility; Borehole temperature; Vertical seismic profile or

check shot (requires permitting); Magnetic field; Formation pressure; Logging and

measurement while drilling and Packer tests.

International Ocean Discovery Program Sample, Data, and Obligations Policy

A working group was created, including D. Divins, N. Eguchi, W. Azuma, J. Allan, K.

Becker, and U. Röhl, to draft the March 2014 version International Ocean Discovery

Program Sample, Data, and Obligations Policy. The March 2014 EFB will be asked to

consider this draft version. The IODP Curators are to provide an implementation plan.

U Röhl showed several examples of the guidelines draft.

74

N. Exon asked, in cases where reef core recovery is slow and it could make sense to reduce

the amount of downhole logging, how such a decision would be made. D. McInroy said that

75

it is a difficult question and ESO usually has to discuss that with the co-chiefs. It may be

difficult to prescribe a rule because every situation could be different.

G. Dickens asked if any of the measurements change the dimension and size of the ships,

because that would change the day rate of the ship.

D. McInroy said that it depends on the expedition. Changing the type of measurements

could affect the number of containers. G. Dickens said that rather than making strict rules,

perhaps cutting some of these measurements could reduce the expedition’s costs. U. Röhl

said that this is continually done.

S. Davies said that depending on the expeditions, some of these measurements are

essential. G. Dickens said that it should be considered whether there is a measurement that

can be reduced, and if so it should be done. U. Röhl agreed that the measurements must be

practical for both the science and costs.

G. Wefer said that if the conditions allows, all measurements should be followed. S. Davies

said that these measurements are decided on a case-by-case basis and if possible all

measurements are done.

Consensus 14-02-01: The EFB supports the adoption of the MSP Standard Measurements

and the following addition to its text: “if practical and within the budgetary constraints”.

IODP Sample, Data and Obligations Policy: Implementation Plan

U. Röhl also presented several examples of the Implementation Plan’s Repository

procedures. The Multi-‐repository requests will be reviewed for approval by the IODP

Curator/repository that houses the lowest numbered leg/expedition listed in the sample

requests. The creation of permanent archive lists is the responsibility of the IODP

Curator for the drilling operator that obtained the cores. U channels that are analyzed

non-‐destructively with scanners are to be loaned and returned, according to loan

agreements signed by the IODP curators or their designated curatorial staff. Cores or

materials for display at museums, etc. are to be loaned and returned, with loan

agreements signed by the IODP curators.

U. Röhl reviewed several past steps. A working group was created, including D. Divins, N.

Eguchi, W. Azuma, J. Allan, K. Becker, U. Röhl to draft the International Ocean Discovery

Program Sample, Data, and Obligations Policy, version March 2014. The goal is for the

Facility Boards to consider the March version. The IODP Curators are also to provide an

76

implementation plan.

U. Röhl reminded that according to the IODP Sample, Data, and Obligations Policy, the

Curational Advisory Board holds several functions.

U. Röhl summarized the document changes. The Curator’s Policy is now shorter and

more concise, but the content did not change much. The section on sample and data

requests only includes information on data access for the JR and USIO only. For the MSPs

and Chikyu, more information would be needed on where to find MSP data and sample.

The new sample request system (SaDR) mentioned in the new policy is not yet fully in

place for all cores.

U. Röhl reviewed the BCR/MARUM webpage, which was recently revised.

She asked the EFB to consider the March version of the obligations policy.

K. Gohl suggested that U. Röhl provides the two parts of the policy and implementation

parts of the document to all EFB members, and then to call for the EFB’s email vote.

ACTION: U. Röhl to provide the two parts of the “Policy and IODP Curators Implementation

Plan” document to all EFB members. K. Gohl to issue a call for an email vote from the EFB

members on the Policy documents that will be provided by U. Röhl.

G. Wefer suggested that under Section 2 of the policy regarding the moratorium, the word

“generally” should be removed to avoid any ambiguity. A definition for an expedition may

be also needed.

ACTION: U. Röhl to remove the word “generally” from the text under Section 2 of the IODP

Curators Policy document, in order to avoid any ambiguity. The correction should read:

"IODP imposes a moratorium, generally one year from completion of an expedition, during

which sample access is restricted to members of the expedition science party. Completion of

an expedition is designated as the date when shore-based sampling at the end of the

Sampling Party or Onshore Science Party (MSPs) related to the expedition is officially

concluded. The one-year term may be modified ahead of the expedition in certain cases,

such as when significant funding derives from external sources."

The recommended change is also derived from the IODP Curator’s discussion after the

meeting. U. Röhl noted that each of the three repositories is aiming for a joint policy and

77

implementation plan with the repository procedures, which might slightly differ from

those published on the repository webpages.

4.10 - Policy on IODP/MSP expedition reports and publications (K. Gohl, G.

Camoin)

K. Gohl gave an overview of the different types of reporting.

Overview on (currently) required reports

Pre-Expedition Reporting-Expedition prospectus

A pre-‐cruise prospectus is required for all scheduled IODP-‐MSP expeditions. All efforts

should be made to make this available prior to the scientist application process for

expedition participation. The prospectus should include a short summary for the general

public. The emphasis for the prospectus should be on timely publication rather than

production aspects, e.g. layout, undue graphical editing, etc.

Offshore Expedition Reporting

The reporting includes Daily reports by the Expedition Project Manager and Weekly

reports by the Expedition Project Manager.

K. Gohl suggested that the expedition operational review reports by the co-‐chiefs should

be combined with the previous review.

Post-Expedition Reporting

The Preliminary Report is done by the Co-‐Chiefs on the preliminary scientific

outcomes of the expedition. Most of it is written at the onshore phase of an MSP

expedition. The report is submitted to publications services at the end of this phase and

is published about two months later on the IODP/ECORD websites. This service is

provided by ESO. The FB needs to consider what information the Preliminary Report

has to include, and who is the audience in order to determine specific content

requirements. This is best done when discussed with ESO.

Expedition Operational Review Reports

Two reports are to be submitted to the EFB about 5 months after the expedition’s

onshore phase. The report is supposed to consist of a Technical Operations Review by

78

ESO and a Scientific Operations Review by Co-‐Chiefs, refer to outline temple. There are

discussion items on the pre-‐expedition planning, operations during the expedition, e.g.

drilling, coring, logging etc., communications between scientists and operators, roles and

responsibilities of scientists and operators, general procedures and policies, e.g.

curation, communications, laboratory operations, etc.

The resulting recommendations are to be compiled into a short summary report, which

is posted on the IODP/ECORD websites. Following this, the recommendations are

implemented via the ECORD Annual Program Plan.

Review Meeting

The Expedition Reports by ESO and the Co-‐Chiefs will be reviewed during a Review

Meeting organized by the EFB. The meeting will be scheduled approximately 6 months

after the end of the onshore part of the expedition, if applicable.

Report in ‘Scientific Drilling’

One year after the end of an MSP expedition or the end of its onshore phase, if

applicable, the Shipboard Party led by the Co-‐Chiefs will be required to have published a

report in ‘Scientific Drilling’.

IODP Initial Reports

One year after the sampling party, the Scientific Party will have to produce a volume of

the ‘Initial Reports’ similar in content and quality to the current publication, with a

summary overview chapter and an expedition bibliography. This report will have to be

submitted to the IODP Science Support Office.

The progress on reporting requirements is supposed to be overseen by the FBs. Is

this feasible with number of Science Board members and no existing resources??

In terms of the general IOPD Policy on reporting, the EFB is supposed to oversee these

requirements and if these reports are not provided, then there will be consequences for

the proponents. K. Gohl reminded that the reporting is a heavy task and more people

need to be involved. He suggested that a working group should be created to work with

ESO and a previous MSP co-‐chief who has been in this process before.

G. Dickens commented about the reasoning in having two separate reports. After the ACEX

expedition, there were some major problems and hence there are two documents,

providing two views on how things went on the cruise.

K. Gohl said that this is a good point, but perhaps the information could be on the same

79

report. There is also a need for someone to review this process.

T. Janecek said that for an operational review to properly address, in a timely fashion, the

issues that arose during an expedition (so that lessons learned can be applied to future

expedition planning) it is important to have a basic understanding of which scientific

objectives, as outlined in the Expedition Prospectus, were achieved. This information can

come quickly from the co-chief scientists in the form of a short post-expedition report. A

more formal analysis of meeting IODP Science Plan objectives is more appropriate at a

later stage (perhaps several years) when post-expedition research is more complete.

K. Becker commented that the power behind the ESO technical report and co-chief report is

to have the opportunity to say that they would not want to say in public.

Consensus 14-03-01: The EFB decides to leave the Reporting Policy for Expeditions as it is

currently.

It was recommended that a meeting should be scheduled to further discuss this topic.

4.11 - Outreach and Education (A. Stevenson)

A. Stevenson reviewed the pre-‐expedition types of outreach activities for the Baltic Sea

paleoenvironment Expedition Outreach activities. There is a Communications Plan and

several Promotional materials, such as Articles in ECORD Newsletter; Baltic Sea

Paleoenvironment flyer; Expedition logo; Banner for the Greatship Manisha and an

Expedition web page on ESO’s website.

The Baltic Sea Expedition

A. Gerdes and A. Stevenson have discussed with the expedition’s manager. There was a

meeting with the offshore science party in Copenhagen on September 4th. A media event

took place in Copenhagen International Press Center along with a press release on

September 5th. There were presentations by the co-‐chiefs and Expedition Project

Manager. This resulted in over 45 separate reports in press, radio and TV, especially in

Sweden and Denmark, which were picked up by numerous websites. The collaboration

was good with the media relations staff at Aarhus and Sødertørn.

In addition, the Facebook and science party blogs were updated. An expedition logbook

and photographs/videos were provided.

80

A half-‐hour documentary was made by PrimeView Apps and will be offered to national

Danish TV station, DR1. The project was led by Aarhus University with funding from the

Danish Ministry of Education and the Danish National Research Foundation.

ESO Web Outreach

ESO’s web outreach site includes a home page, expedition page, media page, daily ship

reports expedition logbook and a logbook entry page.

Onshore Science Party

There were several reports on the expedition web page along with a press release. A

media day was held on February 13th.

OSP Media Day

Nineteen journalists attended the event, resulting in the publication of 127 articles

within one week, along with several radio reports and a nationwide TV broadcast. U.

Rőhl, C. Cotterill, T. Andrén and B. Barker Jørgensen made presentations and were

followed by a tour of the labs. Some video footage was provided to the journalists. T.

Andrén will speak at the EGU Press Conference.

Next steps

A folder will be kept up-‐to date giving information about ESO and a new folder will be

created about the Baltic Expedition. There will also be a place for newsworthy stories

about ECORD in laymen’s terms on the ECORD website, along with information about

any ECORD scientist involved in an IODP expedition and if there are resulting

publications. The coordination of this task will involve the US and Japanese outreach

teams.

The next upcoming steps will be the creation of the Baltic Sea expedition leaflet in an

ECORD brochure; the EGU booth and Townhall meeting; and the EGU Press Conference.

The following sites were provided: www.iodp.org; www.ecord.org; and

www.eso.ecord.org.

H. Given said that outreach is very important, and such news links are essential references

for the Support Office.

4.12 – Selection of next EFB Chair and Science Board members (G. Camoin)

The 5 science board members

A proposition was made to extend the terms of the current science panel members.

81

It was proposed that K. Gohl is to remain as EFB Chair until end of 2015. This has to be

approved by the Council.

T. Janecek said that he sees a large group of people rotating off at the same time, and asked

about the rationale of this change. G. Camoin said that he thinks that if at least two

members stay on board, regardless of the change, the balance of new versus current

members on the board should be OK.

G. Früh Green said that the call for the EFB Chair will have to take place a year before K.

Gohl rotates off. The Chair needs to be an ECORD scientist and will have to be in place by

the end of 2015, if K. Gohl is the outgoing Vice Chair. So the call could take place early 2015

and the new chair should to start in early 2016. The EFB Chair is designated internally.

G. Dickens said that some proposals will take 3 years to schedule.

Yuzuru Kimura expressed his interest in a regional balance of the EFB’s members, and

suggested that there be one member from Japan.

The Science Board selection process was reviewed.

It was discussed that nominating the Chair could be a problem if the call for applications

is in FY15. It was proposed that in this case the call should be in FY14.

Consensus 14-04-01: The EFB recommends the following rotation scheme:

- M. Torres and A. Cattaneo will rotate off on December 31st, 2015;

- K. Gohl will step down as Chair on December 31st, 2015 and will serve one more year as

EFB member;

- G. Dickens and D. Weis will rotate off on December 31st, 2016.

The EFB decides to hold the call for the new EFB Chair either in late FY14 or early FY15.

Thursday, 6th March

Conflict of Interest Policy (COI)

K. Gohl further discussed the policy for COI. A ‘soft’ COI is e.g. an institutional conflict, in

which case the person can stay in the room, but cannot participate in the discussion,

unless the FB members object.

K. Gohl has a soft COI with proposal 708 (Arctic) as several lead proponents are his

colleagues. Hence, for the presentation and discussion of this proposal, K. Gohl cannot

82

lead the discussion. He asked that instead D. Weis or G. Camoin lead the discussion in

this case. K. Gohl’s vote will not take place and it will not be exercised by anyone else.

G. Früh Green is a first proponent of proposal 758 (Atlantis Massif) and will have to

leave the room when the proposal is discussed. When the members vote on the other

proposals she can be present but not participate in the discussion on the vote.

G. Dickens has an institutional conflict with proposals 581 and 637 as stated further

below.

S. Humphris recommended that in the case of an institutional conflict the person should

remain in the room and not participate in the discussion, as in K. Gohl’s and G. Dickens’

case. G. Früh Green should leave the room when the Atlantis Massif will be discussed.

Consensus 14-06-01: The EFB decides that in light of K. Gohl’s COI, he is to remain in the

room, but not participate and vote when the #708 proposal is discussed.

Consensus 14-07-01: The EFB decides that in light of G. Früh Green’s COI with the #758

proposal, she is to leave the room during this specific discussion and may be present, but

not participate, when the other proposals are ranked.

Consensus 14-08-01: The EFB decides that in light of G. Dickens’ COI with the #581 and

#637 proposals, he is to remain in the room, but not participate and vote when the

proposals #581 and #637 are discussed.

5. Review of the MSP proposals

5.1 - 548-Full3 Chicxulub K-T Impact Crater (scheduled but needs revision)

5.1.1 - Summary of objectives, SSD and previous EFB decision (A.

Cattaneo)

The MSP proponents are Morgan et al. Two boreholes will be drilled in the Gulf of

Mexico.

Site Location

83

The site location is the Chicxulub impact crater. It is a unique, well-‐preserved large

impact structure on Earth. It has an unequivocal topographic “peak ring,” a global ejecta

layer and is linked to the K-‐T mass extinction.

History of the Proposal

The 548-‐Full was reviewed by the panels in May 2000. The 548-‐Full3 was forwarded to

the Science Planning Committee (SPC) with 4 stars in May 2009.

Relevance to the IODP Science Plan

The proposal is relevant according to Chapter 2 “Climate and Ocean Changes” and

Chapter 3 “Biosphere frontiers”.

Scientific Objectives

1) Identify peak ring lithology, structure, and formational mechanism and compare with

current models.

2) Understand the effects of the Chicxulub impactor on the deep sub-‐surface biosphere,

e.g. changes in porosity and colonization.

3) Verify the extent of the hydrothermal system and the magnitude of chemical and

mineralogical alteration of the crust.

4) Assess the environmental effects of the impact: quantification of the energy of the

impact where melt sheet volume = proxy and the amount/type of ejected material.

There is a question if there are pollutants with a role in K-‐Tmass extinction.

84

5) Explore the pattern of biotic recovery and response of a carbonate platform system to

a marine target impact.

Borehole targets and working hypothesis

Hole Chicx-03A

The hole will be at a 1500 m penetration-‐17 m w.d. There is a pink ring forming

material. The question is if there will be overturned/uplifted basement rocks;

megabreccia and other.

Hole Chicx-04A

The penetration is 1500m-‐17 m w.d. There is an enigmatic dipping reflector. Questions

are posed if: there is a lithologic boundary between the uplifted basement and younger

Mesozoic sediments; thrust fault formed during the peak ring emplacement; and about

the result of the hydrothermal circulation and mineral deposition.

A. Cattaneo showed the proposed modification along with the ESO cost evaluation. The

proponents’ proposed solution is to reduce the drill depth and to focus only on the K/T

boundary as a second scenario. Hence, two scenarios exist. Scenario 1 guarantees that all

objectives will be met and Scenario 2 guarantees that only the key objectives will be met.

85

Scenario 1 is an optimistic estimate, of 100 days, where Chicx-‐03A 950m and Chicx-‐04A

950m will be drilled as planned.

Scenario 2 is a pessimistic estimate of 110 days. The coring is where the Chicx-‐03A

550m maximum drilling depth will be reduced and the Chicx-‐4A 650m open hole drilling

depth will be increased. The principal objectives are maintained: to study the peak ring,

dipping reflectors, and the K-‐Pg transition. The secondary objectives are lost, in

reference to the Eoc-‐pal extended section and deeper peak ring material.

Summary

The 548-‐Full3 proposes a unique site with a fully preserved large impact crater on

Earth. The site is associated with the K/T global mass extinction, which has a potential

to unveil the mechanisms of impact dynamics and to detail the global effect of impact on

ecosystems. The proposal was written with a clear hypothesis driven tests, detailed

drilling strategy and could present an occasion for an effective outreach communication.

A. Cattaneo reviewed last year’s EFB motion and action:

Motion 13-03-01: The E-FB to go forward with the Chicxulub (aim for end of 2014) and the Atlantis Massif

(2015), provided that the budget objectives are met. The E-FB requests a rapid feedback response from

proponents, if the foreseen scenarios are suitable for them.

G. Dickens moved, M. Torres (C. Escutia as alternate) seconded, all approved.

ACTION E-FB #1: the E-FB to request a rapid feedback response from the Chicxulub (aim for end of 2014)

and the Atlantis Massif (2015) proponents, if the foreseen scenarios are suitable for them.

86

G. Dickens asked if the transit is included in the 100 days of expedition. D. McIntoy

confirmed that that is the case. G. Dickens recommended that when there are 100-110 day

expeditions, each should be divided into two expeditions.

D. McInroy said that if that is done then the two expeditions should be done back to back.

D. Smith agreed that this is a good point. K. Gohl said that it should be considered if this

would increase the costs.

The cost estimate would remain between US$15 and $25M, thus a high cost project. The

site remains a center of attention as there is still a strong scientific debate about the

site’s history, recently expressed in a Nature magazine publication.

5.1.2 - Drilling operations and costs (D. McInroy)

D. McInroy showed a map of the Global Distribution of the MSP proposals.

D. McInroy discussed Chicxulub’s main operation characteristics and cost estimates.

The water depth is 17 m and the penetration is at 1500 mbsf at 2 holes. The primary

lithologies involve post impact Cenozoic sediments, impact breccia, hydrothermal

minerals or melt and platform carbonates. The platform type(s) are a liftboat or a jack-‐

up. ESO is scoping and the Project Management Team (PMT) is meeting with the co-‐

chiefs. The drilling is technically feasible, with no development needed. An ICDP

proposal for $1.5M USD has been submitted by the Co-‐chiefs.

87

December to May is the preferred drilling window, in order to avoid hurricane season.

The hazard site survey was completed in Spring 2013. The results suggest that there is

no significant point of concern. There may be a difficulty with the permitting procedure,

but it looks optimistic that it will be granted.

Contingency Plan

What can be done is to reduce the Chicx-‐3A drill to 1100m and increase the open holing

of Chicx-‐4A, which would lead to saving about $1.8M USD.

D. Weis asked what would be lost with the reduction of the drill hole. A. Cattaneo said that

the primary objective could be kept, but the secondary objective about the recovery of the

Miocene sedimentary sequence will be lost. D. Weis pointed out that a $1.8M USD saving is

not much.

G. Camoin asked if SEP should review the second scenario to see if the objectives will be

kept. A. Cattaneo said that a second review would be very lengthy. He said that they could

request for a quick review, but the $1.8M USD saving is not a major argument to cut these

objectives. D. Kroon said that he does not think that returning the proposal back to SEP

would help, as the objectives are already clear. He said that the two sites are needed,

because if they fail at one place then the opportunities will be lost.

D. Kroon asked why the estimate gap is so big. D. McInroy said that the day rate for the

vessel is a determining factor in this difference. G. Dickens said that in terms of negotiation

from a tender point of view, the tender should be placed based on the size of the vessel. D.

McInroy said that that is done bases on the equipment and technology needs. The providers

come back with the options. R. Gatliff said that a commitment to both holes should be done.

D. Mallinson agreed that ideally there should be two holes. K. Gohl said that this is a high-

risk operation that can turn out to be very expensive with only one hole drilled due to

budget restrictions. M. Torres said that the objectives might be missed with only one hole.

G. Dickens said that there is always a risk with any expedition.

A. Cattaneo said that all considerations are based on global data sets, boreholes, sediment

holes, but there is no conclusive consideration in the ICDP record. There is no biological or

geochemical proxy that could prove that that borehole will be OK.

D. Weis asked if a 3D correlation is possible with the two holes.

U. Harms asked such discussions should be brought before the ICDP Panel. The group

agreed.

F. Lamy mentioned that it is difficult to see where the seismic lines are located.

88

H. Given said that the EPSP meeting is ready to take place in May and the MSP proposals

will be discussed by EPSP.

D. Mallinson said that all of the data is in the databank.

H. Given said that the Support Office works with the Chair of the EPSP on the proposals.

There is a need for information from the EFB on which proponents are to be contacted.

5.2 - 758-Full2 Atlantis Massif Seafloor Proc. (scheduled but needs revision)

G. Früh Green left the room due to her COI as first proponent of the proposal.

5.2.1 - Summary of objectives, SSD and previous EFB decision (D.

Weis)

The proposal addresses the serpentization and life: biogeochemical and tectono-‐

magmatic processes in young mafic and ultramafic seafloor. D. Weis discussed the

science objectives. The proposal is by G. Früh Green and 23 other co-‐proponents.

The Atlantis Massif (30°N, MAR) is near the serpentine-‐hosted Lost City Hydrothermal

Field. The ten drill sites have a maximum 100m deep, using a seabed rock drill system

on a MSP for the first time.

The proposal includes the seabed rock drill of two profiles, where the E-‐W profile is in

serpentinites exposed at different times by detachment faulting and the N-‐S profile

towards gabbroic basement at Site U1309D.

The main goal is to explore the subsurface biosphere and its link to serpentization,

deformation and alteration processes in lithosphere of different age and rock type.

Serpentinization is a Fundamental Process

Seprentinization, or hydration of olivine, occurs in many geological environments,

where there are changes in density, rheology, and magnetic priorities. Serpentinization

provides a long-‐term reservoir of 2H0, C, S, B, and Cl from seawater. It also produces H2

and CH4-‐rich hydrothermal fluids that are important to support a deep, subsurface

biosphere. About 10-‐20% of the seafloor exposed in slow and ultraslow spreading

environments is ultramafic and is affected by serpentinization. Six known hydrothermal

sites along the Mid-‐Atlantic Ridge are hosted in ultramafic rocks. Similar processes may

have been the source of prebiotic organic compounds on early Earth.

89

Serpentinization has been identified as an important research target in the IODP New

Science Plan.

The Lost City is unlike any known submarine vent system, but it is unlikely to be unique.

Nothing is known of the sub-‐subsurface biosphere in this environment. There is no

magma at these depths and the biosphere is hosted in 1-‐1.5 ma old serpentinization

peridotites. The environment is defined by high alkaline fluids, pH 9-‐11, and low

temperatures below 100°C. There are carbonate deposits rather than sulfide minerals,

which is important for C02 sequestration. The environment is enriched in abiotic

hydrogen, methane, formate, and other hydrocarbons, which is important for the

sustaining of microbial communities. This could be the closest analogue to early Earth

and conditions for extraterrestrial life.

The Oceanic Core Complex at the Atlantis Massif provides the opportunity to study the

serpentinization processes and microbial activity that is associated with active fluid

discharge at the Lost City. The study also provides information about the evolution of

the massif as it was progressively denuded to the seafloor and cooled rapidly from

around 1Ma onwards. This includes understanding the longevity of and possible

precursors to the Lost City, seprentinization processes and changes in microbial activity

in the footwall. Finally, the study addresses the early history of the detachment fault

which localized high strain deformation and fluid flow at 300-‐400°C, possibly up to

several km below the seafloor.

D. Weis showed an image of the proposed drill sites.

90

The Objectives of the E-W profile

The objectives are: to constrain the nature and distribution of microbial communities

that are supported by H2 and CH4 rich fluids and determine how these vary with age

and substrates; to investigate the controls on fluid flow and the consequences of

serpentinization for global (bio)geochemical cycles and carbon fixation, as biomass or

solid carbonate; to evaluate the links between denudation and hydrothermal circulation

and to test the hypothesis that detachment faults channel hydrothermal fluids and

ultimately lead to mid-‐ocean ridge vent fields.

Objectives of drilling N-S profile, where basement changes from ultramafic to

gabbroic.

The objective is to investigate the axis-‐parallel variations in lithologies, alteration, and

microbial activity away from the focus of fluid discharge and in approximately 1.16 to

1.31 Ma lithosphere. The profile will allow the evaluation of: the length scale of

lithological and hydrothermal variability and the implications for heat and fluid flow

paths/fluxes and microbial activity; and the rheological role of competent gabbros and

weaker serpentinised ultramafic rocks in localizing deformation.

Advantages of using Seabed Rock Drills

91

The drills are deployed from a conventional R/V; there are high recovery rates,

currently to about 70m; and the developments are ongoing to increase the depth

capability to 200m, to allow downhole measurements, sample for microbiology and

fluids, etc.

Challenges in using seabed Rock Drills: what further planning/technical

developments necessary?

Some of the required technical developments involve devising a microbiological

contamination and sampling schemes; adapting conventional logging tools; designing

low-‐cost fluid sampling and microbial observatory capabilities; and possibly modifying

downhole tools such as the Deep Exploration Biosphere Investigative tool (DEBI-‐t) for

deployment with seabed rock drills.

Reviews

D. Weis emphasized the number of positive reviews about the project. She reminded of

Motion 13-‐03-‐01 from the Edinburgh 2013 EFB meeting, which supported that the

Atlantis Massif be drilled in 2015.

M. Torres said that the proposal is very important and D. Weis emphasized the low cost of

the expedition.


D. McInroy reviewed the 758-Full2 Atlantis Massif Seafloor Processes operations

details and costs.

The water depths reach 750-‐1770 m and the penetration will be at 50-‐100 mbsf for up

to 10 holes. The primary lithologies include lithified pelagic carbonates and basaltic

breccias in a carbonate matrix, and a serpentinized peridotite with zones of talc-‐amph-‐

chl schists.

The platform type is a seafloor drill that will be deployed from a research vessel.

ESO will do the scoping, there will be 2 PMT meetings, and an ECORD Technical Panel.

The sea-‐bed drills do not currently provide all IODP minimum downhole measurements.

Further downhole tool development is needed to meet the minimum objectives of the

proposal. Some developments were identified at the ECORD Technical Panel.

Other factors

ESO has submitted an application for ship time on the R/V James Cook, October-‐

92

November 2015.

Also, there is a possibility of using the RV Maria S. Merian. The decision for the ship will

be made in April 2014.

D. McInroy commented that the tools will be ready in time for the next year when the

expedition is planned to take place.

G. Dickens asked about the rational for including both drills. D. McInroy said that the

technologies are fairly new and not entirely reliable but getting better, so if one fails it is

important to have another sea-bed drill as a back-up. Additional drill costs are about

US$800k.

D. Smith said that it is not clear if it will be practical to have two drills.

G. Camoin said that if the depth is reduced to be less than 100 meters, some major

objectives may be lost. D. McInroy said that he has discussed this issue with G. Früh Green,

and she has agreed to reduce the depth to a maximum of 50m.

G. Wefer said that the drilling two holes at 70m with the RV Merian has advantages. He

said that it is en excellent ship and can stay 35 days at sea. The expedition will take place

over a 40-day time period.

T. Freudenthal said that 70 m drilling takes 1.5 days so they will have to take into account

the slower drilling rate, thus increasing the drilling to 2.5 days.

The ship is free but there may be associated ship costs.

It is expected that there may about $1.650 M USD in total costs.

It is not sure if rock drills may be used, as the available ship place is also needed in terms of

berths.

K. Gohl said that not only the costs for using one or two seabed drills need to be considered,

but also the costs for the onshore expedition party.

D. Weiss said that there is a need for a microbiology team on board of the ship, so only 6

scientist berths would not be sufficient to meet the objectives.

M. Torres asked if additional operators would be needed. D. Smith said that the James Cook

has the space and the berths.

K. Gohl said that there are a few options, but it needs to be considered how to be done in a

reasonable costly manner. There is a question about the availability of the two ships that

are requested during the time of the expedition. G. Wefer said that there is a need to

confirm if the Marion is available for this time window.

K. Gohl said that ESO should consider the possibility of the RV as a serious option.

93

5.3 - 581-Full2 Late Pleistocene Coralgal Banks (revision)

G. Früh Green was asked to come back to the room.

5.3.1 - Summary of objectives, SSD and previous EFB decision (K.

Gohl)

K. Gohl reviewed the objectives of 581 in the Gulf of Mexico. The proposal goal is to

study the Southern and Baker Banks that are currently drowned coralgal reefs, about 40

to 50 m thick, on the edge of the South Texas shelf 55 km offshore Corpus Christi. They

are interpreted to have grown during the first half of the last sea level transgression on

top of topographic highs occurring along a lowstand siliciclastic paleo-‐coastline at the

Last Glacial Maximum.

Drilling plan

The drilling plan includes a total of 7 drill holes, each 80 to 100 m deep, consisting of an

array of 5 boreholes through Southern Bank and a 2 borehole-‐transect through Baker

Bank and their siliciclastic substratum. The water depth is about 60-‐70 m.

Each borehole will include at least two of the three following sedimentary packages: the

siliciclastic substratum of the reefal edifice; the coralgal sequence itself; and/or the mud

blanket that partially covers the reefal edifices.

In addition, a 2 borehole-‐transect across similar transgressive banks was observed at

the edge of the Mississippi-‐Alabama continental shelf and has been integrated to this

drilling proposal.

K. Gohl reviewed a seismic cross-‐section image, shown next.

94

Summarized objectives

The proposal sheds new light on the enigmatic findings that coralgal edifices flourished

on the edge of the South Texas and Mississippi-‐Alabama shelves during the first part of

last deglaciation, an interval of time when conditions of sea surface temperature and sea

surface salinity were expected to be lower in the Gulf of Mexico, and rates of eustatic

sea-‐level rise much faster than they are today.

The drilled material will improve the resolution of the last deglacial sea-‐level history

from late Glacial to the Younger Dryas, including the interval of the melt-‐water pulse 1A,

from a passive margin environment less influenced by discontinuous tectonic activity as

in the offshore Barbados.

Also, the drilled material will help better understand the sedimentary and biological

processes involved with the origin (initial establishment), growth, and demise of

carbonate reef tracts along the edge of siliciclastic shelves.

The latest Pleistocene transgressive coralgal reefs on the edge of the South Texas Shelf

can be studied as recent analogs for reefal reservoirs buried in siliciclastic shelves.

K. Gohl said that the proposal’s objectives have been evaluated as excellent.

95

Decision and recommendation at EFB meeting in March 2013

The cost estimate was a concern. The proposal was not scheduled, but the proponents

were asked if they can lower penetration depths and still achieve most of their

objectives.

Development since March 2013

The proponents have been in contact with ESO and there have been discussions since

March 2013 on using seabed-‐drilling system from research vessel; penetration depth of

up to 80 m may address almost all objectives.

D. Mallinson said that the site survey is lacking of data from two banks, such as the

Mississippi and Alabama. K. Gohl said that the Mississippi-Alabama site has been

eliminated, but the Southern Bank should be included. The seismic data is currently

available.


D. McInroy said that there are two cost estimates. The proponents would prefer the

shallow penetration, which leads to considering the existing drills. The mobilization and

demobilization costs are disproportionate in comparison to the range of the expedition,

as it is a short expedition.

Drilling operations and costs

The water depths reach at about 60-‐78 m and the penetration will be 70-‐100 mbsf at 7

holes.

The primary lithologies include coralgal limestone, coastal sandstone, shelfal shale, and

a mud blanket.

Possible platform type(s) include a geotechnical ship with coring rig or possibly in the

future a sea bed drill. Currently, ESO is scoping only, and there has been no proponent

meeting or PMT. The proposal is technically feasible, with no development needed.

December to May is the preferred drilling window, in order to avoid hurricane season.

The requested 100 mbsf is beyond the current reach of BGS RD2 and MeBo, but this

could be potentially reachable with the MeBo200.

D. Kroon said that last year there was a discussion about the number of holes. D. McInroy

said that he has not discussed of the number of holes with the proponents.

G. Camoin said that a 40-50 m drill depth is enough to meet these objectives. D. McInroy

said that he has not asked the proponents if they would consider the drill depth.

96

D. Freudenthal said that the drill depth depends on the geology, e.g. depending if there is

sand sediments. If there is limestone, it should not be a problem.

D. Mallinson recommended that he should discuss with the proponent to submit their data

for the Southern Bank.

ACTION: D. Mallinson to communicate to the #581-Full2 proposal proponents that they

should submit their data to the SSDP.

5.4 - 637-Full2+Add6 New England Shelf Hydrogeology (revision)

5.4.1 - Summary of objectives, SSD and previous EFB decision (M.

Torres)

M. Torres summarized the New England 637 objectives. The proposal goals are: to

characterize the distribution of fresh-‐brackish water on the NE shelf-‐ Fate of

groundwater at the land/ocean interface; determine mechanisms and time of

emplacement; and quantify fluid, chemical and nutrient fluxes-‐ -‐ long term global water

and nutrient budgets; unravel relationships between hydrogeochemistry, fluid flow and

microbial activity; and study a potential fresh water resource for coastal populations.

M. Torres explained that the proponents will study the sand aquifers. She reviewed the

hypothesis for the recharge mechanisms.

Different recharge mechanisms were differentiated, using environmental, isotope data

and ages. If a combination of the recharge mechanisms is examined, the hydrological

process models may unravel the distribution and age patterns.

97

Modeling Updates-Addendum 5

The original proposal had 6 primary sites, shown next.

The modeling updates were reviewed.

98

Full suite geochemical, isotopic, and noble gas samples and measure fluid pressure were

used to conduct hydrologic modeling to distinguish between the different flow

mechanisms, salinization mechanisms, and microbial processes.

M. Torres reviewed the high rankings and endorsements of the proposal’s science and

approach. The reviews were very good.

EPSP

The EPSP had recommended that there should be an independent shallow hazard

survey, including the high-‐resolution seismic data, before the final recommendation for

approval. There may be a need for a geotechnical survey, depending on the drilling

vessels.

Other Hazards

The currents and hurricane season from March-‐August must be taken into account.

M. Torres reviewed a table of the drill holes.

99

Next, a table of the expedition estimates was shown. There is a tremendous difference in

time coring using ESO’s estimates.

100

The proponents estimated 40 days and used the JR estimates to make these calculations,

which do not match the potential realistic exploration length.

The EFB #1 consensus was to ask the proponents for reduced cost and to look for

outside funding. It is not know how much of this communication was done. The removal

of hole C is not included in the ESO estimates.

The proponents have confirmed that they are considering in approaching the NSF to

lower the costs. There is also a plan to approach commercial companies that study

freshwater.

N. Exon asked, if the objectives are achieved, whether the results would be widely

applicable around the world. J. Lofie confirmed that fresh water has been found in similar

settings elsewhere. M. Torres said that this process is limited to the mid-latitudes. The

question is how this mechanism would be applicable to the total global inventories.

M. Torres said a potential recommendation would be to pursue logging while drilling.


D. McInroy said that the water depth for this proposal reaches 33-‐79 m. The penetration

is 350-‐650 mbsf, for 2 holes at each of 5 sites. The expedition could take 3-‐5 months.

The primary lithologies include sands, silts and clays.

The platform type(s) would be a large liftboat, jack-‐up or industry-‐style semi-‐

submersible rig. Currently, ESO is in the initial scoping phase. There have been no

proponent or PMT meetings. Logging while drilling is required, as well as casing,

screening, packing and pumping. The New Jersey proponents considered an LWD, but as

it would be too expensive, so then did logging, which could not have compromised the

objectives. S. Davies reminded that there are recovery issues with the sands.

For Hole A, a LWD would be applicable, while for Hole B it will be needed to undertake

coring, microbiology sampling, packing and fluid testing. The proponents assumed that

the coring and LWD advance rates as much higher than ESO’s estimates.

Overall, the proponents plan to study 2 holes at each of 5 sites. The estimate assumes

that the LWD will be done in 5 holes.

This is amongst the most expensive MSPs, but it is possible to have a New Jersey-‐type

expedition at the $15-‐16M USD range. The pumping tests have not been done by ESO

before.

101

D. Kroon said that this is highly expensive and the number of holes needs to be reduced. If

such a substantial reduction of holes is recommended then it should go back to SEP to

consider if the cheaper option would maintain the scientific objectives.

K. Gohl asked about the global relevance, as displayed in K. Becker’s list in terms of the

IODP challenges. This is the only fluid exchange proposal under the “Earth in Motion” IODP

theme. The FB needs to consider the balance of the themes.

K. Becker said that proposal #758 could be another option in this theme.

D. Smith said that if ICDP includes drilling as in-kind contribution this could reduce the

costs. At the same time, the LWD really increases the costs. K. Gohl said that there is a big

list of options to make this proposal feasible.

M. Torres agreed and said that compared to other proposals there is a step-wise learning,

incrementally so even if the result of this expedition is partial recovery, there can be still

valuable information. The sites have a good location, and hold key analysis that could tell

an important story.

5.5 - 716-Full2 Hawaiian Drowned Reefs (revision)

5.5.1 - Summary of objectives, SSD and previous EFB decision (G.

Dickens)

G. Dickens reviewed the science objectives. There are similarities to past MSPs such as

the Tahiti-‐GBR, and the onshore Huon Peninsula. But there are also fundamental

differences: there is a subsiding margin with accommodation space during the sea-‐level

fall and diagenesis.

The proposal goals are to: define nature of sea-‐level change in central Pacific over the

past 500 kyr; determine the critical processes that determine paleoclimate variability in

central Pacific via SST analyses of massive corals and seasonal records; establish

response of coral reef systems to abrupt changes in environment via sea-‐level and

climate studies; and elucidate the subsidence history of Hawaii. The proposal objectives

cover two science themes:

Challenge 2: How do ice-‐sheets and sea level respond to climate change?

Challenge 7: How sensitive are ecosystems to environmental change?

The proposal is also interesting because the subsidence is thought to be reasonably well

constrained.

G. Dickens reviewed the regression intervals of a sea level drop.

102

There were several sites proposed, shown next, some at 200m, which would require the

MeBo200.

103

Changes since the 2013 EFB suggestions

The proponents are considering using the MeBo instead of a geotechnical vessel and are

flexible on the sites. G. Dickens said that this is a good example of when a proposal can

be shaped through strong communication between the proponents and ESO. The

proponents should re-‐visit which sites will be re-‐considered.

G. Dickens said that the site has constant subsidence to be measured relatively to the sea

level, but the goal of the proposal is also to measure the subsidence. If subsidence changes

over time and the team attempts to measure the sea level that changes with depth, this

could be a problem. The subsidence in Hawaii is relatively constant. D. Weis said that this

issue should be discussed. The magma output rate is high, on an exponential curve. Thus

the issues of magma input and subsidence have to be considered.

G. Camoin said that the GBR was on the last rise and the Hawaii is a long-term study, thus

the proposal is more about the climatic changes. G. Dickens commented that the area is not

flushed with meteoric water.

104


The 716-‐Full2 proposed sites are at a water depth of 134-‐1154 m.

The penetration will be between 55-‐180 mbsf. The primary lithologies would include

carbonates and minor volcanics. The platform type(s) would be a geotechnical ship with

coring rig or possible in the future a seabed drill. Currently ESO is scoping and the PMT

is meeting. The proposal is technically feasible, and no development would be needed if

a vessel-‐based rig is used. March-‐April or September-‐October are the recommended

weather windows in order to avoid any weather issues and the whales. D. McInroy

mentioned that the 180 mbsf is beyond the current reach of BGS RD2 and MeBo, but it

can be potentially reachable with the MeBo200.

D. McInroy said that a reduction in penetration will reduce the costs, which are needed for

use of a seafloor drill. If a seafloor drill is used instead of a drillship, it could be easier with

the authorities in Hawaii.

R. Gatliff added that this is a classic case of where the team should wait for MeBO 200.

D. Fredenthal said that there will be a test cruise this year for the MeBo 200 in the North

Sea, but it is not scheduled for anything yet, as it needs to be tested first.

D. Mallinson mentioned that the site survey is in order.

105

G. Dickens asked if the MeBo200 will be tested on hard rock, e.g. consolidated sediments, or

soft testament. T. Freudenthal said that the first test will be in the North Sea on both types

of rock. The drilling procedure was built for hard rock so the challenge is to see how it

would function for soft rock. G. Camoin asked if the MeBo can be tested. R. Gatliff said that

that the same problem is faced by a drillship.

D. McInroy said that an expedition with a vessel would last 32-51 days and with a seabed

drill it will take 84-146 days. What is the difference between the sail and daily rate? D.

McInroy said that sometimes the sail rate is less than the daily days.

G. Dickens said that this expedition will have to be 146 days, hence it will have to be

multiple expeditions. If the first half of the study is not working, then the team could

abandon the rest.

D. McInroy suggested that the number of holes could also be reduced.

K. Gohl said that this could cause problems and a proposal must be designed realistically

from the start. D. Weis added that the weather could be difficult due to the strong winds.

K. Gohl recommended that the EFB should not risk scheduling a proposal with MeBo200

until this system has a good track record of successful expeditions. The MeBo200 needs to

be tested in the next few years. In addition, 140 days is too long and would be impossible as

a single expedition.

M. Torres asked about the difference between the MeBo70 and 200 technologies in

recovering the lithologies. D. Freudenthal explained that the stroke length is increased

with MeBo 200.

5.6 - 813-Full2 East Antarctic Paleoclimate (new)

5.6.1 - Scientific objectives (K. Gohl)

K. Gohl said that the 813-‐Full2 seabed-‐drilling proposal has focused and well-‐outlined

paleoclimate and paleo-‐ice sheet objectives. The goal is to use MeBo shallow drilling in

the transect or offset strategy on the shelf. The proponents are experienced in

Paleoclimate and in drilling in the Antarctic glaciated margins.

The study’s target is the shelf, which was a problem for expedition #318 due to weather,

lack of technology and ice problems. Proposal #813’s goal is to answer several open

questions.

K. Gohl said that there is an ambitious large range of objectives. The goals are:

1) Reconstructing major ice advances over the shelf, and how this relates to records

106

of IRD, sea level and oxygen isotopes; records of Eocene/Oligocene ice advance

(~34 Ma), Oligocene environmental conditions, mid-Miocene climate transition

(~14 Ma), and earliest Pliocene warmth and climate fluctuations (~5 Ma).

2) Climate cooling in the late Eocene in advance of main glacial inception at the

Eocene/Oligocene boundary: what were the paleoenvironmental conditions, was

there cyclicity, and were there precursor glaciations?

3) Antarctica’s climate during the early Eocene climatic optimum, including

cyclicity, hyperthermals, temperatures and vegetation.

4) Early Cretaceous greenhouse conditions (non-‐marine sediments): are they

stable or cyclic, and how do conditions compare to the Eocene greenhouse?

There are two main transects of primary and alternate sites along the existing seismic

lines, a with total of 18 primary and 29 alternate sites up to 80 m penetration, or 353-‐

1407 m WD.

18 primary sites are too many to drill in one expedition, so in terms of core recovery this

is not likely to achieve. The drilling strategy is very good and has good opportunities for

data achievement.

Seismic transect Greenhouse

107

The greenhouse-‐transect site locations covering Paleocene to middle Eocene objectives.

Seismic Ice House transect

The icehouse-‐transect site locations cover the late Eocene to Pliocene objectives.

108

SEP evaluation and external review

The SEP was enthusiastic about this proposal right from the beginning of the evaluation

process. There were four excellent external reviews. The study is seen as relatively low

risk and potentially very high reward.

Only concerns by reviewers and responses from proponents

(1) MeBo system had no track record at recovering glacial sediments.

> This has changed since drilling of Barents Sea shelf sediments in 2013 with 50%

recovery.

(2) MeBo might not be able to attain the proposed 80 m penetration.

> The total 80 m may not have to be drilled necessarily.

(3) Associated logging tools are relatively immature.

> More logging tools may be available at time of expedition.

(4) Proposal was formulated as objectives rather than testable hypotheses.

> The leg is partly exploratory, which may lead to new hypotheses to be tested in the

shore-‐based science.

109

It was mentioned that it would be a risky operation if the JR is used.

T. Freudenthal said that a 25m sequence of gravel layer would affect the drilling with

MeBo.

Regarding the 80m proposed penetration, which is seen as risky, the proponents said

that any record, even less would be very important of results. There will not be a

continuous recovery of different periods anyway.

Regarding issue 4, K. Gohl said that there is no need for a testable hypothesis driven

proposal, as this is a new territory so it could be the source of future testable hypothesis.

G. Dickens said that the ACEX core (Arctic) is highly discontinuous so that demonstrates

that there is no need for continuous records.

There is a theory that there is no glacial sediment in the Eocene, so there may be none at

that level.

5.6.2 - Site survey data (D. Mallinson)

D. Mallinson pointed out the primary mapped sites.

110

There are several sites with major transects. The distance between the transects is

about 300 km. There are about 80 meters of logging.

Drilling approach

The drilling approach would be to use MeBo seafloor drilling and possibly logging with

gamma rays.

D. Mallinson showed images of sites GVAL 1-‐10, GVAL 31-‐37 and GVAL 22-‐29.

111

D. Mallinson reviewed the corresponding diamicton images. For GVAL22-‐25 the

diamicton thickness is not resolved and there is no new data. There is no data west

because of a sea-‐ice cover.

K. Gohl commented that he has received an email from T. Williams stating that they

collected new data (along the eastern greenhouse transect).

D. Mallinson said that the sites are imaged with lower resolution, deep-‐penetration MCS

data (single lines).

The data are sufficient for general siting in the imaged general off-‐lapping sequence, but

are insufficient for placing individual holes ~80 m long in a specific stratigraphic

context. The proponents were asked to upload the following: All MCS data in SEG-‐Y

format; Metadata; Better annotations on maps and seismic images; and Multibeam

source and digital data (NetCDF).

A site survey cruise was recently conducted on the Nathaniel B. Palmer to collect

multibeam, chirp and high-‐resolution MCS. New data should remedy any perceived

imaging inadequacies for as many of the proposed sites as ambient ice conditions will

allow. Typically, seafloor samples and video/photos are required for the Ocean and

Climate Change drilling programs, but these requirements will likely be fulfilled during

initial deployment of the MeBo system.

112

It was emphasized that there is a concern about the thickness of the diamicton. In

addition, some problems may arise with the icehouse transect of the west.

G. Dickens said that it has to be two different proposals, as the ship cannot be brought to

the region for over 100 days. The west transect may have to be a different expedition. D.

Mallinson agreed.

There have been some recent email exchanges from S. Gulick about the new data that

was collected in February: 4 high res MCS seismic lines (~ 70 nm); chirp data and

multibeam data. There is no new data over other primary sites, e.g. lines WEGA01-‐02 or

IPF-‐103.

Site Characterization Completeness and Data Adequacy Classification

As of January 2014, the SCP classified the proposal as a 2B, meaning that substantial

items of the required data are not in the SSDB and are not believed to exist, but a site

survey cruise is scheduled.

Data Adequacy

The data adequacy was classified as “c”, as the data does not image the target

adequately. But, the SCP expects this to improve, for at least the Eocene targets in Mertz

area, to a 1A or B once the recent site survey data are uploaded.

The concern is that the thickness of the diamicton will remain unresolved, and may be

thicker than anticipated, in the western areas, e.g. IFP-‐103.

The SCP has stated that it recognizes that flexibility in the study is key, given the

challenges presented by sea ice and weather in this area.

D. Smith asked about the ice conditions. K. Gohl said that the general distribution of sea ice

can be estimated based on a certain trend, but the wind can change these results, so this

needs to be estimated for more accurate trends, 3-4 weeks maximum before the expedition.

D. Smith said that unless there is completely open water, there is a very limited time

window to work. For example, there is a need to make sure that the umbilical stays free of

ice during the expedition.


The 813-‐Full2 proposal water depth ranges from 353-‐1407 m. The penetration is at 80

mbsf for up to 18 holes. The platform type is a seafloor drill that will be deployed from

an icebreaking research vessel. Currently, ESO is in the initial scoping phase. The

113

expedition is too long for single visit. Considering that there is a 11-‐day transit, the team

will have 46 days of coring. The question remains if one transect is to be done.

K. Gohl said that there cannot be two subsequent expeditions in the same season, because

there is an optimum ice window of only 6-8 weeks.

D. Kroon said that SEP liked this proposal, as it is very unique strategy and the way the

sequence is characterized in the area.

The costs are not that high and this has a very high potential of good science.

M. Torres asked whether the scoping is for 1/3 of the site, and if all of the objectives will be

addressed with this reduction.

D. McInroy said that the available estimate is for one transect of 46 days. K. Gohl said that

with one transect would concentrate on certain objectives.

D. Kroon added that it is not necessary for the proposal to go back to SEP, should the

proposal be cut in half.

M. Torres recommended that this should be further discussed with the proponents.

R. Gatliff said that two expeditions in the same season could happen if two research vessels

will be available.

G. Wefer asked how the drilling time was estimated. D. McInroy said that it is assumed that

about 20m will be drilled per day. G. Wefer said that this is optimistic and the pessimistic

scenario is about 8 days per hole. As there are 18 holes, if all are OK to be drilled, then the

total drilling time could be 54 days. The penetration total for 1440m, where on average

20m is drilled per day, would result in a realistic estimate of 72 days of drilling. The transit

time is separate and logging time is separate from this estimation.

K. Gohl said that ESO is the operator for ECORD until 2016. The BGS and MARUM are part

of ESO and it is expected that both organizations should talk to each other and provide

estimates together. In the future these numbers need to be reliable for EFB to base its

decisions on.

A. Cattaneo said that in the case there are 2 visits, it should be considered if one will be

prioritized over the other.

G. Dickens that this would go back to the proponents for one more round, to expand on the

MeBO discussion and the cost rates. Next year there will probably be two proposals under

one umbrella.

K. Gohl reminded that if the objectives are compromised the proposal should go back to

SEP.

114

As this is an ice-covered area that poses a risk to the shallow drilling device, there is a need

to be flexible when selecting the sites. The sites may have to be moved to different locations

along the seismic line and different successions may have to be analyzed. Hence, the sites

should not be concentrated on.

D. Strack said that there should be no concern for shifting the sites in a shallow drilling.

D. Kroon said that SEP was not aware of the drilling time. This is important for the

consideration if it is feasible. This drilling has an exploratory nature and was liked by SEP.

If the team can do one transect, then most of the sites may be done along the transects. D.

Kroon recommended that the proponents should be consulted on this issue.

5.7 – 708-Full Central Arctic Paleoceanography (new)

5.7.1 - Scientific objectives (D. Weis)

D. Weis reviewed the key scientific objectives.

The proposal’s goal is to: obtain a complete characterization of the Cenozoic transition

from Greenhouse to Icehouse in the Arctic; uncover the history of Arctic Bottom and

Surface-‐Water Circulation and the history of Arctic (Lena) River Discharge; obtain High-‐

Resolution Characterization of the Pliocene Warm Period in the Arctic; and solve the

“Hiatus Problem“.

The study looks into a period of 65Ma.

115

The proponents want to investigate the decrease in temperature period. In 2004, ACEX

was the first cruise on these topics. There was a major hiatus in the study after this.

There were two key drilling points that were missed. The 708-‐Full is a very exploratory

leg, as ACEX was the only drilling expedition that was done there.

D. Weis showed a diagram of the ice sheets distribution and sea ice during the past

glacials. The map also showed the average distribution of the sea-‐ice in the Arctic Ocean

in September 1979-‐2004 and March 1979-‐2005.

116

She said that there is no explanation for the 18.2M and 40.4M years period. The question

is to model what will happen in the future in terms of ice coverage.

Some data was shown from the ACEX, where seawater temperatures were modeled,

showing a major drop in temperature for the period of 40.4 to 48.6Ma.

117

One of the key questions is: what drives the variations and how it corresponds to

climate change?

D. Weis showed the list of objectives in the proposal.

The question is whether or not this hiatus exists everywhere.

The Pleistoscene topic was discussed in a recent Nature publication.

118

A curve shows evolution of the sea ice in the Arctic since 1979.

119

Proponent Comments

Proposed Sites

Reviews/comments

The full proposal is recent and D. Weis reviewed the original comments, showing high

enthusiastic support for the study.

SEP enthusiastically welcomed this proposal to build on and complete ACEX 1

120

Expedition 302. The 708 is regarded to hold high priority scientific objectives that are

relevant to the IODP Initial Science Plan themes on Environmental Change, Processes

and Effects, or extreme Climates and Rapid Climate Change initiatives). The two

proposed themes are:

1) Cenozoic Paleoceanography (long stratigraphic gap of ACEX 1) and the

2) Neogene/Quaternary high-‐resolution records, which was skipped by ACEX 1, hence

the goal is too provide a complete picture of the Paleogene and Neogene.

The goal is to drill three APC/XCB(/RCB) holes at each site to recover multiple sections

of the sediment sequence to ensure complete recovery for construction of a composite

section is appropriate.

Following the SEP reviews in 2006, 2007, which required an additional site surveys, in

2009, and a global review 2010 and 2011. The full proposal was reviewed in January

2014.

SEP Comments

1. Are the scientific questions/hypotheses being addressed exciting and of sufficiently

wide interest to justify the requested resources?

SEP’s consensus view is that the scientific value of recovering a continuous (or nearly

continuous) stratigraphic record of Cenozoic paleoceanographic change in the Arctic

Ocean is of utmost importance to the broader paleoceanography community. The results

of ACEX1, notwithstanding the 44-‐18 Ma hiatus/condensed-‐section issue, yielded

groundbreaking new science. We think that ACEX2 has similar potential.

2. Will the proposal significantly advance one or more goals of the Science Plan?

SEP decided that the proposal learly meet Challenges 1 and 2 of the Climate and Ocean

theme of the IODP Science Plan 2013-‐2023, and have the potential to provide valuable

paleoceanographic/paleoclimate data. Additionally, the importance of recovering

records from polar regions is clearly met.

3. Would the proposal engage new communities or other science programs into the

drilling program?

The proponents would potentially engage with the ice sheet modeling community.

121

4. To what degree does the integrated experimental design of site characterization,

drilling, sampling, measurements, and downhole experiments constitute a compelling

and feasible scientific proposal?

Overall, the panel deems that the drilling/coring plan as laid out in the proposal, which

includes ice-‐breaker support, is robust.

Some Highlighted Issues

The scientific risk of the encountering the same hiatus/condensed-‐section should be

acknowledged. The proponents do address this by showing some additional seismic

stratigraphic illustrations that help to constrain age. However, the panel thought a

comparison of the key interval of interest shown on the seismic profile, between orange

and pink and labeled as ‘Eocene/Oligocene’ with the seismic from ACEX1 would have

been very helpful. Overall, the proposal was evaluated as a scientific risk worth taking.

In addition, the poor core recovery of ACEX1 was mentioned, but how the proposed plan

will improve the core recovery at ACEX2 was not clear in the drilling/coring plan.

Finally, it needs to be known to what extent might the Eurasian ice sheet influences the

ice-‐sheet discharge signal, instead of solely an East Siberian origin. It was recommended

by SEP that the proponents research this possibility and to what extent provenance

analysis could help resolve this.

D. Weis commented that the proponents have provided some additional data on this

question.

A transect of sediment cores was recovered across the southern Lomonosov Ridget

during the Polarstern Expedition ARK-‐XI/1.

The 708 Sites

122

The proponents picked one site that is possibly related to the Eocene.

In conclusion, this is a very exploratory scientific challenge and thus it needs to be

supported.

G. Dickens asked how diagenesis was addressed. D. Weis said that there was no mention on

this topic. G. Dickens said that in ACEX unit 3, there were some major Nature publications

about the organic biomarkers and diatoms at 300 m.

M. Torres asked about the temperature gradients. D. Weis said that the proposal is more

superficial, with less hypothesis discussed. G. Dickens said that the ACEX problem was that

was designed as a piston core. So they may have to do rotary drilling if they go at greater

depths beyond 300m. It will not be APC coring.

D. Smith said that the scoping was different for ACEX, as they needed technology for

greater depths. To go at 1400m is different from going 300m. There is a possibility that this

would involve another technological update to drill beyond the current possibilities.

G. Früh Green, asked why the proponents want to have a study at such a depth. D. Weis said

that the goal is to get a complete section of the Cretaceous.

G. Dickens said that the temperature gradient on ACEX is unknown, because the borehole

temperature tools did not work. There is something special about the 300m-beyond point.

D. Kroon explained that SEP was focused on the hiatus sequence and whether it can be

acquired elsewhere. The depth is not the most important part of the proposal. The main

objective is to see when the sea ice started.

5.7.2 - Site survey data (D. Mallinson)

Requested Site Survey Data

D. Mallinson said that some data is still missing from the SSDB: the 1991 ~ 2009 – Deep

seismic reflection profiles at the Lomonosov Ridge (icebreaker-‐based expedition); 1999

SCICEX – chirp, swath bathymetry, sidescan sonar data (USN nuclear submarine); 1995,

1998 – Parasound data; gravity core data in the area of the proposed ACEX2 sites (in

proposal); MCS processing details (included in PRL); and Velocity data in table form

(included in PRL).

In the SSDB

The databank has maps, navigation and PDFs for MCS lines AWI 98550, 98565, 98567,

98597. There is also available the SEG-‐Y data for each site, but not for all lines. A

Polarstern cruise is scheduled for this summer and this will add to database.

123

The proponent response letter addressed all points from SEP.

As of the January 2014 SEP meeting

D. Mallinson reviewed the SEP comments about the sites.

An important objective is the lines. He outlined where the missing section could occur,

showing on a map. The age control is not very reliable as it is wholly based on the ACEX

and Chuckchi expeditions.

The SEP was concerned about the LR1 and LR2.

124

The SEP warned that the proponents should be aware that the location of LR-‐01A and

LR-‐02A may not allow for full recovery of Paleogene sediments due to the onlapping

characteristic of reflectors in the more basinal area, see termination of units MB3a and

onlap of MB3b and lower MB4 in Figure 1 of the PRL appendix. Repositioning of these

sites was suggested by a reviewer, and may be desired upon analysis of new data from

the Polarstern cruise, summer of 2014. The proponents acknowledge this in their PRL.

One of the important objectives is to recover the late Eocene to mid-‐Miocene section

that was missing at ACEX1.

Comments and Recommendations

D. Mallinson mentioned that the proponents have to upload the finished data. High

quality MCS data and navigation files for each site are in the SSDB. But the SEP does not

have all of the data. It’s very important to have these in the event that the proposed sites

are undrillable and new sites need to be quickly found.

125

The velocity model of LR-‐16A needs to be changed because the suggested velocities are

uniform (2.2 km/s) throughout target depth. The average thickness, age and

sedimentation rate of each layer are similar to other sites. This was addressed in the

PRL, a typographical error.

The proponents have to revise the proposed penetration depth of the LR-‐16A based on

the corrected velocity model.

Addressed in the PRL

Some concerns exist regarding the onlap and pinch-‐out of reflections in the Paleogene

section at sites LR-‐01A and LR-‐02A, which limits the recovery of a complete section.

The proponents may select a different site based on the resulting Polarstern data.

Furthermore, the proponents need to finish uploading requested existing data,

additional seismic data, velocity data, and bathymetry, along with the new data from the

Polarstern cruise.


The 708-‐Full goal is to work at water depths ranging from 1334-‐1752 m and a

penetration of 1225-‐1850 mbsf at 3 holes.

The platform type(s) will be an ACEX-‐style fleet, with large icebreaking drill ship and a

150T rig. ESO is in the initial scoping phase and is drawing on the ACEX experience.

There have been new proposal calls for three deep holes in deep water, hence the need

for a 2.6-‐3.6 km of drill string. A casing will be required with extra space and time

needed, as well as a special vessel and a stronger rig in order to handle the 2.6-‐3.6 km of

pipe.

D. McInroy said that there is a big different between the previous and current ACEX

proposals, in terms of the water depth penetration. Some cost savings could occur by

reducing the number of drill holes. This cost assumes that ECORD will pay for

everything.

Access to the Arctic

D. McInroy showed a map of the ACEX sites since 2000. The sites seem more accessible

on the ice edge as of 2013. The ice-‐breaker would still have to be applied heavily,

however.

126

If there is an ice-‐breaker in-‐kind contribution, ESO would expect to save over $6M USD.

G. Früh Green asked if the proponents went to shallower depths, whether they have can

access with a rig. D. McInroy said that it is possible to research with a special rig. This has

not been discussed with the proponents yet.

The ACEX 1 cost $13M USD, where $0.9M USD was an in-‐kind contribution from Sweden.

This proposal will take more than twice as long compared to the ACEX.

The longest a ship has stayed on station is about 9 days on average. Staying longer

would be a risk and the ice situation is difficult to predict in advance.

6. MSP operation schedule for FY 2014, FY 2015 and FY 2016 (K. Gohl / All)

K. Gohl presented a strategic plan for scheduling MSP expeditions for the first 5 years of

the new IODP phase. This strategy was developed by the EFB Science Board as a

suggestion to be discussed in the general meeting.

He said that due to budgetary constraints until 2018, ECORD will be able to afford only

one high-‐cost expedition in the first 5 years. The EFB should try to schedule one Arctic

proposal, but not necessarily the #708. There is no guarantee that this is the only Arctic

proposal that can be drilled; other Arctic proposals are being prepared and may have to

be considered as well.

K. Gohl reviewed a list of the 7 proposals that have been considered at this EFB:

He said that it is convincing to schedule the 758 Atlantis Massif, and it could be

considered a flagship for 2015.

One Arctic proposal, either proposal 708 or another expected Arctic proposal, may be

scheduled for 2018, or in 2017 if the budget allows. For instance, if Russia becomes an

ECORD member, this could speed up the scheduling for 2017. In-‐kind contributions will

also be considered.

For 548 Chicxulub, there is high risk and high expense, which is why it should not be

scheduled during the first 5-‐year IODP period, or until there is a new window for a high

cost expedition.

The 581 for the moment will not be taken into consideration.

The 637 is very expensive, so it has not been taken into consideration.

127

The 716 may be scheduled in 2016 or 2017: it is a low cost operation provided the

MeBo200 will be available.

Low cost expeditions should be considered for FY16 and FY17.

All of the proponents will be sent letters.

D. Weis suggested that the proponents should reserve the MeBo for 2016.

T. Freudenthal said that the MeBo70 will be booked until the end of 2015. There are 6

outside IODP expeditions approved, but still not scheduled. MeBo is in high demand in the

system. Regarding MeBo200, it is not known yet when the first expedition will be scheduled

as it has risks and will be tested at a workshop.

D. Smith said that for BGS there are 3 projects for RockDrill-II including the Atlantis Massif

for 2015, so the services are on a first-come first-serve basis.

D. Ryabchuk asked about the possibility to contribute and provide in-kind contributions in

the near future. She said that the Arctic is very interesting for Russian scientists, but the

current membership considerations are not for a high contribution level. M. Torres asked if

it would matter for Russia if an Arctic expedition is scheduled for 2017 instead of 2018. D.

Ryabchuk said that it could make a difference.

G. Camoin said that with respect to the science plan, there are strong proposals on these

important topics, so if ECORD could implement 4 expeditions until 2018, this could help the

funding agencies with the decision to continue with the program: 716; 758; 708; and 813.

R. Gatliff asked if there will be any budget left over if all 4 expeditions take place. Savings

will be needed if an Arctic expedition takes place.

D. Kroon asked why the 581 is not considered. G. Dickens said that ECORD does not have a

large budget. If the Atlantic Massif is scheduled and an Arctic cruise is scheduled, that costs

about $18-24M USD, then ECORD can consider a maximum of two other small expeditions.

D. McInroy said that the Coralgal Banks is a candidate for a short expedition. Perhaps the

581 and the ACEX could be scheduled in 2018. It is possible in terms of cost estimates.

What happens to the proposals that are not scheduled in the first half of the program? The

EFB discussed that such proposals are to be considered along with other similar proposals

in the second half of the program.

G. Früh Green suggested that when considering to schedule the MeBo twice in a year for

128

two expedition, the reservation should be made ahead of time.

The EFB will send letters to all proponents explaining the above procedure.

Motion 14-01-01: The EFB recommends to the Council to schedule proposal #758 Atlantis

Massif in 2015, provided that the budget constraints are met.

K. Gohl moved, G. Dickens seconded. All approved. G. Früh Green abstained.

Motion 14-02-01: The EFB recommends to schedule a low cost expedition in 2016, e.g. a

seabed drilling expedition, provided that the budget constraints are met.

K. Gohl moved, D. Weis seconded. All approved.

Motion 14-03-01: The EFB recommends the attempt to schedule a low cost expedition in

2017, e.g. a seabed drilling expedition, provided that the budget constraints are met.


Motion 14-04-01: The EFB recommends the scheduling of an Arctic expedition in 2018, or

in 2017 if the funds are available.


Motion 14-05-01: The EFB recommends to hold a virtual discussion by May 31th, 2014 to

further consider which proposal to schedule in 2016, with the purpose of scheduling the

seabed drilling equipment, subject to exchanges between ESO and the proponents.

G. Dickens moved, M. Torres seconded. All approved.

Consensus 14-09-01: The EFB recommends that proposals not scheduled for the first five

years of the IODP program are to be kept with the EFB and considered along with new

proposals forwarded by the SEP for potential scheduling after the first five years of the

program.

The EFB discussed that there is no need for another EFB meeting to take place to have a

general decision in the next few months about which one of the proposals should go

forward. The EFB should not wait until next year to make the decision.

129

Consensus 14-10-01: The EFB endorses the joint calls for co-funded ICDP-IODP proposals.

7. Review of Consensus, Motions and Actions (K. Gohl, M. Borissova / All)

The EFB reviewed the list of actions, consensus, and motions.

8. Next EFB meeting (K. Gohl)

The next EFB will be held in Aix-‐en-‐Provence, France. It was suggested to shift the

meeting 2-‐3 weeks after early March, but not to conflict with the JR-‐FB and CIB

meetings.

Consensus 14-05-01: The EFB decides to hold the next EFB meeting on March 25-26, 2015

in Aix-en-Provence, France.

S. Humphris said that meeting dates should be OK for the JR-FB. N. Eguchi also confirmed

that the next CIB meeting should be OK with this scheduling.

9. Any other business (K. Gohl)

S. Humphris provided some news as Chair of the Board of Governors of IODP-‐MI. After

the restructuring of the new program, a decision had to be made regarding IODP-‐MI’s

role in the new IODP. At the end of last year, the Board of Governors decided that IODP-‐

MI should be dissolved. The member universities and institutions are in the process of

voting that dissolution. On March 14th, 2014 a proxy ballots decision will take place

regarding the question if IODP-‐MI will be dissolved.

K. Gohl thanked all the participants. Consensus 14-11-01: The EFB thanks MARUM for hosting the meeting.

Meeting closed at 16:12 hrs.

IODP Forum Meeting #1 27-28 May 2014, Busan, Korea

List of Consensus Statements and Action Items

Agenda Item B: Forum Terms of Reference

Forum Consensus 2014-1: The IODP Forum approves updates to its Terms of Reference to reflect evolution in IODP structure since 2012, a simplified description of its participants, and that it will choose its future chair.

Agenda Items C/M: Progress Toward Addressing Science Plan

Forum Consensus 2014-2: The initial Forum review of scheduled expeditions and current proposal pressure shows mostly good coverage across the themes and challenges of the Science Plan. Weaknesses in proposal pressure were noted for the Arctic, dedicated biosphere programs, the submarine landslide aspect of Challenge #12 in the Earth in Motion theme, and Challenge #4 in the Climate and Ocean Change theme relating to ocean response to chemical perturbation. The Forum chair should continue monitoring progress and proposal pressure at Facility Board and SEP meetings during the next year, and work with the SEP to stimulate proposal development in under-represented challenges. This will be in preparation for a more extensive review at the 2015 Forum meeting that will also include initial results of IODP drilling since the beginning of the new Program.

Action Item: Full reports about any efforts to stimulate proposal pressure in under-represented challenges should be included in agenda materials for the next Forum meeting, for any proposal stimulation mechanism that might be utilized, e.g., working groups, workshops, etc.

Agenda Item E/N: Mid-Term Renewal

Forum Consensus 2014-3: The IODP Forum recognizes the importance of 2015 IODP renewal effort in the ANZIC consortium, and will support those renewal efforts in any way possible.

Agenda Item H: Effectiveness of IODP web site

Forum Consensus 2014-4: The Forum appreciates the effectiveness of the IODP web site, and applauds the Science Support Office for transitioning the site so successfully from IODP-MI.

Agenda Item I: Collaboration with ICDP

Forum Consensus 2014-5: The IODP Forum recommends that the calls for proposals by IODP and ICDP encourage projects that include both offshore and onshore boreholes to achieve common scientific goals of the two programs. The Forum recommends that a joint IODP/ICDP group be formed that would clarify procedures for coordinated reviews of joint proposals. Also, the group should discuss ways to encourage submission of proposals that combine IODP and ICDP capabilities.

Forum Consensus 2014-6: The Forum endorses the concept for a joint IODP-ICDP Town Hall at the Fall 2014 AGU Meeting.

Action Item: Both of these consensus items will be presented at the June 2014 ICDP Executive Committee (EC). If the EC also endorses them, then: (a) the IODP Forum chair will work with the ICDP SAG and EC chairs to set up the joint working group, and (b) J. Schuffert will work with T. Wiersberg of ICDP and other appropriate individuals to organize the joint town hall.

Agenda Item K: Overarching Public Relations and Educational Activities

Action Item: Review of education and outreach activities across IODP will be a special focus of the second meeting of the Forum.

Agenda Item P: Selection of Next Chair Action Item: Forum to name panel of experts to select its next chair in time for July 2015 meeting. Action Item: T. Janecek to contact H. Given as to whether Science Support Office could coordinate call for nominations for next Forum chair and collection of nomination packages to be forwarded to panel of experts. Agenda Item Q: Future Meetings Action Item: The second Forum meeting to be a three-day meeting July 8-10 hosted by Neville Exon at ANU in Canberra. Action Item: The Forum chair to develop an initial draft agenda for the July 2015 Forum meeting for distribution to potential participants no later than the end of 2014. Action Item: Partner countries interested in hosting the 2016 Forum meeting should bring their expressions of interest to the 2015 meeting, where the 2016 venue and dates will be selected with input from the next Forum chair. Agenda Item R: Final Consensus Items Forum Consensus 2014-7: The IODP Forum recognizes the efforts of the President and staff of IODP-MI that resulted in the successful closeout of the corporation at the end of March, 2014. The IODP Forum especially welcomes establishment of the new Asahiko Taira International Scientific Ocean Drilling Prize, to be administered by AGU, for young researchers based on the legacy of IODP-MI. Forum Consensus 2014-8: The IODP Forum thanks Drs. Moon Son, Jae-Ho Oh, and Jin-Seep Kim, as well as our Tourist Guide Bonita Sim, for organizing a wonderful field trip on the day before the Forum meeting. Blessed by good weather, we marveled at the many geological features of the Busan National Geopark, the Gamcheon Culture Village, and an especially fulfilling multi-course Korean lunch. Forum Consensus 2014-9: The IODP Forum thanks our gracious hosts from KIGAM and K-IODP for outstanding organization of a memorable inaugural Forum meeting. The venue in Busan was excellent, the field trip was very stimulating, and our Korean-style meeting dinner was superb. Our sincere thanks go to Drs. Gil Young Kim, Se Won Chang, Young Joo Lee, Jae-ho Oh, Senay Horozal, and graduate students Yongmi Kim and Buyanbat Narantsetseg.

IODP Forum Meeting #1 27-28 May 2014, Busan, Korea

Draft Minutes v3 18 June

Note: Throughout these minutes, “IODP” is used specifically as the acronym for the new International Ocean Discovery Program. When referring to the 2003-2013 Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, the shorthand “old IODP” is used. There is one exception to this convention: a few references to the central management organization for the “old IODP,” i.e., IODP-MI standing for Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management International.

Introductory Agenda Items

After the Chair called the meeting to order, host Dr. Gil Young Kim described meeting logistics including plans for the meeting Korean-style dinner evening of May 27. Meeting participants introduced themselves and an updated roster is included as appendix 1.

The Chair then summarized the agenda, which included three main focus items:

1) A detailed review of the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the IODP Forum, both to update its wording and to lay the groundwork for actually fulfilling the Forum mandate.

2) An initial assessment of early IODP progress towards addressing the themes and challenges of the new Science Plan, based primarily on the portfolio of IODP programs already scheduled and proposal pressure at facility boards (FB’s) and the Science Evaluation Panel (SEP).

3) A review of mid-term renewal efforts that will be required in most IODP countries, with an aim to establishing how, what, and when the Forum could contribute to those efforts.

Becker then briefly reviewed procedures he would use in chairing the meeting, including a few important basic principles from Robert’s Rules of Order, even though the ToR does not state that Robert’s Rules should be used. He noted that the ToR stated that Forum decisions are to be reached by consensus, described what is meant by consensus and how potential consensus statements would be presented and verified, and confirmed that every meeting participant would count in terms of reaching consensus.

Agenda Item B: Forum Terms of Reference

The review of the ToR spanned both days of the meeting and revealed several aspects that needed to be updated plus some minor grammatical matters. Most important were: (1) the recent combination of Site Characterization Panel and Proposal Evaluation Panel to form the SEP, (2) addition of FB chairs to the participant list, (3) simplifying the description of participants to eliminate any distinction between “members” and other attendees, and (4) updating the procedure for naming the next chair for 2015-2017. The third item was resolved by using the wording “participant” instead of “member.” Discussion of the fourth item is summarized below under Agenda Item P: Selection of Next Chair. By the end of the second day, the Forum had agreed on new wording for its ToR that is included as Appendix 2:

Forum Consensus 2014-1: The IODP Forum approves updates to its Terms of Reference to reflect evolution in IODP structure since 2012, a simplified description of its participants, and that it will choose its future chair.

Agenda Items C/M: Progress Toward Addressing Science Plan (also incorporates discussion under Agenda Item I/Mandate #5 Workshops)

Probably the most important aspect of the general purpose and mandate of the IODP Forum is to assess program-wide IODP progress towards addressing the themes and challenges of the new Science Plan. Accordingly, the agenda was designed to allow thorough discussion of this item on both days of the meeting. On the first day the subject was introduced by the chair with his own initial assessment of the distribution of scheduled IODP expeditions and full proposal pressure currently at SEP. This was followed by a presentation by SEP co-chair D. Kroon of the full and pre-proposal pool at SEP for its coming June meeting. Then three updates on scheduling and operations for Mission Specific Platforms (MSP), Chikyu, and JOIDES Resolution (JR) were presented by the respective FB chairs: K. Gohl for ECORD FB (EFB), G. Kimura for Chikyu IODP Board (CIB), and S. Humphris for the JR FB (JRFB).

An extensive discussion ensued over two days. The Forum chair’s initial assessment indicated reasonably good coverage of the SP themes and challenges, especially for so early in the program. In particular, he noted that there was relatively good coverage for the four challenges identified at a 2012 US workshop as the top-priority US challenges for JR IODP operations within the four main SP themes. He also noted that the JR schedule in the Indian Ocean promised the equivalent of a virtual monsoon “mission” to fulfill SP challenge #3 (regional control of precipitation patterns). On the other hand, some specific weaknesses in coverage of the science plan were noted by the SEP co-chair and FB chairs, as follows:

• SEP co-chair D. Kroon noted a very strong preponderance of recent proposal pressure in the Climate and Ocean Change theme, to the point that (a) proposal submission in the other themes might need to be stimulated and (b) a shift in distribution of scientific expertise among SEP members might be required. He also noted that SEP might need to increase the proportion of members with site survey data expertise in addition to their scientific expertise. As membership of the SEP is formally under authority of the JRFB, the Forum did not register a formal consensus, but the sense of discussion was that Forum participants thought it would be acceptable to make appropriate adjustments to the expertise balance of SEP membership.

• Kroon and EFB Chair K. Gohl both noted a relative lack of recent Arctic proposal submissions, especially in light of the March EFB consensus to schedule an (expensive) Arctic expedition in the first five years of IODP.

• Kroon and JRFB chair S. Humphris both noted a lack of dedicated biosphere proposals, although there are biosphere components in many current proposals and planned expeditions.

• Kroon and others also noted the relative lack of dedicated proposal pressure in (a) Challenge #4 of the Climate and Ocean Change theme relating to ocean response to chemical perturbation and (b) the submarine landslide aspect of the geohazards Challenge #12 in the Earth in Motion theme.

SEP co-chair Kroon raised a few other points in the discussion. He noted that the most recent proposal submissions were dominated by JR proposals and wondered if there might now be too many JR proposals and too few MSP and Chikyu proposals. The three FB chairs did not

see this as an immediate issue, but it could be discussed further at the respective FB meetings. Kroon also noted that a few proposals that date back to previous programs don’t fit well into current challenges, and the sense of the discussion was that they should be evaluated on their scientific merits. Finally, he also wondered about dealing with proposals that are clearly not going to be drilled, but this should probably be considered by the three FB’s because they might have different criteria depending on platform.

The Forum mandate includes the right to recommend workshops (even though the Forum itself controls no workshop funding). Thus, discussion included consideration of whether the Forum should recommend workshops to stimulate activity in any of these under-represented topics. It was noted that there are already scheduled or proposed workshops relating to biosphere drilling and a particular landslide proposal, and the Arctic community might need another proposal submission deadline to respond to the March 2014 EFB consensus about scheduling an Arctic program. It was also noted that (a) the assessment at this inaugural Forum meeting might not be complete enough to warrant recommending specific workshops yet, and (b) before the next Forum meeting there would be two more proposal submission deadlines and three more SEP meetings in which some of the imbalances might be addressed.

In addition, discussion about the mid-term renewal efforts required in most IODP countries (next section of minutes) indicated there would not be a requirement to address every one of the Science Plan challenges in the first five years of IODP. In the end, the sense of the Forum was not to immediately recommend specific workshops. Instead, it was to conduct a more thorough review of proposal pressure and IODP progress on the Science Plan at the 2015 Forum meeting when there will also be available some initial results of IODP expeditions. This was reflected in the following consensus/action plan:

Forum Consensus 2014-2: The initial Forum review of scheduled expeditions and current proposal pressure shows mostly good coverage across the themes and challenges of the Science Plan. Weaknesses in proposal pressure were noted for the Arctic, dedicated biosphere programs, the submarine landslide aspect of Challenge #12 in the Earth in Motion theme, and Challenge #4 in the Climate and Ocean Change theme relating to ocean response to chemical perturbation. The Forum chair should continue monitoring progress and proposal pressure at Facility Board and SEP meetings during the next year, and work with the SEP to stimulate proposal development in under-represented challenges. This will be in preparation for a more extensive review at the 2015 Forum meeting that will also include initial results of IODP drilling since the beginning of the new Program.

Action Item: Full reports about any efforts to stimulate proposal pressure in under-represented challenges should be included in agenda materials for the next Forum meeting, for any proposal stimulation mechanism that might be utilized, e.g., working groups, workshops, etc.

Agenda Item E/N: Mid-Term Renewal

Given that mid-term renewal efforts seem likely in most IODP countries, it is important for the Forum to understand the timelines and any special considerations for these efforts. The Forum chair asked representatives of IODP agencies to briefly describe the timelines, requirements, and evaluation criteria for their mid-term renewal efforts. Below is a summary of responses, in the order that they were presented during the meeting. Common themes

seemed to be (a) that the renewal criteria would involve a mix of cost-effective operations and good science outcomes, and (b) that will not be considered necessary to have addressed each and every challenge in the first five years of IODP.

US/NSF (T. Janecek): The current USF funding commitment is for five years (FY14-18) as recommended by the National Science Board (NSB). Renewal for an additional five years will also require evaluation and approval by the NSB. NSF envisions an external review of JOIDES Resolution science outcomes and operations during years 3-4 of the current five-year funding commitment. Criteria for evaluation will probably include:

• good science outcomes, but no expectation of addressing all the challenges of the Science Plan;

• cost-effectiveness of operations (i.e., new JR “business model” in IODP); • stability of international funding partnerships; and • the record of obtaining additional outside funding in support of JR operations, by the

Complementary Project Proposal (CPP) mechanism and/or non-IODP work.

The outcome of this review would be part of a package presented to NSB in support of five-year renewal. A Forum assessment of IODP progress toward achieving the Science Plan could also be part of the package sent to NSB.

For additional context, the Decadal Survey of Ocean Sciences report is due May 2015. That survey will include an evaluation JOIDES Resolution operations amongst the wide suite of other facilities that NSF supports in ocean sciences. The period for public input into the survey has already passed. There are no indications yet specifically how continuation of JR operations is being rated in that survey, but this will be known by the time of the second Forum meeting in July 2015.

ECORD (G. Camoin): Twelve of the 19 ECORD countries having funding commitments through FY18, five through FY16, and the other two are uncertain. An external review of ECORD is anticipated in early 2017. There will probably be four main criteria in evaluation of renewal efforts within ECORD:

• effectiveness of management and delivery of MSP operations; • significance of scientific outcomes of all IODP operations (MSP, Chikyu, and JR); • to what degree the goal of at least one MSP operation per year is reached, including an

Arctic program and a range of technological drilling/coring approaches; • the record of ECORD collaboration with other programs.

JAPAN/MEXT (Y. Kimura): In approximately 2018, there will be a five-year technical review of Chikyu operations, in both domestic and international contexts. This will include review of management and delivery of both IODP work and non-IODP work. It will also include an evaluation of MEXT/JAMSTEC support of IODP scientists.

India (B. Bansal): Current funding of India’s partnership in JR operations is good through March 2019. Clearly, for India, US renewal of IODP operations is very important; however, funding beyond 2019 will be decided in the last year of the current phase, i.e., 2018-2019.

ANZIC (N. Exon): Current ANZIC funding for IODP is set only through the end of 2015. Thus, efforts to assure continued funding will begin early in 2015. Given that the JR will be drilling several expeditions in the region in 2016-2017, there is reason for optimism about

continued funding. Given the short timeline and importance of ANZIC renewal to IODP, the Forum indicated its support with the following consensus statement:

Forum Consensus 2014-3: The IODP Forum recognizes the importance of 2015 IODP renewal effort in the ANZIC consortium, and will support those renewal efforts in any way possible.

Korea (Y.J. Lee): Current funding of the Korean partnership in JR operations is set for 2011-2018. Korea is interested in at least one JR CPP expedition in that time frame and in pursuing partnerships with Chikyu and ECORD.

China (P. Wang, not actually representing MoST): The current Chinese funding level is secure, and Chinese scientists are working to increase the level of IODP funding in the future. IODP-China is active in using the CPP mechanism for JR expeditions, and interested in becoming an additional IODP Platform Provider after 2018.

Agenda Item G: Coordination among Facility Boards and Platform Providers

There was a discussion about possibilities for enhancing cooperation among IODP countries in funding site surveys, given that site survey scheduling can be a limiting factor in proposal development. It was noted that there are recent examples of bilateral cooperation in funding specific surveys, and there are open avenues of communication about such cooperation among IODP agencies. It was also noted that, in some IODP countries like the U.S., there are no dedicated funds for IODP-specific site surveys but instead site survey proposals are evaluated on their scientific merit in competition with all other proposals. An idea to form a larger consortium of IODP agencies to support site survey capabilities (e.g., multi-channel seismic vessels) was floated; this would require considerable further discussions among IODP agencies.

Agenda Item H: Effectiveness of IODP web site

No specific needs for improvement of the IODP web site were noted. In fact, several members commented on its generally fine quality, so the Forum registered the following consensus.

Forum Consensus 2014-4: The Forum appreciates the effectiveness of the IODP web site, and applauds the Science Support Office for transitioning the site so successfully from IODP-MI.

Agenda Item I: Collaboration with ICDP

J. Mori, chair of the ICDP Science Advisory Group, reported on ICDP activities and committed to bringing any feedback from the Forum to the ICDP Executive Committee meeting scheduled in early June 2014. There was extensive discussion of how to improve cooperation between IODP and ICDP, particularly in light of a recommendation from the November 2013 ICDP planning workshop that proposals for scientific drilling projects that cross the shoreline should be encouraged and evaluated in a coordinated way by the two programs. Two specific examples were cited, one successful (New Jersey sea level), the other still pending with uneven reviews by the two programs (Chicxulub Impact Crater). It was also noted that general recommendations for better coordination between the two programs had been made in the past without much progress, so to make real progress more specific mechanisms need to be set up. After discussion of several kinds of potential

mechanisms (e.g., workshops, joint working group, special call for proposals), the Forum agreed on the following:

Forum Consensus 2014-5: The IODP Forum recommends that the calls for proposals by IODP and ICDP encourage projects that include both offshore and onshore boreholes to achieve common scientific goals of the two programs. The Forum recommends that a joint IODP/ICDP group be formed that would clarify procedures for coordinated reviews of joint proposals. Also, the group should discuss ways to encourage submission of proposals that combine IODP and ICDP capabilities.

J. Schuffert introduced the prospect of conducting a joint IODP-ICDP scientific drilling Town Hall at the Fall 2014 AGU meeting. In the new Program, USSSP has assumed the primary planning role for the IODP Town Halls at meetings such as AGU, GSA, etc. A number of important advantages were noted, ranging from scientific to financial to social. It was also noted that other scientific drilling/coring programs could join this Town Hall. Therefore, the Forum registered the following consensus:

Forum Consensus 2014-6: The Forum endorses the concept for a joint IODP-ICDP Town Hall at the Fall 2014 AGU Meeting.

Action Item: Both of these consensus items will be presented at the June 2014 ICDP Executive Committee (EC). If the EC also endorses them, then: (a) the IODP Forum chair will work with the ICDP SAG and EC chairs to set up the joint working group, and (b) Schuffert will work with T. Wiersberg of ICDP and other appropriate individuals to organize the joint town hall.

Agenda Item K: Overarching Public Relations and Educational Activities

In the new Program structure, public relations and educational activities are mainly conducted and funded within individual IODP countries or consortia. The Forum mandate includes “stimulating overarching public relations and educational activities,” but no control of any funding for these activities. The Forum agreed that fulfilling this aspect of its mandate would first require a thorough review of the education and outreach activities within IODP countries and consortia, but we were not prepared to conduct such a review at this initial Forum meeting. G. Camoin pointed out that the ECORD education and outreach task force had invited US and Japanese education and outreach representatives to its September 2014 meeting, so that meeting could lay the groundwork for developing any overarching aspects to program-wide education and outreach. The Forum agreed to conduct a thorough review at its next meeting, based partly on input from the ECORD task force meeting and partly on direct input from education and outreach staff from IODP countries.

Action Item: Review of education and outreach activities across IODP will be a special focus of the second meeting of the Forum.

Agenda Item L: Interactions with Industry

ECORD had asked for a discussion as to whether there should be an IODP-wide policy on interactions with industry, and ESO was especially interested with respect to potential industry cooperation in MSP drilling in environmentally sensitive regions like the Arctic. It was pointed out that the Forum Terms of Reference do not give the Forum any policy-setting authority, by design of the IWG+, and the three IODP Platform Providers already interact

with industry in their own ways. Equally important, there is an IODP-wide statement of environmental principles ratified by the three Facility Boards (http://www.iodp.org/program-documents). This was thought to provide sufficient program-wide guidance to govern any decisions by respective Facility Boards/Platform Providers/Funding Agencies on specific cases of their potential interactions with industry.

Agenda Item P: Selection of Next Chair The Forum agreed that its next chair, whose term will begin 1 October 2015, should be chosen in time to attend the second Forum meeting in July 2015. The call for nominations for the initial Forum chair was open to individuals from any IODP country, and the Forum agreed this should be the case for future chairs (i.e., there should be no prescribed rotation of the chairmanship among IODP countries). The current IODP structure does not allow for any commingled funding to support the chair, so the financial support for the chair must come from his/her country or consortia. The original Forum Terms of Reference specified that the chair should be selected by a “panel of experts” in an “open process.” For the selection of the first chair, this was coordinated by IODP-MI, but there is no equivalent central management organization in the new Program. After some discussion, the Forum decided that it would name its own “panel of experts,” avoiding any conflict of interest among Forum participants and excluding all program member office representatives, as they would have to separately endorse any nominee(s) from their countries. It might be possible for the Science Support Office to coordinate the call for nominations and collection of any nomination packages to pass on to the selection panel, but that needs to be verified first. Action Item: Forum to name panel of experts to select its next chair in time for July 2015 meeting. Action Item: T. Janecek to contact H. Given as to whether Science Support Office could coordinate call for nominations for next Forum chair and collection of nomination packages to be forwarded to panel of experts. Agenda Item Q: Future Meetings As noted earlier, two special focus themes were identified for the 2015 Forum meeting: a thorough assessment of IODP progress towards meeting the new Science Plan, and a review of educational and outreach activities across the program. A third special purpose was suggested and agreed to: essentially the equivalent of the agendas for the half- or one-day joint Program Member Office meetings that had been held periodically in the old IODP in association with major panel meetings. The Forum agreed that a three-day meeting would be required to accomplish all the objectives of the 2015 meeting. N. Exon had previously offered to host the 2015 meeting in Canberra during the late June to late July timeframe. The Forum converged on the dates of July 8-10 to avoid a number of potential conflicts with other meetings. Action Item: The second Forum meeting to be a three-day meeting July 8-10 hosted by Neville Exon at ANU in Canberra. The revisions to the Forum Terms of Reference approved at this meeting allow for the possibility that there could be more potential participants at the 2015 meeting than at the

inaugural Forum meeting. Thus, it will be important for planning purposes to distribute an initial draft agenda as early as possible. Action Item: The Forum chair to develop an initial draft agenda for the July 2015 Forum meeting for distribution to potential participants no later than the end of 2014. The Chair suggested that, beginning with the 2016 Forum meeting, the usual time for Forum meetings should be moved to the early fall time period to be better sequenced with the SEP and FB meetings that will normally occur in the first half of the year. He also noted that, since the FB and SEP meetings have been and probably will continue to be held mostly in the US, Japan, and ECORD, Forum meetings represent the best opportunities for partner countries to host major IODP meetings. P. Wang and B. Bansal expressed potential interest on the part of China and India, respectively, and it is possible that Brazil (not represented at the 2014 meeting) might also be interested. Action Item: Partner countries interested in hosting the 2016 Forum meeting should bring their expressions of interest to the 2015 meeting, where the 2016 venue and dates will be selected with input from the next Forum chair. Agenda Item R: Final Consensus Items As the IODP Forum is the only venue for all IODP stakeholders, A. Ishiwatari suggested that it would be appropriate for the Forum to recognize IODP-MI as the central management organization of the previous Program. He also noted that IODP-MI has left an important financial legacy for the new Program in the form of the Asahiko Taira International Scientific Ocean Drilling Prize, established with residual IODP-MI corporate funds. It is planned that this prize be administered by AGU, although it had not yet received final approval from AGU as of the Forum meeting dates. After updates about the status of this Prize, the Forum registered the following consensus: Consensus 2014-7. The IODP Forum recognizes the efforts of the President and staff of IODP-MI that resulted in the successful closeout of the corporation at the end of March, 2014. The IODP Forum especially welcomes establishment of the new Asahiko Taira International Scientific Ocean Drilling Prize, to be administered by AGU, for young researchers based on the legacy of IODP-MI. Finally, to acknowledge the efforts of our gracious hosts from KIGAM and K-IODP, the Forum registered two consensuses of appreciation for the field trip and meeting itself. Forum Consensus 2014-8: The IODP Forum thanks Drs. Moon Son, Jae-Ho Oh, and Jin-Seep Kim, as well as our Tourist Guide Bonita Sim, for organizing a wonderful field trip on the day before the Forum meeting. Blessed by good weather, we marveled at the many geological features of the Busan National Geopark, the Gamcheon Culture Village, and an especially fulfilling multi-course Korean lunch. Forum Consensus 2014-9: The IODP Forum thanks our gracious hosts from KIGAM and K-IODP for outstanding organization of a memorable inaugural Forum meeting.

The venue in Busan was excellent, the field trip was very stimulating, and our Korean-style meeting dinner was superb. Our sincere thanks go to Drs. Gil Young Kim, Se Won Chang, Young Joo Lee, Jae-ho Oh, Senay Horozal, and graduate students Yongmi Kim and Buyanbat Narantsetseg.

IODP Forum Meeting #1 Roster (* = apologies) NAME EMAIL Agencies/Partners EMA Gilbert Camoin [email protected] MEXT Yuzuru Kimura [email protected] NSF Thomas Janecek [email protected] JAMSTEC Yoshi Kawamura [email protected]

Korea - KIGAM

Gil Young Kim Se Won Chang Young Joo Lee

[email protected] [email protected]

[email protected] India - MoES Brijesh Bansal [email protected]

China - MoST

Jianzhong Shen* Nan Zhang Pinxian Wang


[email protected] ANZIC Neville Exon [email protected] Brazil - CAPES Marcio de Castro Silva Filho* [email protected] ECORD Council Guido Lüniger [email protected] PMOs /Natl. Comms.

ESSAC

Gretchen Fruh-‐Green* Jochen Erbacher (Germany) Werner Piller (Austria)

frueh-‐[email protected] [email protected] werner.piller@uni-‐graz.at

USAC John Jaeger* [email protected] USSSP Jeff Schuffert [email protected]

J-DESC

Akira Ishiwatari Yasufumi Iryu Keita Umetsu

[email protected] [email protected] info@j-‐desc.org

IODP-China Shouting Tuo [email protected] Operators

USIO Brad Clement David Divins


ESO Robert Gatliff [email protected]

CDEX Shin’ichi Kuramoto Nobu Eguchi


FB/SEP Chairs EFB Karsten Gohl [email protected] CIB Gaku Kimura [email protected]‐tokyo.ac.jp JRFB Susan Humphris [email protected] SEP Dick Kroon [email protected] Science Support Office Holly Given* [email protected] Chair/Other Scientists IODP Forum Chair Keir Becker [email protected] Japan/ICDP Jim Mori [email protected]‐u.ac.jp Korea Sangmin Hyun [email protected]

Forum Ver: 28 May 2014

IODP Forum Terms of Reference

General Purpose

The IODP Forum is the custodian of the Science Plan and is a venue for exchanging ideas and views on the scientific progress of the Program. The Forum will also provide advice to IODP Facility Boards on Platform Provider activity. Mandate 1. Assessing progress on achieving long-‐term objectives of the Science Plan. a. The Forum will monitor and assess long-‐term and regional planning, and make

recommendations to the individual Facility Boards. b. The Forum Chair will report on the progress of the Program toward completion of the Science Plan to the respective Facility Boards.

2. Fostering progress and coordination of Facility Boards and Platform Providers and providing assistance where requested in select areas, such as:

a. Standardization of reporting efforts, including pre-‐ and post-‐expedition publications. b. Curation and storage of cores, including access to archive cores. c. Planning and scoping of major projects. d. Communication of need for non-‐standard activities to the scientific community. For example: i. co-‐funding of drilling operations by commercial entities, ii. rapid response drilling that might impact planned expeditions.

3. Fostering effectiveness of the IODP website by working with the Support Office. 4. Fostering synergistic collaborations with other organizations (e.g., scientific

drilling/coring programs, seafloor observatory programs, etc.) 5. Recommending topics for workshops. 6. Advising/stimulating overarching public relations and educational activities. 7. Advising on ethical issues. Participants IODP Forum participation is open to representative from: all countries, consortia, or entities providing funds to platform operations, Program Member Offices, and the Science Support Office, as well as Facility Board chairs and SEP co-‐chairs. Other participants may include representatives from potential new partners in the Program and related scientific organizations interested in the Forum agenda. Chair The chair of the IODP forum should be selected for his/her scientific and managerial leadership and will be a well-‐recognized scientist who will be the face of the Program. The chair is expected to promote the scientific accomplishments of the Program at select scientific meetings, and to attend the meetings of the facility boards and SEP. The role will require some dedicated time, and the chair should be provided with

appropriate salary and logistical support (recommended level of support = 0.5 FTE). The chair serves for two years and will be selected by a panel of selected Forum participants through an open process. Decisions The Forum shall reach decisions by consensus. Meetings The Forum will commence with the start of the new Program on October 1, 2013. It will convene once annually to execute its mandate and assess progress of the Program toward completion of the Science Plan.

Agenda Item 13 Technical Advisory Team Report

Minutes

Draft Minutes of the 1st CDEX TAT Meeting

The 1st meeting of the CDEX technical advisory team (TAT) was held during 13-14 February 2014. Approximately forty persons concerned including TAT members, MEXT representatives, scientists and CDEX personnel gathered and discussed at JAMSTEC Yokohama institute on the 1st day (13th). Technical discussions were continued on-board CHIKYU along with a field trip to Shimizu port from Yokohama on the 2nd day (14th).

The 1st TAT members were as follows: Keir Becker (Chair) IODP Forum chair - University of Miami, USA Chanh Cao Minh Schlumberger, USA David Castillo Insight GeoMechanics, Australia Clive Neal University of Notre Dame, USA Alister Skinner ACS Coring Services, UK Mitsugu Takemura JAPEX, JAPAN John Thorogood Drilling Global Consultant, UK

The TAT was founded for general purposes of (1) assisting CDEX to achieve the

scientific goals of the projects through new or improved technology and engineering practices, (2) providing advice to CDEX to achieve the long term engineering developments related to a) sampling/logging/coring, b) drilling/vessel infrastructure, c) borehole infrastructure, and (3) furnishing advice about scientific measurement, equipment, procedures and shipboard equipment usage and needs as well as borehole and observatory measurements. In this meeting, CHIKYU operation results, mantle drilling, technical challenges and engineering development were discussed, and TAT obtained the consensus as follows. 1. TAT Consensus 1.1 TAT#1 Consensus re Drilling to Mantle

A wide range of technological approaches is being considered for an ultimate full crustal penetration through Moho into uppermost mantle. Some of these are potentially very expensive and long-term developments, while other simpler, less expensive approaches might also be feasible.

To focus the technological development roadmap and risk assessment for full crustal penetration to the mantle, greater clarity is needed on the specific scientific objectives and site characteristics. To provide such clarity, TAT recommends the formation of the equivalent of a Project Coordination Team (PCT) including the scientific proponents, CDEX representatives, and a representative from TAT. Because very long-term developments might be involved, this should be done immediately even if the drilling proposals have not advanced to the CIB for formal designation as a “project” and formation of a PCT. At this stage of planning, all technological options should be evaluated so that drilling a complete crustal section into mantle is ultimately successful. 1.2 TAT#1 Consensus re Deep NanTroSEIZE Drilling

NanTroSEIZE Expedition 348 faced many challenges ranging from weather to hole instability issues. TAT commends CDEX and the Exp 348 team for creative approaches to overcome these challenges and leave the C0002 deep hole cased to a scientific ocean drilling record 2922.5 mbsf, in good condition to advance in the future to the ultimate megasplay fault target depth.

In order to plan the best technical approach for further riser drilling to achieve the ultimate goal, TAT recommends that a thorough forensic analysis be conducted to assess the causes of the hole instability issues and options to mitigate risks in advancing to the target. This analysis should include all Exp 348 core, caving, cuttings, log data and operational observations, with the intent to interpret these observations in a geomechanical context. Specifically, these tasks include:

1) Review image data identifying wellbore breakouts and drilling-enhanced bedding planes or natural fractures,

2) Review of leak-off pressure information, 3) Construct log-derived rock strength and internal friction profiles, 4) Review drilling activities and events including mud weight, connections,

circulation rates, on/off pump practices, stuck pipe, tight hole, RIH, POOH and all general drill pipe movement,

5) Review time-based annular pressure data during drilling, connections, POOH, RIH and all other pipe movement,

6) Categorize drill cuttings, cavings, planar/blocky rock fragments and interpret in the context of drilling events, bottom-hole-pressure, features in AFR image data and rock strength,

7) Quantify and verify the maximum horizontal stress magnitude and pore pressure profiles,

8) Quantify time-dependence wellbore integrity in the context of variations in the bottom-hole-pressures,

9) Systematically assess the possible chemical interactions between the formation clay rocks and drilling mud,

10) Simulation of operations in the wellbore to better understand the sensitivity of hole conditions to the effects of pressure management issues using a tool such as “DrillScene Replay” (http://sekal.com/?id=1077).

The intent of the above analysis is to identify the mechanism(s) responsible for the non-productive-time experienced during Exp 348 and develop a series of steps that would ensure borehole stability is maintained in follow-up expeditions. This could include a mud weight program and an advanced basis of design for a drilling fluids program for deepening the site.

Some of this work can be done by CDEX engineers and Exp 348 scientists, but it is advisable to contract an outside expert who can integrate the observations to model the hole response and minimize risk in predicting response as the hole is deepened. TAT members will recommend some potential consultants for this work, but given the high current activity level in industry, it is not clear if the analysis can be completed before the next meeting of the CIB.

TAT appreciates that there may be a desire to complete the analysis work in advance of the next CIB meeting. However, TAT would caution against continuation of any operation in the absence of a full understanding of the causes that produced the problems given the severe consequences of failure. The studies must be completed in full before any attempt is made to develop a plan for the next stage of the operations.

CDEX Action Item: In view of potential lead-time issues, while the recommended study is being conducted, CDEX should continue to investigate feasibility and availability of all potential technological approaches for deepening C0002, including, but not limited to:

1) Enhanced LWD program 2) Use of oil-based drilling muds 3) Re-drilling with an optimum casing design and/or directional trajectory to

minimize instability 4) Managed pressure drilling 5) AGR dual gradient technology

6) NOV continuous circulation system 2. Meeting minutes 2.1 Mantle drilling and the R&D

Toward future drilling operation, mantle drilling with the deep riser was discussed, with specific reference to mud, temperature of the hole, BOP, etc. Using synthetic-based mud (SBM) and/or oil-based mud (OBM) could be more effective for drilling to the mantle. The research and development to drill into the mantle using water-based mud (WBM) is essential.

Thermal problems could be encountered while drilling into the mantle. In these high-temperature conditions, TAT advised that CDEX should consider where to apply well control and whether to use wired-pipe (Intellipipe) in order to make rapid decisions especially for controlling bottom hole pressure and temperature. Several geothermal wells over 500 deg C were drilled using a special circulating (cooling) method. Their MWD/LWD assembly was run in 450 deg C while cooled by circulation.

CHIKYU engineering development should be guided by industry developments as industry moves into deeper and deeper water. However, it’s difficult for industry to provide a special BOP only for CHIKYU. On the other hand, TAT doubted the necessity of a full oilfield BOP (designed to handle overpressures >5000 psi) for scientific drilling to mantle (no hydrocarbon risks). In addition, TAT suggested consideration of an alternative method of mantle drilling, if for scientific purpose. In contrast, CDEX noticed our stance generally follows oilfield standard /regulations for safety.

2.2 NanTroSEIZE - IODP expedition 348 results

CDEX - IODP promotion / drilling operation / geological evaluation group members presented the technical issues on IODP Exp. 348. To drill deeper in NanTroSEIZE became difficult because hole conditions got worse. Additionally, other problems occurred such as riser conduit line shut down and ROV fiber failure. Furthermore, the top of the cement could not be tagged because of cement drainage into the annulus.

The main focus of this discussion was on cuttings or cavings because the amount of cuttings was large relative to the amount of drilling. CDEX was asked questions such as “Where were the cuttings from?", “Were they actual drilling induced cuttings?”, and “What were cuttings structure and cavings shape?”. It’s not easy to identify where those cuttings come from since their lithology did not changed significantly. An opinion that

blocky cavings must indicate a fault zone had been drilled was given. CDEX was asked to investigate where the cavings come from within the hole. In addition, one of TAT members noticed that borehole breakouts could be time dependent and increasing breakouts might cause a stuck pipe / hole collapse. TAT suggested that the analysis of all factors related to Exp. 348 results needs to be more integrated and CDEX should be able to evaluate NanTroSEIZE drilling from variety of aspects, such as chemical, geological, etc., also advised to re-evaluation of mud weight window in order to increase mud weight to promote better hole stability. Understanding rock physics / geo-mechanics of the drilled lithology should be first priority and should give an answer to what happened regarding the borehole instability. Moreover, TAT recommended to acquire borehole monitoring at all times, not only while drilling but also while tripping in/out and even while hole cleaning.

Future plans to drill deeper with expandable casing, casing bit (weather ford/ BHI were not positive), dual gradient system, 7” liner / casing, smaller coring system (conventional/wireline) should be evaluated. TAT pointed out that a drilling fluids study should be carried out in parallel with the geomechanics work because the bore-hole chemical interaction could have contributed to the difficulties. As the result of the discussions, TAT concluded that the Exp. 348 remaining issues could probably be solved with an adequate geo-mechanical engineering analysis. 2.3 Engineering development

Several on-going technical developments were presented by CDEX technical group members. After various discussions, deployment of real time measurement to understand problems, such as vibrations on the drill pipe, was proposed. Regarding the Gel coring system, investigation of the variation of gel viscosity with temperature is necessary and the clarification of the scientific requirements were vital. In Iceland, core liners were changed to carbon type instead of plastic / aluminum liners, which could have high friction inside. Discussion of the reasons that riser core recovery was better than riserless recovery did not produce full agreement among all TAT members. It would seem that better cuttings removal should be the first reason to improve core recovery with riser. After final technical presentation - deep riser, VIV, etc., importance of a further analysis of the CFRP riser connection was emphasized.

2.4 Others After adjourn of the meeting, a tour on-board CHIKYU was held.

End of Minutes

Agenda Item 14 Chikyu Safety Review Committee Report

Chikyu Safety Review Committee Recommendation

1

2014/03/28

Recommendations of the Chikyu Safety Review Committee

for the Future Action in NanTroSEIZE Exp 348

Shigemi Naganawa

Chair of Drilling Safety Subcommittee

1. Outline of Drilling Safety Subcommittee The Drilling Safety Subcommittee, founded under the JAMSTEC Chikyu Safety Review

Committee, has the primary objective to provide advices and recommendations to CDEX for the drilling incident, trouble and the HSE issue associated with the CDEX drilling program carried out by Chikyu.

Based on the discussion at the Drilling Safety Subcommittee meeting held on 28 March 2014, we suggest estimated causes for drilling problems encountered in NanTroSEIZE Exp 348 and recommend countermeasures for improvement of borehole stability in the Nankai accretionary prism drilling as summarized in the succeeding sections.

The list of the attendees at the Drilling Safety Subcommittee meeting is attached at the end of this document.

2. Summary of Drilling Problems and the Estimated Causes

We estimated the primary cause of the drilling troubles encountered in NanTroSEIZE Exp 348 to be borehole instability as in anisotropic borehole breakouts caused by geomechanical instability of the formation with complex characteristics in Nankai accretionary prism in C2 site where the formation severely folds with nearly vertical dip.

[Touble-1] After drilling 17” hole to the casing set point of 2,330.0 mbsf (4,297.5 mBRT), 13-3/8” casing string was stuck at 2,024.5 mbsf (3,992.0 mBRT) while running in the hole. Eventually the 13-3/8” casing had to be set at 2,010.0 mbsf (3,977.5 mBRT), 300 m shallower than the planned setting depth. [Cause-1] The cause was estimated to be borehole instability. [Trouble-2] 12-1/4” drill-out-cement (DOC) string was stuck inside the 13-3/8” casing, while drilling out the set cement and the rat hole. [Cause-2] The cause was estimated to be unnecessarily installation of stabilizers in the DOC assembly.

2

[Trouble-3] The borehole was relatively stable during drilling 12-1/4” hole with LWD assembly and was not problematic until reaching 3,058.5 mbsf (5,026.0 mBRT) where the drillstring was packed-off. Further drilling was unable and then it was decided to move to reaming the hole to 14-1/2” diameter. However, the borehole breakout was uncontrollable during reaming operation. As a result, section TD had to be shallower than the planned TD of 3,600.0 mbsf (5,567.5 mBRT) [Cause-3-1] The borehole breakout encountered in Exp 348 was considered to be a time dependent phenomenon as observed in shale formation where even a small amount of mud filtrate could penetrate deep into the bedding plane with time, and at a certain point the formation breaks out at a stretch. From this observation, delay of the timing of increasing mud weight and spending too much time to drill out the section were estimated as the causes. [Cause-3-2] There were no options to set a casing before borehole breakout because 16” casing planned in the original casing program had been omitted due to the change in final target depth shallower than original plan. [Trouble-4] 11-3/4” liner packer was accidentally set at a wrong depth and cementing behind the liner failed. [Cause-4] A human error induced by insufficient time to spare due to simultaneously occurrence of oil leakage trouble on the BOP conduit line and the ROV umbilical cable failure trouble.

3. Recommendations for Drilling Risk Mitigation (1) Casing program

Revise casing program enabling to have more two size of casing or liner strings (e.g. 9-5/8” casing and 7” liner) to complete drilling down to the final target TD of 5,200 mbsf, approximately 2,200 m deeper from the current depth.

In addition, prepare another contingency casing if possible. If a new hole will be planned to drill instead of existing C2 hole, 16” casing should not be

omitted in the new casing program.

(2) Mud System KNPP (KCl-NaCl/Polymer/PPG) mud system used in Exp 348 was fully effective to inhibit shale

swelling. However, the followings should be considered for further improvement of borehole stability. Increase mud weight up to the maximum allowable mud weight determined by the safe

maximum tension load of the Chikyu riser tensioner system to minimize formation breakout as revealed by LWD data (refer to Fig. 1).

Consider more effective sealing additives to minimize mud filter loss deep into the steeply dipping bedding planes.

Keep high viscosity of mud for good hole cleaning and borehole stability. Consider using other mud systems such as Formate mud or SBM (synthetic-oil base mud) if

3

there is no room for increasing mud weight, although KNPP mud is believed to be the most suitable mud system in water based muds.

(3) Real time monitoring of downhole condition and prompt action

Make the most use of early and accurate detections of occurrence and status of borehole breakout (caving/pack-off/tight hole) using real time data such as mud logging and cuttings analysis for prompt action on board.

Revise formation pore pressure, fracture pressure and breakout pressure predictions made by prior study as needed during drilling, by use of leakoff test and LWD data to understand the upper (minimum principal horizontal stress Shmin) and lower (breakout pressure) limits of mud weight at any depth based on stress analysis studies (refer to Fig. 1).

(4) Risk assessment

Conduct sufficient risk assessment on downhole troubles particularly on borehole instability issue prior to commencing drilling operation in accordance with understanding of the complicated structural characteristics of the Nankai accretionary prism drilling.

Revise risk assessment as needed during drilling so that a proper casing can be timely set before borehole collapse or breakout becomes serious.

(5) Management issues

CDEX should fully conduct possible in-house engineering studies to have a consistent policy, not to depend too much on outside consultants in a passive manner.

Make more efforts in training their own personnel and inheritance of technology in CDEX Communicate more frequently and closely with service companies including mud engineers

to build a strong cooperative relationship with them.

(6) Evaluation of new technologies for contingency Evaluate feasibility of using Expandable Casing technology. Evaluate feasibility of Dual Gradient Drilling system.

4

Fig. 1 Concept of mud weight control for borehole stability

MW Lower Limit

MW Upper Limit

Source: GMI Catalog

Mud W

indow

Sv

Shmin

Collapse (Breakout)Pressure

Agenda Item 15 JR Advisory Panels Report / Proposal Overview

1. Support Office Activities

A) IODP SSO Information 2. SEP (incl. proposals ready for CIB and at SEP)

A) Proposed IODP Riser Drilling Sites/Areas B) Jun. 2014 SEP presentation

3. EPSP

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Oct-‐04

Apr-‐05

Oct-‐05

Apr-‐06

Oct-‐06

Apr-‐07

Oct-‐07

Apr-‐08

Oct-‐08

Apr-‐09

Oct-‐09

Apr-‐10

Oct-‐10

Apr-‐11

Oct-‐11

Apr-‐12

Oct-‐12

Apr-‐13

Oct-‐13

Apr-‐14

New

Revised

Proposal Submissions

17

10

16

11

IODP Science Support Office • Scripps Ins:tu:on of Oceanography • www.iodp.org

Active proposals: 107 by science plan themes

Climate and Ocean

57

13

17

Biosphere

Earth Connections

Earth in Motion 20

As of 16 June 2014 IODP Science Support Office • Scripps Ins:tu:on of Oceanography • www.iodp.org

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

FB

SEP

How many proposals are covering each challenges?

1 : CO2 2 : Ice sheets and sea level 3 : Precipita:on 4 : Chemical perturba:ons

5 : Subseafloor communi:es 6 : Life limit 7 : Ecosystems

8 : Upper mantle 9 : Crustal architecture 10 : Chemical exchanges 11 : Subduc:on zones

12 : Earthquakes, landslides, tsunami 13 : Carbon storage 14 : Tectonic-‐Thermal-‐biogeochemical link


Active proposal status: 107 by target ocean

Arctic: 8

Atlantic: 26

Indian: 22

Pacific: 38

Southern: 10

Mediterranean: 3


Active proposal status: 107 by Review stage

SEP: 59 FBs: 41

Holding Bin: 7


Active Proposal distribution: 107 by lead proponent’s member affiliation

US 46

ECORD 39

Japan: 8

China: 2

ANZIC: 9

Korea: 1 India: 2


Active proponent distribution

1215 unique proponents

US: 415

China: 46

Korea: 12

ANZIC: 37 India: 22

Brazil: 12

ECORD: 485

Japan: 120

Others: 76


JR: 70!

Chikyu: 11!

MSP: 19!

Multiple: 7

Chikyu 17

MSP20

JR 77

0

1

6 0

Drilling Platforms for 107 Active Proposals


NumberType Short Title Lead PI PI Affil Ocean Platform Stage Top Theme

505 Full5 Mariana Convergent Margin Fryer USA Pac NR CIB BF537 CDP7 Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project Overview von Huene USA Pac R CIB EM537B Full4 Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project Phase B Ranero Germany Pac R CIB EM603 CDP3 NanTroSEIZE Overview Kimura Japan Pac NR+R CIB EM603C Full NanTroSEIZE Phase 3: Plate Interface Tobin Japan Pac R CIB EM603D Full2 NanTroSEIZE Observatories Screaton USA Pac NR CIB EM618 Full3 East Asia Margin Clift UK Pac R+NR CIB CO698 Full3 Izu-‐Bonin-‐Mariana Arc Middle Crust Tatsumi Japan Pac R CIB EC707 MDP Kanto Asperity Project: Overview Kobayashi Japan Pac NR+R SEP EM781 MDP Hikurangi subduction margin Wallace NZ Pac R+NR SEP EM781B Full Hikurangi: Riser Wallace USA Pac R CIB EC782 Pre Kanto Asperity Project: Plate Boundary Deformation Yamamoto Japan Pac R SEP EC800 MDP Indian ridge Moho Dick USA Ind R+NR CIB EC805 MDP MoHole to the Mantle Umino Japan Pac R SEP EC835 Pre Japan Trench Tsunamigenesis Kodaira Japan Pac R SEP EM

857 MDP DREAM: Mediterranean Salt Giant Camerlenghi Italy Med R+NR SEP BF857A pre DREAM: Deep-‐Surface Connection Rabineau France Med R SEP BF865 Full Nankai Trough Temperature Limit Hinrichs Germany Pac NR SEP BF

Red: Non-‐Riser by ChikyuBlue: 707-‐770-‐782 are in the same MDP. 770 is already at JRFB.

Submitted April 1, 2014:

Active IODP Proposals using Chikyu (as of June 2014)

Source: IODP Science Support Office -‐ Scripps Institution of Oceanography -‐ www.iodp.org

(RL)(R)

(RL) (R)

East Asia Margin(R)

(R)

MoHole to Mantle(M2M)

CRISP−03A,06A(R)

L(R )(R)

(800-MDP)

Indian Ridge Moho

IBM−4

in CIBin SEP

(R) Riser(RL) Riserless

30˚W

30˚W

0˚

0˚

30˚E

30˚E

60˚E

60˚E

90˚E

90˚E

120˚E

120˚E

150˚E

150˚E

180˚

180˚

150˚W

150˚W

120˚W

120˚W

90˚W

90˚W

60˚W

60˚W

30˚W

30˚W

60˚S 60˚S

30˚S 30˚S

0˚ 0˚

30˚N 30˚N

60˚N 60˚N

Proposed IODP Riser Drilling Sites/AreasProposed IODP Riser Drilling Sites/Areas

(R)

(R)

(R) (R)

KAP−8KAP−7

JTRACK(RL)(835-Pre)

(R)Hikurangi

Chikyu IODP Board #1 - July 2014

INTEGRATED OCEAN DRILLING PROGRAM

横浜市

505 Full 5: Mariana Convergent Margin: Geochemical, Tectonic, and Biological Processes

Last reviewed by SEP, June 2014 Proponents: Patricia Fryer et al. SEP Watchdogs: Sylvan, Mallinson, Mitchell

Objectives: (1) Understand mass transport and

geochemical cycling in subduction zones of non-accretionary forearcs

(2) Determine spatial and temporal

variability of slab-related fluids to trace dehydration, carbonate dissolution, and water/rock reactions

(3) Understand physical properties as

controls over dehydration reactions and seismicity

(4) Study spatial and temporal variability in

metamorphic and tectonic processes (5) Investigate controls over biological

activity associated with mud volcanoes

Site WD TD Objective MAF-2B 3560 150 Pacman: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids at an

active protrusion/spring site (Cerulean Springs)

MAF-3B 3850 250 Pacman: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids above an active fault

MAF-9B 2000 150 Celestial: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids at an active protrusion/spring site

MAF-10B 3200 250 Celestial: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids on lower flank for stratigraphy, age and compositional variability

MAF-11A 1260 150 Big Blue: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids at an active protrusion/spring site

MAF-12B 1400 250 Big Blue: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids on upper flank

MAF-13A 2200 250 Big Blue: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids on mid-flank for stratigraphy age and compositional variability MAF-14A 3300 250

MAF-15A 3666 100 Blue Moon: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids at an active protrusion/spring site

MAF-16A 4500 250 Blue Moon: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids on mid-flank for stratigraphy, age and compositional variability

505 Full 5: Mariana Convergent Margin: Geochemical, Tectonic, and Biological Processes

Site Issues Class

MAF-2B No data in SSDB 3A

MAF-3B No data in SSDB 3A

MAF-9B • No bathy and backscatter in digital and analog form;

• No interpreted seismic data with site locations.

• No information on bottom samples or nearby cores

• No metadata

1Bc

MAF-10B 1Bc MAF-11A 1Bc

MAF-12B 1Bc MAF-13A 1Bc MAF-14A 1Bc MAF-15A

MAF-16A 1Bc

1B – A few items of required data are not in the SSDB but are readily available 2A – Substantial items of required data are not in the SSDB but are believed to exist 3A – No data are in the SSDB but are believed to exist “c” – data do not image the target adequately (in reference to low res bathy and backscatter images)

505 Full 5: SEP review June 2014

Proponents need to finish uploading data, and correct the mistakes (duplicate location for 11B and 12A; mismatch between CMPs on basemap and in NAV and SEGY data). We still require the following files: • General CMP position (range) of proposed sites • Annotated seismic images (with sites located) • Bathymetry data (as a netCDF grd, XYZ, GIS shapefile, etc.) and high

resolution analog (pdf, jpeg, gif) • Backscatter data (as a GIS shapefile) and high resolution analog (pdf, jpeg,

gif). • Geographic projection used for seafloor maps • Information (geotechnical; lithologic, etc.) regarding short cores/bottom

samples • Acquisition and processing data for all geophysics.

505 Full 5: SEP review June 2014

537B-Full4 (SCP review Full2 Feb. 2005)

• CRISP Program B: The transition from stable to unstable slip at erosional convergent plate boundaries

• Proponents: Cesar R. Ranero


A principal objective of CRISP Program B is to reach the plate boundary, observe physical conditions, and sample fault zone material at two sites, one before and one after the onset of seismogenic behavior of large earthquakes.

• Site Characterization – SSP Consensus

The SSP refers the proponents to the August 2004 SSP review for other required and recommended data, which include further documentation of the pre-stack depth migration and depth resolution at the drilling target including the velocity model at the target location. We also reemphasize the need to continue to pursue better definition of the updip limit of the seismogenic zone through further OBS and GPS studies.

• SSP Completeness Classification

Proposed Drill Sites CRIS-03A, 06A: 2C

2C: Substantial items of required data are not in the Data Bank and not believed to exist


603C-Full: NanTroSEIZE Drilling and Observatory Phase 3

• Proponent(s): Kiyoshi Suyehiro, Harold Tobin et al. • Last SCP (SSP) Review: Feb 23, 2005

• SSP Consensus: We express the following reservations regarding the proposed alternate site at the western edge of the new 2-D grid (along Line B). - The p-wave velocity model (and thus all estimates of target depth) is less well constrained than

on Line L, as the Nakanishi et al., 1997 OBS velocity model is situated east of Line L (and approximately 30 km from Line B).

- Drilling an alternate site along line B would no longer correspond to the reference sites at the toe (as described in proposal 603A).

- The image quality along Line B does not seem to be superior than along Line L and the splay fault geometry is significantly different.

- Heat flow data would have to be recompiled for the western transect.

• Site Characterization Completeness Classification: For NT3-01A, the SSP classification remains the same as the last review, because there are no changes to the data in the data bank. For NT3-02A, based on the information that new seismic survey is planned, the classification is upgraded from 2C to 2B. • SSP Review, February 2005 2A: NT3-01A; Substantial items of required data are not in the Data Bank but are believed

to exist. 2B: NT3-02A; Substantial items of required data are not in the Data Bank and not believed

to exist, but site survey is scheduled.

603C-Full: NanTroSEIZE Drilling and Observatory Phase 3

618-Full3; East Asia Margin • Lead Proponent: Peter Clift • SSP Watchdogs: Yoshikazu Yaguchi, Seiichi Miura, Nathan Bangs • Review date: 25 January 2008 of 618-Add2 • This proposal addresses three issues related to the uplift of the

Tibetan Plateau: – (1) the effect of orogenic growth on regional and global climate, – (2) the influence of the evolving tectonic and climatic situation on continental

erosion, and – (3) understanding strain accommodation in the orogenic belt.

618-Full3; East Asia Margin

• SSP Consensus: The SSP acknowledges the quality of the MCS data for the presence of

structure and isopach maps for the areas surrounding each of the proposed sites. Good quality seismic data and interpretive maps exist for each site. The data submission for all sites is complete.

• Site Characterization Completeness and Data Adequacy Classification:

1A: All required data are in the Data Bank and have been reviewed by SSP. a: Data image the target adequately and there are no scientific concerns of drill site location and penetration.

618-Full3 to Add4; East Asia Margin

618-Add4 (2009); East Asia Margin • EPSP June 2009 - The proponents are asked to prepare structure and amplitude maps and to check for conformance. The proponents are also requested to acquire drilling summaries from nearby wells. An attempt should be made to avoid a possible bright spot at VN‐3A which appears present on both cross‐lines. Final proposed locations should be located on crossing lines in areas free of bright spots. Although the proponents do not believe that there is a significant risk of overpressure the panel does request that an attempt be made to use available seismic data to estimate pore pressures. - CDEX has been asked to determine whether sufficient information is available to go forward with Proposal 618 as a viable riser contingency by June 26, 2009. If a positive response is received EPSP will hold a special meeting at CDEX in Yokohama on September 11, 2009. A request has been made by both CDEX and IODP‐MI to extend the meeting deadline. We are currently waiting on additional guidance.

618-Full3 to Add4; East Asia Margin

Because of the depths of penetration (3.5–4.0 km), risk of hydrocarbons and sandy lithologies riser drilling will be required for the deeper penetrations. Both VN-2 and VN-1 lie in waters too shallow for operation of RV Chikyu and will need a mission specific platform to perform coring operations. However, drilling at VN-3 and XI-1 is ideal for Chikyu because the water depths are 1200 m and 1500 m respectively, in the middle of the proposed operation range of this vessel. Non-riser drilling to ~1 km at VN-3 and XI-1 could be performed by RV Chikyu or JOIDES Resolution (or similar vessel), allowing penetration to the middle Miocene (10 Ma). Such drilling would not only lay the geotechnical groundwork for deeper drilling but would allow the hypothesis of an 8-Ma Tibetan surface uplift and monsoon strengthening to be tested. We propose continuous coring at each site, starting at the seafloor.

Recent (2014) email exchanges with Peter Clift indicate they are prepared to address the VN-03 site; will move to avoid bright spot and prepare requested maps. “The site survey can be sorted out because we have a pretty good network of lines from that region and recently wrote up a synthesis of the stratigraphy too. It would not take too long to pinpoint a new site in the VN-3 area I think as we have many crossing points.” From Add4 (2008)

698-Full3: Continental Crust Formation at Intra-Oceanic Arc • Lead Proponent: Yoshiyuki Tatsumi • SSP Watchdogs: Stuart Henrys, Daniel Ariztegui, Gil Young Kim • Review date: 29 January 2010 • This proposal is part of the Izu-Bonin-Mariana (IBM) project, which

aims at answering questions of the long-term growth of continents.

698-Full3: Continental Crust Formation at Intra-Oceanic Arc • Lead Proponent: Yoshiyuki Tatsumi • SSP Watchdogs: Stuart Henrys, Daniel Ariztegui, Gil Young Kim • Review date: 29 January 2010 • This proposal is part of the Izu-Bonin-Mariana (IBM) project, which aims at

answering questions of the long-term growth of continents.


1A: All required data are in the Data Bank and have been reviewed by SSP. b: Data image the target adequately but there are scientific concerns of drill site location or Penetration.

781B-Full: Northern Hikurangi subduction margin • Lead Proponent: Laura Wallace • Reviewed by SSP: July 2013

781B-Full: Northern Hikurangi subduction margin • SCP Consensus:

The SCP commends the proponents on a well thought out proposal. The most important items missing from the SSDB are the 3D seismic data files with crossing lines around the proposed drill site. These data will enable better imaging of the proposed target. The proponents have acknowledged the need for these data and have a plan to acquire them, but have not yet scheduled a cruise. The SCP encourages the proponents to also submit netCDF files for the backscatter and multibeam bathymetry grids, and velocity data as tables.

• Characterization: 2Cc

“2C” – Possibly viable proposal for next FY or later. Substantial items are not in the SSDB and not believed to exist. (i.e., the 3D seismic data) “c” – data do not image the target adequately. (This will likely be resolved with acquisition of the 3D data).

782-Pre: Kanto Asperity Project Program A • Lead Proponent: Yuzuru Yamamoto • SSP Watchdogs: G. Uenzelmann-Neben, M. Yamashita, A.Tanaka • Review date: 3 August 2011 • This pre-proposal is closely connected to proposal 770-Full2 and addresses

the two different types of asperities of subduction zone at the southern Kanto region of Japan.


N/A : Not applicable: classifications are not given to preliminary proposals.

800-Full: SloMo • Lead Proponent: Henry J.B. Dick • Review date: No site survey data have been uploaded to the SSDB

800-MDP: Nature of the Lower crust and Moho at slower-spreading Ridges, priority proposal by EC group within SEP lead proponent: Dick

This multi-phase drilling proposal is to drill through the Atlantis Bank gabbroic massif into mantle 2.2 km NE of 1.5-km deep Hole 735B to 500-m below Moho. There are 2 major objectives. First to recover the lowermost gabbros and crust-mantle transition to understand the processes creating Mid-Ocean Ridge Basalt – the most abundant magma type on Earth, and second, resolve the controversy as to whether the Moho at slow spreading ridges can be a serpentinization front. Based on geologic mapping, geochemistry, and seismic refraction the igneous crust-mantle boundary below Atlantis Bank is believed ~2.5 km above Moho. Note: two legs are needed (if not three - primary site TD is 6 km) Practising for drilling the Moho subsequently in the Pacific

SW Indian Ridge: peridotites are exposed on the seafloor

Reviews: The PEP felt that this proposal was extremely well written with excellent objectives. The PEP applauds the proponents for expanding the science goals of the proposed drilling to include the subsurface biosphere. The proposal has the potential to be ranked as Excellent because it has the potential to produce transformational science that would address at least two challenges in the new science plan. The PEP asked the proponents to design a multiple drilling program; i.e. using the JR for two legs, or even the Chikyu if needed Proponents were happy with this, revised MDP came in! PEP fast-tracked the proposal for e-review, excellent reviews came back. PEP rated it as ‘excellent’ No data are in the SSDB – Email exchanges have occurred; Proponents are aware that they need to copy and paste from other folders. This has not yet been done. All necessary data should be within the SSDB, but are not in the 800 folder.

805-MDP: Mohole to Mantle (M2M)

• Lead Proponent: Susumu Umino • Review date: No site survey data have been uploaded to the SSDB

805-MDP: Mohole to Mantle (M2M)

• Lead Proponent: Susumu Umino • Review date: No site survey data have been uploaded to the SSDB

835-Pre: J-Track: Tracking the tsunamigenic slips across and along the Japan Trench

• Lead Proponent: Shuichi Kodara • Review date: The SEP reviewed this proposal at Scripps January 2014, and

forwarded the proposal to the CIB. • The CIB gave the green light and a workshop was held in Japan. The

proponents aim to submit the full proposal the first of October 2014 Objectives: JTRACK proposes to investigate processes leading to catastrophic, tsunamigenic earthquake and the history of such events along the margin


• 8 sites proposed • WD is 6900 to 7590 m • TD is 300 to 1350 mbsf


We specifically recommend a more focused approach to be conducted on the 2011 rupture zone for such a resubmission. Future data collection should expand site data in this area to this end. This should include both MCS strike profiles and crossing lines, and high resolution data in the trench to aid the marine paleoseismology objective.

857A-MDP Unmbrella proposal of the Deep Sea record of Mediterranean Messinian events (DREAM multi-phase drilling project: Uncovering a salt giant

• Lead Proponent: Camerlenghi • Review date: The SEP reviewed this proposal at New Brunswick late June

2014 Objectives:

Four site-specific drilling proposals are conceived under this umbrella: • DREAM: Deep-Sea Records of the MSC; • Deformation and fluid flow in the MSC salt giant; • Probing the Salt Giant for its Deep Biosphere secrets; • Probing deep Earth and surface connections (857A-Pre).

857A-MDP Unmbrella proposal of the Deep Sea record of Mediterranean Messinian events (DREAM multi-phase drilling project: Uncovering a salt giant

What are the causes, timing and emplacement mechanisms of the MSC salt giant? • Establish the chronology of the MSC; • Test existing hypotheses for Mediterranean evaporite formation; • Develop unifying models for the MSC salt giant. What are the factors responsible for early salt deformation and fluid flow across and out of the halite layer? • Understand syn-sedimentary salt tectonics and halite creep; • Constrain post-depositional salt deformation and its consequences on sedimentary mass

wasting; • Understand the physical and mineralogical conditions that allow fluids to migrate in and

through thick tabular salt sequences Do salt giants promote the development of a phylogenetically diverse and exceptionally active deep biosphere? • Determine whether evaporitic sulfate minerals are fuelling the Mediterranean’s deep

biosphere; • Establish whether the interaction between limiting factors (pressure, temperature, salinity) and

a highly variable chemical environment has produced a diverse and novel deep biosphere community;

• Use the biomarkers and surviving microbes trapped within brine inclusions to reconstruct the depth, photic and oxic conditions of ancient, hypersaline depositional environments.

857A-Pre: Probing connections between deep earth and surface processes in a land-locked ocean basin transformed into a giant saline basin: Mediterranean DREAM-GOLD

• Lead Proponent: M.Rabineau • Review date: The SEP reviewed this proposal at New Brunswick late June

2014 Objective: The main objective is to sample for the first time the deep basin of the Mediterranean Sea in the Gulf of Lion while recovering strata from the base of Pliocene, through the Messinian Series (both detritic and evaporitic strata), the pre-MSC Series, and down to basement rocks in a key transitional zone of unknown nature.

857A-Pre: Probing connections between deep earth and surface processes in a land-locked ocean basin transformed into a giant saline basin: Mediterranean DREAM-GOLD • 1 site to 6500 mbsf – 6230 m of sediments; 270 m of basement; • Data appear to be readily available

A brief overview…

• Used to be 798-Pre; revised considerably and resubmitted • Companion to 857, both form part of the “DREAM” sequence.

This one is “GOLD”.

• Objectives of this part: – Characterise and quantify sediment fluxes in the basein in order to

assess effects of MSC – Reconstruct history of vertical basement motions – Characterise the nature of the crust in the western Mediterranean

GOLD is essentially the deep basin part, Target A Data given for GOL-01A, “alternate” alluded to but no data given

865-Full: Constraining the temperature limit of the microbial deep biosphere in the Nankai Trough subseafloor

• Lead Proponent: K. Hinrichs • Review date: The SEP reviewed this proposal at New Brunswick late June

2014

Objectives: We aim to study subseafloor sedimentary microbial communities situated in temperature ranges that cover the putative temperature limit of microbial life in anoxic sedimentary systems

865-Full: Constraining the temperature limit of the microbial deep biosphere in the Nankai Trough subseafloor

2 sites proposed ODP11-73A: WD is 4790 m; 725 m of sed; 20 m of basement ODP11-74A: WD is 4750 m; 1194 m of sed; 120 m of basement

865-Full

Decollement

Oceanic crust

Site 1174 Site 1173

Muroto Transect: after Science party (2001), Bangs et al. (1999), Moore et al. (1999)

865-Full The temperature limit of the microbial deep biosphere in the Nankai Trough subseafloor Lead proponent: K-U. Hinrichs and other 24 proponents. Keywords: deep biosphere, limit of life

WD3: M. Hornbach (Site characterization)

WD4: P. Jaiswal (Site characterization)

WD5: N. Eguchi (Technical issues)

Soft tissue signatures (e.g. membrane)

Molecular signatures Prokaryotes (e.g. Archaea & Bacteria)

WD1: Y. Takano (Biogeochem.)

WD2: V. Pellizari (Microbial Ecol.)

COI: V. Heuer, J. Sylvan, Y. Morono

June-2014, SEP2@New Brunswick

865-Full Overview (2) and lesson from Exp 337

865-Full Temperature window of site 1173 and 1174

measured

Focusing on the temperature range for 110-140 oC.

Agenda Item 16 CIB Workshop Report

- JTRACK WS

Workshop report: Tracking the Tsunamigenic slips Across and Along the Japan Trench (JTRACK): Investigating a new paradigm in tsunamigenic megathrust slip with very deep water drilling using the D/V Chikyu

Tokyo, May 15-17, 2014

Shuichi Kodaira Research and Development Center for Earthquake and Tsunami, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, 3173-25 Showa-machi, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-0001, Japan Jim Mori Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan Saneatsu Saito Research and Development Center for Ocean Drilling Science, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, 2-15 Natsushima-cho Yokosuka, 237-0061, Japan Michi Strasser Geological Institute, ETH Zurich, NO G 46, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zurich Switzerland Jamie Kirkpatrick Department of Geosciences, Colorado State University, 1482 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA James Sample School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, 602 S Humphreys, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA

1. Introduction 1.1 JTRACK: Tracking tsunamigenic slip at the Japan Trench Among the global efforts to understand and mitigate earthquake hazards, investigations and resources for understanding the causes and effects of tsunamis have been relatively few compared to the many studies of strong earthquake shaking. Yet worldwide over the last decade, nearly a third of the loss of human life from earthquakes is attributed to tsunamis (~247,000 from tsunamis and ~535,000 from earthquake shaking for 2002 to 2012). On March 11, 2011 the Mw9.0 Tohoku-oki earthquake ruptured a huge portion of the Japan Trench, resulting in an enormous tsunami that caused thousands of casualties and billions of dollars of damage in northern Japan. The Tohoku-oki earthquake was the first event whose entire activity was recorded by modern dense geophysical, seismological and geodetic networks located close to the rupture zone. Despite the significant instrumentation for earthquake monitoring, the magnitude of the 2011 earthquake, amount of

coseismic slip and size of the accompanying tsunami were largely unexpected by the geophysical community. Understanding the dynamic processes and properties that control earthquake and tsunami occurrence is one of the main themes of the International Ocean Discovery Program Science Plan for 2013-2023. The JTRACK (Tracking Tsunamigenic Slips in the Japan Trench) project aims to investigate the controls on fault slip behavior and deformation along subduction plate boundaries by drilling into the rupture area of the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake (IODP Science Challenges 12 and 14). Building on a pre-proposal (IODP Proposal 835-Pre) submitted in October 2013, a workshop was held in Tokyo, Japan from May 15-17, 2014 to begin development of a full IODP drilling proposal. Slip on the shallow part of the megathrust plate boundary during the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake that promoted the devastating tsunami was the largest ever observed (e.g. Ide et al., 2011; Fujiwara et al., 2011; Lay et al. 2011). To investigate the conditions and processes that facilitated the large slip, the D/V Chikyu successfully penetrated and partially sampled the rupture zone of the 2011 earthquake in unprecedented water depths of nearly 7000 m during IODP Expedition 343/343T in April and May 2012 (Chester et al., 2013a). Logging while drilling data and cores recovered from depths down to ~840 meters below sea floor (mbsf) defined the location and composition of the plate boundary fault. Temperature data from an observatory installed during Expedition 343T and recovered nine months later by R/V Kairei showed a temperature anomaly at the megathrust horizon, which was used to infer a very low dynamic friction coefficient of 0.08 (Fulton et al., 2013), consistent with lab measurements of the frictional properties of core samples at seismic slip velocities (Ujiie et al., 2013; Sawei et al., in press). Results from Expedition 343/343T and supporting geophysical and geological data (Fujiwara et al., 2011; Kodaira et al., 2012), highlighted several fundamental characteristics of the earthquake slip near the trench: 1) the co-seismic displacement reached all the way to the trench axis; 2) the co-seismic megathrust slip was apparently confined to a narrow (<5 m) zone of a very weak clay layer on the Pacific Plate (Chester et al., 2013b; Fulton et al., 2013; Ujiie et al., 2013); 3) there is no evidence to date that fluid overpressure contributed to slip; 4) trench-fill sediments are deformed by trenchward movement of the overriding block (Strasser et al., 2013); and 5) turbidities from previous earthquakes are preserved in the trench fill and might provide a paleoseismic record (Ikehara et al., 2012; Ikehara et al., submitted). The very weak materials in the fault zone provided negligible resistance to slip at Site C0019. However, outstanding questions regarding the mechanical behavior of the subduction interface remain. 1.2 Details of the JTRACK pre-proposal A new drilling program (JTRACK) was proposed in 2013 (IODP Proposal 835-Pre) to build on the success of Expedition 343/343T with the following overarching scientific objectives:

1. Understand the variations of physical and chemical properties of

sediments and fluids of the near-trench megathrust that enable huge fault displacements and generate very large tsunamis.

2. Develop and implement new methods for determining the recurrence of

giant tsunamigenic earthquakes in the sediment record of the trench fill.

JTRACK was developed to focus on the Japan Trench subduction margin, which is part of the recent global surge in great earthquakes (Figure 1). The margin is exceptionally well instrumented, long records of historical earthquakes are available, and extensive geophysical surveys have characterized the overall structure of the margin (e.g. von Huene et al., 1982; Tsuru et al., 2005). Historical records indicate that tsunamigenic earthquakes occurred at different times along different parts of the margin. The 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake (Mw 9.0) ruptured the central part of the margin produced a gigantic tsunami generated by the seafloor deformation (Ide et al., 2011; Fujiwara et al., 2011; Lay et al. 2011). Events causing similar tsunamis include the 1896 Sanriku earthquake, and 1677 Enpou-Boso earthquake that

occurred on the northern and southern portions of the margin respectively (Figure 1). This history of tsunami-generating earthquakes indicates a need to revise the widely accepted conceptual model that in a seismogenic subduction zone the shallow portion of the megathrust slips largely aseismically (e.g. Bilek and Lay, 2002). The central goal of the JTRACK project was therefore to determine why earthquake slip ruptures to the trench during some earthquakes. The Tohoku-oki earthquake further demonstrated that the short instrumental and historical records are inadequate to characterize the complex and

multi-scale seismic behavior of subduction zones, including the occurrence of proposed “superquakes” with very long recurrence intervals (Sieh et al., 2008; Goldfinger et al., 2013). In

addition to the three transects, a trench-parallel transect was proposed to

Figure 1. Map of the Japan Trench east of Honshu where the Pacific plate subducts beneath Japan.The estimated rupture areas of signficant recent and historical earthquakes are shown (Tanioka, personal communication).

efficiently capture the record of great earthquakes in the sedimentary record to complement findings from the other transects. Tsunamis are global phenomena; the JTRACK project aims to establish fundamental mechanical controls that can be transferred to other margins worldwide to enhance societal appreciation of tsunami hazard. The scientific objectives were developed in a way that individual, stand-alone goals might be reached by short, targeted drilling operations. The short expeditions would be close to the Japanese coastline and could be designed to fit into opportune openings in the D/V Chikyu schedule. 2. Tokyo workshop overview A workshop was held in Tokyo, Japan (May 15-17), to bring together scientists interested in all aspects of subduction processes to discuss and define the most important scientific objectives that could be addressed with scientific ocean drilling at the Japan Trench. The main goal of the workshop was to define the critical unresolved questions about a system that can generate such large earthquakes and damaging tsunamis and develop a research plan that would form the basis of a full proposal to IODP. The workshop was attended by ~70 scientists from 7 countries and 29 organizations or institutions, including 10 from US institutions. The workshop and participant costs were funded by the National Science Foundation U.S. Science Support Program (USSSP), the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) and the European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD). Tokyo was chosen as the location for the workshop because of the proximity to the Japan Trench and to emphasize the ongoing scientific community response to the devastating 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake. An icebreaker on the first night was followed by two days discussing scientific goals of JTRACK and developing a consensus on how to proceed with the full proposal. The second day began with an overview of workshop goals, the approach put forth in the JTRACK pre-proposal, and some logistics of the workshop. A representative of CDEX informed the participants about some of the technical limitations of drilling in the Japan Trench. A member of the Science Evaluation Panel (SEP) presented information about the IODP proposal process, and summarized the main recommendations made by SEP in their review of the pre-proposal. Keynote science talks were given about the current state of knowledge of earthquakes and tsunami at the Japan Trench, and results from the first drilling expedition to the Japan Trench (JFAST Expedition 343/343T). In the afternoon the participants were divided into breakout groups on topics of mechanical stratigraphy and structural geology, paleoseismology, geochemistry, logging science, post-drilling monitoring, and site characterization. Participants discussed the scientific motivations for future investigations into the Japan Trench subduction zone. Breakout groups were charged with reporting back to the workshop as a whole about their most important science questions, including a prioritization for what to address first. The third day of the workshop focused on working toward a consensus of which areas and sites along the Japan Trench merit

the highest priority for the first stage of a drilling program. This was accomplished first by reconstituted breakout groups and then workshop participants as a whole. The primary science targets for the next stage of drilling are summarized in the next sections. 3. Revised JTRACK science objectives The workshop participants agreed that the recent and historical tsunamigenic earthquakes at the Japan Trench demand further investigation. Outstanding questions regarding the causes of large, shallow slip associated with tsunami generation extend to both the mechanical properties of the plate boundary fault and the history of past great earthquakes along the margin. The causes of the extraordinary slip near the trench during the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake remain enigmatic. However, several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the shallow slip: that the fault is composed of intrinsically weak material, of dynamically weak material, or that the inertial effects from the rupture dominate over the local physical characteristics. The workshop participants proposed that the JTRACK project should establish the primary control on shallow earthquake slip at the Japan Trench by testing the hypothesis that the fault zone material properties control shallow slip. This can be achieved by drilling at multiple sites along the trench that experienced different slip amounts in a single earthquake rupture. If the composition of the plate boundary fault does not change, the slip was not sensitive to composition. ‘Material properties’ refers to the elastic moduli, frictional strength, frictional stability, permeability, porosity, consolidation state, and mineral composition of the fault zone and adjacent rocks. Specific questions encompassed by this central hypothesis include: • What rock properties control the earthquake coseismic and postseismic

deformation? • How does the presence of frictionally weak, velocity-weakening pelagic

clay in the incoming plate influence the variable seismic behavior of the plate boundary? Is it possible to correlate the seismogenic behavior of the margin with variations in the stratigraphy of the input section?

• Is there proxy evidence for repeated, large slip at shallow depths on the plate boundary décollement?

• Are there differences in fault characteristics in regions that rupture in ‘tsunamigenic’ earthquakes compared to great earthquakes?

• What are the permeability values of rocks in and around the fault zone and how do they contribute to fluid flow and maintenance of excess fluid pressures and reduction in effective stress in the fault zone.

• What is the shear strength and consolidation history of slope sediments and how do they contribute to slope failure during seismic activity?

• How quickly does the plate boundary fault recover and start to build up stress again after a great earthquake?

Results from Expedition 343/343T indicate that the plate boundary fault in the region of maximum slip is localized on a layer of extremely weak pelagic clay. However, the rupture extended hundreds of kilometers along strike. Although slip models based on geodetic, tsunami or teleseismic details provide little constraint on the slip distribution near the trench (far from the observation GPS or seismometers), all results show the slip was heterogeneous near the trench. A more robust constraint on the slip distribution is available from repeated bathymetric surveys from before and after the 2011 Tohokui-oki rupture (Figure 2). These show slip of the order of 50 m near site C0019 but bound the slip to less than 20 m tens of kilometers to both the north and south.

Slip therefore varied within the earthquake rupture area, providing opportunity to target useful sites for drilling. Workshop participants also prioritized the second objective of the JTRACK project: to investigate the history of past great earthquakes along the margin. At the workshop, participants first reviewed results from two recent shallow subsurface coring efforts (> 10 long gravity and piston cores) that demonstrate the high preservation potential of seismo-turbidites, and documented at least three turbidite units that correlate to previous mega-earthquakes (including the 869 AD Jogan Earthquake; Ikehara et al., 2012; Ikehara et al., submitted). The specific sedimentological characteristics and setting of the trench-fill basins were assessed by these studies and show high potential for long-term seismo-turbidite records. Further development of this record is possible by accessing several separate trench-fill basins along strike of the entire margin and obtaining samples from deeper subsurface depths by giant piston coring and/or drilling. The results would address the following scientific questions: • What are the sedimentological, physical, chemical, biogeochemical

proxies that allow for recognition and dating of past earthquakes

Figure 2. Results of five bathymetric surveys showing the differential bathymetry pre- to post-Tohoku 2011 (Fujiwara in preparation). The resolution of differential bathymetry is around 20 m. The largest observed vertical motion occurred at around 38°N close to site C0019. Transects further north and south of 38°N are unable to resolve significant vertical changes, implying the changes are less than 20m.

• What is the spatial and temporal distribution of such “proxy-data” and how do they relate to earthquake rupture pattern, earthquake and or tsunami magnitude?

Addressing these scientific questions will eventually allow for constructing a great earthquake chronology to test the hypothesis that the great earthquake recurrence pattern of the Japan Trench subduction zone includes modes and intervals not recordable in instrumental and historical data The JTRACK pre-proposal sought to address the mechanics and rupture history of the Japan Trench subduction zone with a coordinated program of along-strike drilling to capture the variation in stress state and material properties in regions of the trench that generated tsunamis at different times in the past. However, following feedback from the SEP and extensive discussion regarding the logistics, timing and short drilling expedition strategy, one of the key outcomes of the Tokyo workshop was a consensus that the scientific goals and logistical planning would be more achievable if the scope of a future proposal to IODP were more geographically focused. The JTRACK proposal will focus on the 2011 Tohoku-oki rupture area. 4. Drilling locations and strategy Two locations within the 2011 Tohoku-oki rupture area were proposed to address the primary JTRACK goal of establishing whether the material properties control the mechanical behavior of the shallow megathrust: one in the region of maximum slip and one where the slip is observed to be substantially lower. A third additional location was highly prioritized outside the 2011 rupture area but within the region that slipped during the 1896 Sanriku tsunamigenic earthquake where large, shallow slip occurred in a M8.2 event. In order to answer some of the questions outline above, the research plan developed during the workshop included across-strike transects at each location with the following generalized drilling objectives (see Figure 3): 1. Sample a reference input section on the incoming plate as a baseline for comparison with regional geophysical surveys, sediments in the prism and materials in the plate-boundary décollement. 2. Obtain cores from approximately 100 m long intervals in the shallow portion of trench-fill sediments to extend the seismoturbidite record back over 10 ka. This effort will be paired with non-drilling sediment sampling (giant piston coring and conventional sediment coring) along-strike the entire margin. 3. Continuously core the frontal prims, fault zone and downgoing plate to the basaltic basement in multiple locations to ensure the plate boundary fault is penetrated and determine representative fault rock properties by structural analysis and laboratory experiments. 4. Measure the physical and pore fluid property changes over time following an earthquake with a sub-seafloor observatory to establish how quickly the plate boundary recovers. 5. Investigate the role of fluids in the mechanical behavior of the plate boundary with geochemical and physical property data from continuous cores through the frontal prism.

6. Characterize the prism stress state from borehole and sediment property measurements and geodetic monitoring.

Figure 3. Representative section through the Japan Trench based on seismic surveys of site C0019 showing the structure of the margin (solid lines are faults, dashed lines show bedding attitudes observed in seismic reflection survey data; after Chester et al., 2013; Nakamura et al., 2013). Three sites defining an across-strike transect at each location were prioritized by the JTRACK workshop participants, which are shown by vertical arrows. Open rectangles indicate depth of penetration of coring holes at each site. 4.1 Region of maximum slip: Site C0019 (latitude 38°N) Site C0019 was chosen for study during Expedition 343/343T because it is located within the region of maximum slip during the 2011 Tohoku-oki rupture area (e.g. Mori et al., 2012) and because the megathrust décollement could be penetrated at <7 km in suitable water depths for wellhead deployment and R.O.V. operation. These characteristics are critical to some aspects of the proposed work for the JTRACK project, which includes coring and LWD characterization of the plate boundary fault and deployment of long-term observatories requiring R.O.V. and underwater TV for completion. Additionally, existing ocean floor bathymetry data, high-resolution seismic data and the results of Expedition 343/343T make this site the best characterized place along the Japan Trench. Three holes were successfully drilled during Expedition 343/343T, including a hole that was occupied by a temperature observatory for nine months. The results confirm the viability of drilling at this site, and provide good constraints on the location of the plate boundary fault and other structures, key intervals for targeted coring, and Expedition 343/343T MWD data can be used to efficiently plan future drilling operations. 4.2 Region of low slip (latitude 38° 30’N)

Direct measurements of the coseismic slip during the 2011 Tohoku-oki rupture have been made through repeat bathymetry surveys across the Japan Trench. Five recently acquired repeat surveys (Figure 2; Fujiwara, in preparation) show that the coseismic slip at the trench was spatially variable. The JTRACK workshop participants prioritized a site along the northernmost repeat bathymetry survey (at around latitude 38° 30’N; Figure 2) where the data provide an upper bound of 20 m for the coseismic slip. This is less than half of the inferred slip at site C0019, but near the center of the rupture area. A site at this latitude therefore offers the possibility of determining whether the

1 kmV.E.= 2 FRONTAL PRISM

Frontal Prism

Basaltic basement

Pacific plate

sedimentary units

INPUT SECTION

TRENCH-FILL

mechanical difference is because the material properties of the fault are spatially variable. Site characterization data are currently minimal at this latitude, but indicate the water depth is approximately the same as site C0019 (Figure 4). Acquisition of high-resolution seismic data is planned for October 2014, which will allow a specific site at this latitude to be defined.

Figure 4. High resolution seismic reflection survey through the Japan margin ~2 km south of the repeat bathymetry line at 38° 30’N. Estimated water depths and depths to prominent reflectors shown. 4.3 1896 Sanriku rupture area (latitude 39° 30’N) The 1896 M8.2 Sanriku earthquake caused a large tsunami and is inferred to have ruptured the shallow part of the northern Japan Trench with large slip (Tanioka and Satake, 1996). The occurrence of large, shallow slip is a similar characteristic to the 2011 Tohoku-oki rupture, and highlights the possibility that the same material properties that control megathrust mechanics in the central portion of the margin are important further north. Furthermore, this portion of the margin is seismically active and has ruptured in M7 and M8 events in the past few decades, none of which ruptured to the trench. Creep rates inferred from repeating earthquakes indicate that the shallow portion of the plate boundary is creeping, but at a rate substantially less than the plate convergence rate. These observations suggest that the shallow portion of the plate boundary fault is conditionally stable. The JTRACK workshop proposed drilling into the plate boundary fault within the rupture area of the 1896 Sanriku earthquake at a latitude of around 39° 30’N, which is north of the rupture area of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. Site survey data are currently unavailable for this region so no specific site was selected. Three fundamental data acquisition methods will be required for the JTRACK project: 1. logging while drilling measurements of formation properties and stress field orientations, 2. cores throughout the input section, trench-fill sediments, the frontal prism, plate boundary fault and subducted plate, 3. subseafloor observatory measurements providing long time series measurements of temperature, water pressure, fluid geochemistry and strain variation. 5. Summary: outcomes and future perspectives

Participants at the JTRACK workshop were asked to prioritize the science objectives and drilling locations outlined in the pre-proposal in light of the Science Evaluation Panel feedback. To develop a focused full proposal to IODP, the workshop participants concluded that the highest priority should be to concentrate on the mechanical controls on the unprecedented coseismic slip during the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake rupture. The group decided that three locations offered the chance to establish whether material properties control the seismogenic behavior of the shallow décollement and to probe the trench-fill record for evidence of past tsunamigenic ruptures. Further work is required to fully characterize the causes of large, shallow slip and to broaden the impact of the results to globally relevant conclusions. A full proposal will therefore be prepared by the group in the near future for further coring, logging and deployment of a long-term observatory at site C0019 and at latitude 38° 30’N where the coseismic slip was relatively low. Addressing variability along strike at the Japan Trench, and the specific mechanical properties of the margin to the north where the 1896 Sanriku rupture occurred will follow in one or more additional proposal once site characterization work can be scheduled. 6. Acknowledgements Acknowledgements to various funding bodies, organizers, admin people, attendees for showing up. 7. References Ikehara, K., et al. (2012), Past “earthquake/tsunami” event deposits found in the Japan Trench: AGU Fall Meeting, Abstract NH41C. Ikehara, K., et al., A 1500 year long earthquake record in the Japan Trench sediments, submitted to Geology. Mori, J., Chester, F. M., Eguchi, N., & Toczko, S. (2012). Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 343 Scientific Prospectus: Japan Trench Fast Earthquake Drilling Project (JFAST). Chicago Tanioka, Y., and K. Satake (1996), Fault parameters of the 1896 Sanriku tsunami earthquake estimated from tsunami numerical modeling, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 1549–1552, doi:10.1029/96GL01479. 8. List of Participants

Last Name First Name Affiliation

1 Aoike Kan Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

2 Azuma Wataru JAMSTEC

3 Behrmann Jan-Hinrich GEOMAR | Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel

4 Boston Brian Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Hawaii

5 Brodsky Emily E. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences University of California, Santa Cruz

6 Byrne Timothy Geosciences, University of Connecticut

7 Conin Marianne Georessources, Geomodeling Department, Universite de Lorraine

8 Cook Becky J. Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton

9 Eguchi Nobu Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

10 Fujie Gou Research and Development Center for Earthquake and Tsunami, JAMSTEC

11 Fujiwara Toshiya Research and Development Center for Earthquake and Tsunami, JAMSTEC

12 Fulton Patrick Seismology Laboratory, University of California Santa Cruz

13 Hamada Yohei Kochi Institute for Core Sample Research, JAMSTEC

14 Hashimoto Yoshitaka Department of Applied Science, Faculty of Science, Kochi University

15 Hirano Satoshi Department of Marine & Earth Sciences, Marine Works Japan Ltd.

16 Hyndman Ro y Geological Survey of Canada

17 Ikari Matt Center for Marine Environmental Science (MARUM), University of Bremen

18 Ikehara Ken National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology

19 Ishikawa Tsuyoshi Kochi Institute for Core Sample Research, JAMSTEC

20 Kanagawa Kyuichi Department of Earth Sciences, Chiba University

21 Kanamatsu Toshiya Research and Development Center for Earthquake and Tsunami, JAMSTEC

22 Kawaguchi Shinsuke Department of Subsurface Geobiological Analysis and Research, JAMSTEC

23 Kido Yukari Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

24 Kimura Gaku Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of Tokyo

25 Kirkpatrick James Geosciences, Colorado State University

26 Kitajima Hiroko National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology

27 Kodaira Shuichi Research and Development Center for Earthquake and Tsunami, JAMSTEC

28 Kuramoto Shin'ichi Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

29 Kyaw Moe Research and Development Center for Ocean Drilling Science, JAMSTEC

30 Kyo Nori Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

31 Lin Weiren Kochi Institute for Core Sample Research, JAMSTEC

32 Maeda Lena Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

33 McNeill Lisa Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton

34 Miyazaki Eigo Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

35 Moor Alexander de Geology and Geophysics, Oregon State University

36 Moore J. Casey Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz

37 Mori James Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University

38 Nakamura Yasuyuki Research and Development Center for Earthquake and Tsunami, JAMSTEC

39 Obana Koichiro Research and Development Center for Earthquake and Tsunami, JAMSTEC

40 Ohira Akane Research and Development Center for Earthquake and Tsunami, JAMSTEC

41 Ohkouchi Naohiko Department of Biogeochemistry, JAMSTEC

42 Omura Kentaro National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention

43 Ono Shigeaki Research and Development Center for Ocean Drilling Science, JAMSTEC

44 Regalla Christine Hobart and William Smith Colleges

45 Saito Saneatsu Research and Development Center for Ocean Drilling Science, JAMSTEC

46 Sample James School of Earth Science & Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University

47 Sanada Yoshi Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

48 Saruhashi Tomo Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

49 Sawada Ikuo Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

50 Schleicher Anja Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Michigan

51 Strasser Michael Geological Institute, ETH Zurich

52 Takase Koji Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

53 Tanioka Yuichiro Institute of Seismology and Volcanology, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University

54 Toczko Sean Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

55 Uemura Yoshinori Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

56 Ujiie Kohtaro Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba

57 Usami Kazuko National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology

58 Vannucchi Paola Department of Earth Sciences Royal Holloway, University of London

59 Wada Ikuko Research Center for Prediction of Earthquakes and Volcanic. Eruptions, Tohoku University

60 Wang Kelin Pacific Geosicence Centre, Geological Survey of Canada

61 Wu HungYu (Sonata)

Research and Development Center for Ocean Drilling Science, JAMSTEC

62 Yamaguchi Asuka Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo

63 Yamano Makoto Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo 64 Yamasaki Eri Ocean Floor Geoscience Section 2, Marine Works Japan Ltd.

65 Yokoyama Takahiro Center for Deep Earth Exploration, JAMSTEC

Chikyu IODP Board Project Coordination Team General Terms of Reference

Ver.1.0 1. Overview D/V Chikyu project implementation, especially for riser projects, takes several years

from preparation to execution. This is because of the complexities inherent in

complex drilling operation logistics and planning as well as multi-stage and multi-year

strategies to tackle the scientific objectives. The principle investigators and the co-

chief scientists (in the implementation stage) need to work with the implementing

organization (IO) once a proposal becomes a project. Collaboration and cooperation

between the IO and scientists is the key factor for project success. The Chikyu IODP

Board (CIB) Project Coordination Team (PCT) is the venue where the IO and

scientists work together for the success of each scientific drilling project.

2. General Purpose The PCT creates a feasible drilling project once proposals have been accepted.

Normally, the PCT will be established once the CIB designates a proposal to a

project. The PCT shall define operational constraints and maximize the scientific

target of a project within those constraints, and shall provide reasonable advice to the

CIB and the Director General of CDEX. Each PCT might have slightly different terms

of references because each drilling project may have different specific aspects.

Coordination with the Technical Advisory Team (TAT)* is also highly recommended,

in terms of managing the technological and engineering aspects of a project.

3. Mandate The PCT shall make recommendations and offer advice to the CIB and the Director

General of CDEX pursuant to the following principles:

• Development of designated drilling project based on IODP drilling proposal(s)

recommended by the CIB.

• Identify operation constraints and seek for their mitigation plan, if possible.

• Review assigned projects to identify expedition-specific scientific targets,

efficiently and effectively coordinate expedition development, establish

agreement on scientific/technologic contingency options.

• Coordination between each expedition among the assigned project to

maximize scientific outcome and maintain the agreed-upon scientific

standards.

• Co-chiefs selection and the science party staffing of each expedition, to

maximize the scientific out come of the project and to satisfy Chikyu IODP

membership agreements.

• Coordinate onboard scientific measurements among the designated project.

• Identify and assign responsibility for expedition-specific technological

development requirements.

4. Membership The PCT membership shall consist of CDEX representatives, principle investigators,

and external scientists and engineers as needed. The number of core members shall

be five to eight.

5. Meeting Hold a physical meeting once a year, basically in conjunction with other international

meetings (e.g., AGU). In addition to the physical meeting, telephone-based (e.g.

Skype) conferences are encouraged on an as-needed basis.

Agenda Item 17 PCT Activities

PCT TOR

1. NanTroSEIZE 2. CRISP

A) Meeting Memo 3. IBM

#1 CRISP Project Coordination Team (PCT) meeting (Kick-off meeting) Note (draft)

Date; 11 December 2013 Venue; Moscone Center North

Attendees; Keir Becker (TAT), Susan Bilek (PCT), Nobu Eguchi (PCT), Yoshi Kawamura (Observer), Nori Kyo (PCT), Casey Moore (CIB), César Ranero (PCT), Kohtaro Ujiie (PCT) Meeting goals: Understanding PCT activity, set future time line, and discuss action items. 1. PCT Scope of Work: (draft version of SOW is attached as appendix)

• The current CRISP PCT is in the “initial phase” of the project, which means the CRISP project has been designated as a Chikyu project by the Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) but has not been included in JAMSTEC implementation plan therefore financial commitment has not been established yet.

• According to PCT SOW, there are six items to be covered during this phase activity.

• Main task of PCT activity is making sure operational feasibility meets the proposed scientific objectives. In the initial phase, important thing is that all the PCT members have the same vision of the project and share all the information among the members. Clarification and prioritization of the scientific objectives of the original IODP proposal with its feasibility (operational and financial) is also important.

• CDEX created “PCT Initial Scoping Sheet” and the PCT members will start filling this sheet.

• Lessons learned from the previous experiences, it should not be any discrepancy exists between science planning and operation planning. Continuous discussion among the PCT would serve for making a realistic operation plan.

2. Rough estimation of operation cost of CRISP project:

• 15M$ for transit (30 days one way), 65M$ for yearly basic cost of the vessel, 10M$/month = 50M$/5 months for riser drilling operation. Therefore, total of about 130M$ is necessary for the first year for CRISP operation (including 5 months on site).

• The current (and in the near future) yearly CDEX budget is 90M$, and an additional income from commercial work would be maximum 20M$ per year. Therefore the expected maximum available fund for Chikyu operation would be 110M$ per year.

• There is some discrepancy between income and operation cost that need to be solved.

3. Discussion:

• Chikyu riser operation allows vessel offset of about 2 % of water depth, therefore, if a drilling site locates in shallower water, the operation criteria become narrower (operable days will decrease, and total days on site increase). The PCT needs to look into the 3D survey results for

choosing possible new sites that preferably locate in deeper water depth and also meet the scientific objectives, but it could be difficult.

• Geotechnical core had been obtained by JR during IODP Exp. 344. Reevaluation of the geotechnical information from this core that can support for engineering design of the wellhead installation need to be obtained, in case of the proposed site location changes. Based on the reevaluation, there would be a possibility of another geotechnical survey required.

• Metocean data for initial riser analysis is necessary. There may be some data available, but some of the required data, e.g., vertical sea current profile of on the site, would be difficult to find. The PCT will look into the available/existing data. The area is normally very calm and no hurricane affects. There are normally no strong current exist at the site but 3D seismic survey cruise experienced more than 2 knots in the area (information from CRISP 3D survey meeting).

• CDEX explained about observatory installation in a riser hole needs a special wellhead that is expensive. Cased hole can preserve for future observatory installation was also explained. Regarding observatory installation, CDEX asked expected temperature gradient at the site. Based on the JR expedition result, it could be estimated as 90 degree C at 4 kmbsf but there is some argument about this number.

• To help the current budget situation, need to investigate possible commercial operation near the site. Highest potential for the commercial operation would be in the Gulf of Mexico. Although the Panama Canal will expand its size, because of the height of the derrick, Chikyu will not be able to sail through the canal.

4. PCT Action items:

• Fill “PCT Initial Scoping Sheet”. Due by February 2014 CIB meeting, at least a part of the sheet.

• Continue 3D site survey data interpretation for site selection and site characterization. Due by early summer 2014.

• There could be a workshop for 3D interpretation and site selection in early summer 2014 (discussed at CRISP 3D survey meeting). Both US and Japan seek for possible funding opportunity to hold a workshop. Due by February 2014.

• Shallow hazard survey based on existing data. Due TBD.

5. Next meeting: • After determination of possible drilling sites with scientific priority at the

workshop, CDEX will make the initial casing plan of a hole, based on the velocity model of the proposed site. The PCT will have next face-to-face meeting once this initial casing plan was established. Until them, the discussion continues on the Basecamp site.

Agenda Item 18 Long-term Implementation Plan

1. MEXT Deep Sea Drilling Committee Report 2. NanTroSEIZE Operation 3. Post NanTroSEIZE Riser Expeditions 4. Chikyu Riserless Expeditions

Chikyu Riserless Expeditions Criteria 5. Chikyu CPPs

Chikyu CPP Criteria 6. Workshops for pending proposals 7. Guidelines for CIB proposals

CIB_Consensus_0713-19: The CIB endorsed Chikyu riserless operation in the below criteria (but not limited to). Riserless operation beyond JR capability (e.g., ultra deep water). Riserless operation in the regions where JR will not be for many years (e.g., W.

Pacific after FY2014). Riserless operation on the way to/from e.g., industry operations.

Agenda Item 19 Chikyu Facility Procedures, Guidelines and Policies

1. Sample, Data and Obligation

IODP Sample, Data and Obligations Policy (March 2014) 2. Staffing Procedures

A) IODP Staffing Procedures (September 16, 2011) B) JR Staffing Procedures C) Chikyu Berth Exchange

3. Workshop Proposal Submission Guidelines Workshop Proposal Submission Guidelines

4. Onboard Measurements Guidelines A) IODP Measurements Document (February, 2008) B) JR Standard Measurements C) Chikyu Standard Measurements

5. Third Party Tool Guidelines A) IODP Third-Party Tools Policy (9 March, 2006) B) IODP Third Party Tool and Laboratory Instrumentation Development,

Procurement and Deployment Guidelines ver. 4 (September 8, 2008)

C) JR Third-Party Tools and Instruments Policy D) Chikyu Third-Party Tools and Instruments Policy

6. Second Post Expedition Meeting A) IODP approval guidelines for Second Post-Expedition Meetings B) CDEX 2nd Post Cruise Meeting Guidelines

1

International Ocean Discovery Program Sample, Data, and Obligations Policy & Implementation

Guidelines May 2014

Policy The goal of this policy is to ensure open and transparent access to International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP), Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), and Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) samples and data for scientists, educators, museums, and outreach institutions. Recipients of samples and data incur obligations on their use and reporting of the science outcomes from research based on these samples or data. The use of all cores and samples are under the auspices of the IODP Curators and the Curatorial Advisory Board (CAB).

Specifically, IODP ensures:

• Availability of samples and data to Science Party members so they can fulfill the objectives of the drilling project and their responsibilities to IODP;

• Dissemination of the scientific findings of all IODP drilling projects/expeditions to gain maximum scientific and public exposure;

• Scientific community access to encourage scientific analyses over a wide range of research disciplines by providing samples;

• Preservation of core and cuttings material as an archive for future description and observations, nondestructive analyses, and sampling; and

• Support for education and outreach related to the drilling program by providing materials to educators, museums, and outreach institutions.

2

Policy Implementation Guidelines 1. Sample and Data Requesters

There are 3 classes of sample requesters: Science Party, Post-moratorium Researchers, and Educators & Outreach Institutions. Each group incurs their own particular obligation once a data or sample request has been approved and delivered.

• Science Party consists of all invited shipboard and shore-based expedition scientists, plus other scientists who have been approved by the Sample Allocation Committee (SAC) to work on expedition material during the moratorium period. Expedition samples and data are held under a moratorium period. This ensures that the Science Party receives priority access to data and samples.

• Post-moratorium researchers are those who submit sample & data requests after the expedition’s moratorium ends.

• Educators & Outreach Institutions are grade school through university educators, museum educators, and curators of museum exhibits and collections. This also includes professionals conducting outreach related to scientific ocean drilling.

2. Sample and Data Requests

Requests for data or samples must be made through official IODP channels. There are two categories of expeditions from which samples may be requested: moratorium expeditions and post-moratorium expeditions, including past IODP, ODP, or DSDP expeditions.

• Moratorium Expeditions. IODP imposes a moratorium, one year from completion of the expedition, during which sample and data access is restricted to members of the expedition science party. Completion of an expedition is designated as the date when the majority of sampling is completed, either on board the ship or at the end of any official expedition-related shore-based sampling party. The one-year term may be modified before the expedition in certain cases, such as when significant funding derives from external sources. Samples and data from these expeditions can be accessed via the following links: http://www.iodp-usio.org/Data_Samples/, http://sio7.jamstec.go.jp/ and http://iodp.wdc-mare.org/.

• Post-moratorium Expeditions. Samples and data from IODP expeditions no longer under moratorium restrictions, including past IODP, ODP, and DSDP expeditions can be accessed via the following links:

3

http://www.iodp-usio.org/Data_Samples/, http://sio7.jamstec.go.jp/ and http://iodp.wdc-mare.org/.

Shipping and supply costs in excess of reasonable costs, as detailed on the appropriate IODP core repository web site (see Appendix B), are the responsibility of the requester.

Moratorium Expedition requests: All submitted requests must be approved by the Sample Allocation Committee (SAC). The SAC will review the sample requests, and approval will be based on compatibility with the scientific goals and objectives of the expedition as developed in the Sampling Strategy section of the Expedition Prospectus. All scientists who receive approval for samples or data by the SAC become members of the Science Party. The sample requester may choose to appeal any decision by the SAC or the IODP Curator to the Curatorial Advisory Board (CAB). If a conflict arises over the allocation of samples during the moratorium period, expedition participants will have priority over those who did not participate in the expedition.

Researchers with approved sample and data requests incur publishing obligations (see 3. Obligations) for working on expedition material during the moratorium period.

During the moratorium period, the only researchers permitted to receive expedition core and cuttings materials and data are members of the Science Party. The Science Party may access expedition data online at a password-protected web site (see the Implementing Organization (IO) data websites) during the moratorium period. Post-moratorium Expedition Requests: Samples are given or loaned to persons whose requests have been approved by an appropriate IODP Curator. 3. Obligations

Science Party members are obligated to conduct research and to publish their results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or book that publishes in English, or as a peer-reviewed data report either in the open literature or in a relevant issue of the Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program. To fulfill the obligation, manuscripts must be submitted within 20 months post-moratorium. Failure to meet this obligation may result in the denial of future sample requests or future sailing opportunities. Post-moratorium Researchers are asked to make data obtained from these samples publicly available within 36 months. Return of Sample Material Following completion of sample investigations, or in the event that research is discontinued, Science Party Members and Post-moratorium Researchers are

4

required to return all non-destroyed sample material at the investigator’s expense to the IODP repository where the sample materials are stored (see IODP Curatorial Procedures for sample distribution information). Unfulfilled Research Plans If investigators are unable to fulfill their obligations, a letter of explanation should be submitted to the IODP Curator(s); see Appendix B for contact information). The letter should provide specific reasons for not fulfilling obligations such as lack of conclusive analytical results (quality or quantity), personal reasons, or external factors. Educators and Outreach Institutions After the moratorium period has expired, core materials can be used for the following purposes:

• Viewing and describing for teaching and educational purposes, • Sampling by educators (if core materials are abundant in the collection, and

thus not in demand for research purposes), and • Public display, such as in museums or at professional meetings.

Educators, museums, and outreach institutions who receive samples for educational or display purposes incur the following obligations to IODP:

• All recipients are required to submit a report at the conclusion of the loan period (or other time frame designated by the IODP Curator) that documents (a) how the core materials were used, (b) how many students/visitors were impacted, and (c) the activities that were organized related to the loan.

• All public displays of IODP material must properly credit IODP using the following wording: “This project used samples and/or data provided by the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP)”.

4. Submitting Manuscripts

Science Party Manuscripts can be submitted for publication during the moratorium period. For ordinary manuscripts, the Science Party authors must comply with the following guidelines:

• Receive prior written approval by a majority of the expedition scientists. This approval will be coordinated by the IODP Expedition Project Manager (EPM) associated with the expedition. The EPM will circulate the manuscript among the expedition participants, tabulate the responses, and notify the author of the expedition participants’ decision.

• Comply with all written collaborative agreements identified in the expedition sampling strategy (see IODP Curatorial Procedures).

5

• Include “Expedition ### Scientists” (where ### is the expedition number) within the authorship.

• Include the words “International Ocean Discovery Program” or “IODP” in the abstract.

• Acknowledge IODP using the following wording: “This research used samples and/or data provided by the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP). Funding for this research was provided by _________.”

• Provide the following key words, as appropriate, to the manuscript publisher: “International Ocean Discovery Program,” “name of drilling platform,” Expedition ###,” “expedition title,” and/or “Site ###” (where ### is the expedition or site identifier).

• Notify the Editorial Review Board (ERB) of manuscript submission and submit complete citation information to the platform operator upon acceptance.

The Science Party may decide to submit manuscripts immediately following an expedition to convey expedition results to a high-impact journal. In this case, all other IODP publications, news releases, and reports related to the expedition should be placed under temporary embargo. The Implementing Organization is required, before the end of the expedition, to notify the chair of the respective Facility Board of JR, Chikyu or the MSP to receive approval to postpone the publication of the expedition Preliminary Report (due for publication within 2 months post-expedition). The Implementing Organization will be responsible for coordinating and completing the process, including communicating with the contracted publication agency that prepares the Preliminary Report for publication. Approval of the publishing embargo must be received by the expedition EPM no later than two weeks post-expedition. A status report is due to the Facility Boards of JR, Chikyu or the MSP six months post-expedition.

Once approved, the manuscript must be submitted to a journal with a copy to the publication contractor. If this deadline is missed, the embargo will be released, and all reports and news releases with go ahead. The Preliminary Report will also then be automatically published. All requirements for publishing during the moratorium period apply.

Post-moratorium Researchers Post-moratorium researchers who use International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP), Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), and Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) data and samples received after the expedition moratorium period do not incur obligations to publish their results. However, if they do publish papers based on these data, they are requested to comply with the following guidelines:

• Submit a manuscript for publication, if possible, within 36 months after receiving samples.

6

• Include the words “International Ocean Discovery Program” or “IODP” in the abstract (or wording appropriate to the DSDP, ODP, or the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program).

• Acknowledge IODP in all publications that result from the data collected from samples received using the following wording: “This research used samples and/or data provided by the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP). Funding for this research was provided by _________.”

• Provide the following key words, as appropriate, to the manuscript publisher: “International Ocean Discovery Program,” “Integrated Ocean Drilling Program,” “Ocean Drilling Program,” or “Deep Sea Drilling Project”, “name of drilling platform,” Expedition or Leg ###,” “expedition or leg title,” and/or “Site ###” (where ### is the cruise or site identifier).

• Notify the IODP Curator of manuscript acceptance and submit complete citation information.

7

Appendix A. Terms, Definitions, Roles and Responsibilities 1. Drilling Project A single expedition or multiple expeditions defined as one project during the expedition scheduling phase.

2. Moratorium Period

The moratorium period is one year long and begins either (1) after the conclusion of an expedition cruise if the majority of the sampling occurred during the cruise, or (2) after the conclusion of the expedition onshore sampling party (onshore science party in case of the mission-specific platform).

During the moratorium period, the only researchers permitted to receive expedition core and cuttings materials and data are members of the Science Party. After the moratorium period ends, samples are given or loaned to persons whose requests have been approved by an IODP Curator. Project data are also publicly available (www.iodp.org/access-data/) after the moratorium period.

3. Nondestructive Analyses

Requests to perform nondestructive analyses on cores (e.g., descriptions, imaging, X-ray scanning, etc.) should be submitted to the IODP Curator at the appropriate repository after the completion of the IODP Sample Request Form (www.iodp.org/access-data/). Investigators who conduct nondestructive analyses incur the same obligations as scientists who request samples.

4. Postmoratorium Researchers

Researchers who request samples after the moratorium period has ended.

5. Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program

An IODP serial publication published by the U.S. operator that contains a detailed summary of expedition technical operations and scientific results and related peer-reviewed data reports and synthesis papers that cover post-expedition research.

A “data report” is a short report of useful data that mainly consists of data sets and does not contain interpretation of results.

An expedition “synthesis paper” summarizes in a review-type fashion the findings related to the key goals and themes of the drilling project and links to the broader and global theme(s) addressed. While this is primarily based on the scientific papers and data reports resulting from the expedition, it is not a synopsis of all papers and data reports in all fields of observations. The style should be close to that of a thematic review paper for the open literature, though obviously tied closely to the actual expedition(s). An expedition could have more than one synthesis paper, if the diversity of science and findings would be best served by that. Likewise, synthesis papers from drilling projects with multiple expeditions, joint scientific party

8

membership, and a common moratorium period would not normally be broken down according to specific expeditions, but would be presented as a single manuscript.

Each Proceedings volume will be completed at 36 months post moratorium.

6. Science Party

The Science Party includes all invited shipboard and shore-based expedition participants plus scientists who have been approved by the SAC for working on expedition material during the moratorium period and publishing their results.

7. IODP Curators

There are three International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) Curators who are responsible for (1) curation and sampling of core and cuttings during an IODP drilling project and (2) oversight and use of IODP, Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), and Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) core collections that are stored in the IODP repositories.

7.a. Platform Curator

Each Curator serves as the Platform Curator to oversee all curation tasks from the pre-planning stage through the arrival of the core and cuttings after an expedition at the repository where the core and cuttings material will be stored. The Platform Curator has responsibility to oversee use of the core and cuttings materials through the end of the moratorium period.

7.b. Repository Curator

Each Curator serves as the Repository Curator with responsibility for the preservation of the core and cuttings once it arrives at the repository where the core material will be stored. The Repository Curator has responsibility to oversee the use of core and cuttings material after the moratorium period ends.

All Curators maintain records of all distributed samples, both from the platform and from the repositories. Sample records include the names of the recipients, the nature of the proposed research, the volume of samples taken, and the status of the request. This information is available to investigators upon request through the Repository Curator.

8. Curatorial Advisory Board

The Curatorial Advisory Board (CAB) is a standing body that consists of five members of the scientific community (selected by the JOIDES Resolution Facility Board/ECORD Facility Board/Chikyu IODP Board – with nominations from the IODP Curators) who serve overlapping four-year terms. Every effort will be made to ensure that CAB membership represents a variety of scientific disciplines. The CAB has two main roles:

9

• Act as an appeals board vested with the authority to make final decisions regarding sample distribution if and when conflicts or differences of opinion arise among any combination of the sample requester, IODP Curator at the repository of interest, and the SAC.

• Upon request from the IODP curator, if needed review and approve requests

to sample the permanent archive and requests for loans of core material for outreach and education.

A person appealing to the CAB may contact any member of the Board directly (see Appendix C).

9. Editorial Review Board

The Editorial Review Board (ERB) is established for every drilling project and comprised of the Co-Chief Scientist(s) for the drilling project and the IODP Expedition Project Manager assigned to the expedition. These individuals may select external scientists/specialists to serve with them. The need for external ERB members will be determined based on the Co-Chief Scientists’ and Expedition Project Manager’s workloads and expertise. An ERB remains active for 36 months post-moratorium. The ERB has four main roles:

• Coordinate the writing of the drilling project results; • Monitor all post-drilling project research and associated publication of results; • Make decisions on issues relating to the publication of research related to the

drilling project to fulfill IODP obligations; and • Monitor obligation fulfillment by the Science Party.

The members of the ERB hold the following specific responsibilities: All ERB

Members Expedition

Project Manager

Co-Chief Scientists

Coordinate the writing of the Expedition Reports section of the Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program, attend the first post-cruise meeting, and review the Expedition Reports section galleys.

X

Ensure that all manuscripts published in the “Expedition Research Results” section of the Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program are complete and of reviewable quality before they are sent out for review. Manuscripts that do not meet IODP’s standards will be returned to the author and will not go through the review process unless they are revised to meet IODP standards before the submission deadline.

X

10

All ERB Members

Expedition Project

Manager

Co-Chief Scientists

Collect all proposed publication titles related to the expedition (papers published in the Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program volume and journals or books). X

Make decisions on issues relating to the publication of research related to the drilling project to fulfill IODP obligations

X

Approve the final table of contents for the Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program volume. X

Check each journal or book manuscript submission, within three months of receipt, for proper citation of site summaries and site chapters [What are site summaries vs. site chapters? I have never understood this terminology?] and for proper use of data and conclusions from other members of the Science Party. [The problem with this has been that since the start of the first IODP there has been no policy requirement for scientists to simultaneously submit their journal/book papers to IODP so the ERB can review them. Without the draft manuscripts, the ERB can’t complete this responsibility.]

X

Implement the peer-review process for data reports and synthesis papers submitted to the Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program as soon as the Expedition Project Manager approves each one as being of “reviewable quality.”

X

Write or coordinate a drilling project synthesis paper to be published in the Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program or a journal. X

Submit synthesis paper by 26 months postmoratorium. X Coordinate the peer-review process for synthesis paper if submitted to the Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program.

X

Document the status of the Science Party members’ actions to fulfill their obligations requirements. X

Regularly provide updates to the Expedition-Related Bibliography that is part of each Proceedings volume. X

10. Sample Allocation Committee

The Sample Allocation Committee (SAC), which is established for each drilling project, consists of the Co-Chief Scientist(s), IODP Expedition Project Manager, and Platform Curator. During the drilling project, the Platform Curator designates authority and responsibilities to the drilling project Curatorial Representative.

11

The SAC establishes a project-specific sampling strategy and makes decisions on project-specific sample requests received before the drilling project, during the drilling project, and during the moratorium period. In the event of an evenly divided vote, the Platform Curator at the repository associated with the expedition will make a decision. The sample requester may choose to appeal the SAC’s or Platform Curator’s decision to the CAB. 11. Facility Board

Each platform provider (NSF for JOIDES Resolution, MEXT/JAMSTEC for Chikyu, ECORD for Mission-Specific Platforms) uses a Facility Board to make or inform decisions on the effective use of its drilling facility in fulfilling the objectives of the IODP Science Plan.

Facility Boards make use of the JOIDES Resolution Facility's advisory panels - the Science Evaluation Panel (SEP) and the Environmental Protection and Safety Panel (EPSP) - to evaluate the science, sites, environmental protection, and safety of proposed expeditions.

12

Appendix B. Repository-Specific Information There are three IODP core repositories (http://www.iodp.org/repositories): the Bremen Core Repository (BCR) at the University of Bremen, Germany, the Gulf Coast Repository (GCR) located at Texas A&M University in College Station, USA, and the Kochi Core Center (KCC) at Kochi University, Japan (http://www.iodp.org/repositories).

According to IODP convention and practice, the existing geographic core distribution model will be maintained.

The BCR stores all of the cores recovered since the beginning of scientific ocean drilling from the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans as well as the Mediterranean, Black and Baltic Seas. The BCR is also responsible for providing mobile laboratories for MSP expeditions and for organizing and hosting their Onshore Science Parties.

The GCR stores all of the cores recovered since the beginning of scientific ocean drilling from the Pacific Ocean (east of western boundary of the Pacific Plate), Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, and the Southern Ocean (South of 60° except Kerguelen Plateau).

The KCC stores all of the cores recovered since the beginning of scientific ocean drilling from the Pacific Ocean (west of western boundary of Pacific plate), the Indian Ocean (North of 60°S), all of Kerguelen Plateau, and the Bering Sea.

Repository Procedures can differ slightly between the BCR, GCR and KCC and these are accessible at/through the respective repository webpages (http://www.iodp.org/repositories).

Contact Information

Bremen Core Repository: http://www.marum.de/en/IODP_Bremen_Core_Repository.html

Gulf Coast Repository: http://iodp.tamu.edu/curation/gcr/index.html

Kochi Core Center: http://www.kochi-core.jp/en/iodp-curation/index.html

13

Appendix C. Curatorial Advisory Board (CAB) TBD.

July 5, 2006

IODP Staffing Procedures Process for Call for Applications:

1. Upon approval of the operations plan by the Science Planning Committee (SPC) at their annual summer meeting, a Call for Applications can be generated.

2. The Implementing Organizations (IOs) work with IODP-MI and the Program Member

Offices (PMOs) to collaboratively determine the deadline(s) for nominations for each expedition or set of expeditions, any special staffing requirements, and other relevant requirements/information to be included in the Call for Applications.

3. IOs generate an initial draft of the Call for Applications for expeditions related to

their respective platforms, incorporating information generated in Item#2 (above). IODP-MI and the PMOs will provide comments to this initial draft within one week. In the case of multi-platform expeditions, IODP-MI will generate the initial draft of the Call for Applications with IOs and PMOs providing comments.

4. IODP-MI generates the appropriate expedition science information for each approved

expedition and places the material on the IODP web page prior to release of the Call. 5. IODP-MI will distribute the Call for Applications to the PMOs, place the call on the

IODP web site, and advertise in appropriate venues. The staffing procedures for Co-Chief and Science Party members: A. Co-Chief Scientist Selection

1. SPC provides official Co-Chief Scientist recommendations and CVs to the IOs when programs are forwarded to the Operations Task Force. The PMOs will assist in the acquisition of CVs.

2. The IOs review the recommendations for Co-Chief Scientists and determine the most

appropriate individuals based on expedition science requirements, individual qualifications, the member country balance, and previous IODP performance.

3. The IOs circulate the initial co-chief staffing strategy to IODP-MI, the SPC chair, the

PMOs, and Project Management Team (PMT) Chairs (if any) for comments. This step ensures continuity and provides the opportunity for issues to be identified prior to invitations being issued. The IO has the responsibility for the final staffing decision given that they have the responsibility for delivery of the expedition.

4. Official letters are sent from the IO directly to the individual inviting them as Co-

Chief Scientist for a specific expedition. Copies of the letter are sent to the PMOs, IODP-MI, and PMT chair(s).

B. Science Party Staffing

1. PMOs receive applications directly from their science communities and evaluate them through their internal methods.

July 5, 2006

2. PMOs provide their nominations (including nominees’ applications and relevant supporting material) to the IOs. Member countries should be aware of the need for flexibility, and should provide an adequate number of nominations representing a variety of scientific expertise. Although each member country/consortia is entitled to their full representation according to the MOUs, there will be no “banking’ of unused berths. Berth space can be “traded” between member countries/consortia subject to approval by IODP-MI.

3. The IOs share nominations and supporting materials with the Co-Chief Scientists and

consider their recommendations when making final staffing decisions. 4. Official invitations are sent by the IO directly to each scientist. Copies are sent to Co-

Chief Scientists and PMOs.

Staffing may a two-step process. Initial invitations are sent to key science participants. Key individuals are those considered to provide critical expertise to delivery of the expedition science. Remaining invitations are sent after responses are received from the initial invitations. Sending invitations in two different groupings provides the opportunity to tune the science party based on the results of the initial invitations. This allows for greater flexibility and for maximizing the expedition science.

5. In the event that an invited science party member withdraws, the IO will ask the

relevant PMO to either approve another nominated scientist or nominate a qualified replacement.

6. While understanding that the IOs hold the ultimate authority for staffing decisions,

the IOs will consult and collaborate with the PMOs on significant deviations from the PMO’s nominations.

7. After the science party is finalized, the IO will notify all nominated scientists who

were not selected, in a timely manner. 8. IODP Management International is responsible for monitoring overall expedition

staffing to ensure member balance as prescribed in the Memoranda of Understanding between IODP Member countries is maintained over a ~18-24 month period.

JOIDES Resolution IODP Staffing Procedures

1


(Revised: August 2013) Process for Call for Applications

1. Upon approval of the expedition schedule by the JOIDES Resolution Facility Board (JRFB), a draft Call for Applications to participate is generated by the Implementing Organization (IO).

2. The IO works with the Program Member Offices (PMOs) to collaboratively determine the deadline(s) for nominations for each expedition or set of expeditions, any special staffing requirements, and other relevant requirements/information to be included in the Call for Applications.

3. The IO generates a final draft of the Call for Applications for expeditions, incorporating information generated in Item #2 (above). PMOs will provide final comments to this initial draft within one week.

4. The IO generates the appropriate expedition science information for each approved expedition and places the material on the IO web site prior to release of the Call.

5. The IO distributes the Call for Applications to the PMOs and the IODP Science Support Office. The Science Support Office places the call on the IODP web page. The PMOs circulate the call to their communities. The IO advertises the call in appropriate venues.

Staffing Procedures for Co-Chief Scientists and Science Party members

A. Co-Chief Scientist Selection

1. The Science Evaluation Panel (SEP) provides Co-Chief Scientist recommendations to the Science Support Office when a proposal is forwarded to the JRFB. The Science Support office provides the nomination list and their CVs to the IO. The PMOs will assist in the acquisition of CVs.

2. The IO reviews the recommendations for Co-Chief Scientists and determines the most appropriate individuals based on expedition science requirements, individual qualifications, and previous ODP/IODP performance.

3. The IO issues an official invitation to the individual inviting him/her as Co-Chief Scientist. Copies of the letter are sent to the PMOs.

B. Science Party Staffing

1. The PMOs receive applications directly from their science communities and evaluate them through their internal methods.

2. The PMOs provide their nominations (including each nominee’s application and relevant supporting material) to the IO. Member countries should be aware of the


2

need for flexibility, and should provide an adequate number of nominations representing a variety of scientific expertise. Although each member country/consortia is entitled to their full representation according to the MOUs, there will be no “banking’ of unused berths.

3. The IO shares nominations and supporting materials with the Co-Chief Scientists. The IO makes final staffing decisions based on the Co-Chief Scientists’ recommendations and the PMO interests.

4. Official invitations for scientific participation are sent by the IO directly to each scientist. Copies are sent to PMOs.

Staffing is typically a multi-step process. Initial invitations are sent to key science participants. Key individuals are those considered to provide critical expertise to delivery of the expedition science. Remaining invitations are sent after responses are received from the initial invitations. Sending invitations in different groupings provides the opportunity to tune the science party based on the results of the initial invitations. This allows for greater flexibility and for maximizing the expedition science.

5. In the event that an invited science party member declines an expedition or withdraws after accepting, the IO will select another scientist from the existing nomination list from the relevant PMO or request the PMO to provide a new nomination. If the PMO is unable to provide a suitable replacement, the berth will be relinquished by that PMO and filled with a qualified scientist from another PMO.

6. Although the IO holds the ultimate authority for staffing decisions, the IO will consult and collaborate with the PMOs on significant deviations from the PMO’s nominations, priorities, and rankings.

7. After the science party is finalized, the IO will notify all nominated scientists who were not selected, in a timely manner.

8. The IO is responsible for monitoring overall expedition staffing to ensure that member balance, as prescribed in the Memoranda of Understanding between NSF and JR consortium members, is maintained over a ~18-24 month period.

Chikyu Berth Exchange Model

Exp. I Exp. II Annual Total

No. of berth 1 1

No. of scientist 1 1 1 3

1 berth 1 berth

Exp. I (2 months) Exp. II (4 months)

Crew rotation Scientist A Scientist B Scientist C

1 berth available case with 2 expeditions(2 months & 4 months)/year (assuming crew rotation in every 2 months when an expedition is longer than 2 months)

Note : In case a scientist sails on 2 consecutive expedition or over crew rotation timing(when an expedition is long enough to have crew rotation), the scientist will be double counted(i.e. treated as 2 scientists).

1 berth 1 berth

Exp. I (2 months) Exp. II (4 months)

Crew rotation Scientist A,B Scientist C,D Scientist E,F

Exp. I Exp. II Annual Total

No. of berth 2 2

No. of scientist 2 2 2 6

2 berths available case with 2 expeditions(2 months & 4 months)/year (assuming crew rotation in every 2 months when an expedition is longer than 2 months)

Chikyu Berth Exchange Model

1 berth 1 berth

Note : In case a scientist sails on 2 consecutive expedition or over crew rotation timing(when an expedition is long enough to have crew rotation), the scientist will be double counted(i.e. treated as 2 scientists).

1

Chikyu IODP Board Workshop Proposal

Submission Guidelines Preface The framework of the new International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) the Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) recommends workshops as part of the Chikyu-driven proposal development process. This fulfills expectations that early-stage workshops with direct interaction among a wide range of participants will strengthen a new proposal’s scientific objectives as well as increase project feasibility. This will effectively shorten the overall project proposal evaluation process. Therefore, JAMSTEC has created a new funding opportunity for workshops designed to enhance Chikyu-related project generation. This document describes the guidelines for JAMSTEC-funded IODP workshops to ensure that JAMSTEC funds are fully and effectively utilized and ensure that workshops positively contribute to the enhancement of full proposal development. In principle, the IODP Science Evaluation Panel (SEP) will review preliminary proposals and then recommend qualified ones to the Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) for further development. At that point, the CIB will review the pre-proposals and then for approved pre-proposals request the principle investigators (PIs) to submit a workshop proposal. The CIB will review the workshop proposal and recommend to JAMSTEC/CDEX on whether a workshop proposal should be approved or not. Once approved, the CIB will establish a Proposal Advisory Team (PAT). The PIs/Workshop applicants must then organize the workshop with the PAT. The Technical Advisory Team (TAT) is a CDEX-Industry oversight advisory group to provide engineering advice to the PAT and PIs at the workshop. A final report on the workshop must be submitted to the CIB for review and evaluation. The main expected product from any workshop is a number of tightly focused scientific targets of investigation to turn the pre-proposal into a number of project-ready full proposals. Internal funding request deadline within JAMSTEC is set of the first of April every year. Proposal reviews normally occur biannually after the submission deadlines of November 15 and May 15; however, fast-track reviews will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Funding notification can be expected by the following January or August, respectively.

2

Proposal Contents Proponents should submit the proposal as a single PDF document, with all pages in A4 or letter size and using an 11-point font with single line spacing and 2.5 cm margins; proposals must not exceed 10 pages (including tables, figures, and references but without the cover sheet and curriculum vitae) and must include: 1. Workshop Proposal Cover Sheet: A completed cover sheet is required for the proposal, including the workshop proposal title and list of workshop PIs. 2. Curriculum Vitae: A two-page curriculum vitae (CV) is required for each proponent listed on the cover sheet. One additional page may be included to summarize relevant current support and prior work with the scientific ocean drilling programs. 3. Scientific Motivation and Goals: The proposal must contain a description of the scientific objectives for the workshop, the topic’s relation to the main themes of the International Ocean Discovery Program, level of international science community participations, and the workshop’s goals which should contribute to develop a full proposal. 4. Agenda: The proposal must contain a description how the workshop will accomplish the stated goals. An agenda or outline of the workshop should be included. 5. Workshop Education and Outreach: In addition to the primary goal of identifying promising new scientific objectives and research opportunities, identify if the workshop will have any opportunities for education and outreach. 6. Participants: Except under special circumstances, such as space limitations, workshops are open to all participants. The proposal must contain a description of the potential participants (e.g., number of participants, disciplines desired or needed, number of early career researchers) and how applications will be evaluated. 7. Travel and Location: The proposal should contain a proposed date and location, with options. Ideally, the location should have a strong relation to the proposed project, and be easily accessible. 8. Advertising: Workshops must be advertised either in print or electronically (e.g., Eos, J-DESC, JAMSTEC/CDEX website, ICDP, USSSP, and ECORD websites). All advertising should acknowledge support of JAMSTEC. The notice should state that the workshop is open to all participants. Advertisements must be shared with CDEX prior to placement.

3

9. Budget Summary and Budget Justification: In principle, budgets are allocated subject to availability (normally within $40,000 per a workshop). Proponents are encouraged to seek co-sponsorship of the workshop with other programs. Budgets should mostly consist of travel support for the participants, but items such as supplies, and meeting facility costs are also allowed. Please note that, by policy, JAMSTEC/CDEX workshop funds cannot cover field trips. 10. List of potential PAT science members: The proponents must include a list of potential Proposal Advisory Team (PAT) members in the proposal. Workshop Reports Workshop funding recipients will submit a summary report (ca. 10 pages) to the CIB and JAMSTEC summarizing workshop motivation, discussions, recommendations and milestones re: proposal development, required within 60 days following the workshop The convener may be requested to also provide a summary article for JAMSTEC/CDEX. This report must contain an executive summary, a list of recommendations, a list of participants, and a synopsis of possible drilling expeditions and strategies, including site survey status. A final product will be a full drilling proposal submitted to the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) within one year.

IODP Measurements Document Revised February, 2008.

Categories of IODP Measurements • Minimum measurements • Standard measurements • Supplemental measurements • Safety measurements • Measurements that affect drilling decisions:

o Specific Site o Specific Expedition

This document provides an overview of IODP measurements that each IO is fully responsible for collecting during IODP operation. The list of measurements as posted was reviewed by SAS in January 2006 and updated in February of 2008. It is subject to change and updates responding to technological developments and SAS review.

Minimum Measurements: Defined as measurements that shall be conducted in all boreholes and on all cores in IODP. This statement does not preclude the taking of whole-round core samples on an as-needed basis to achieve specific science objectives and/or obtain legacy samples.

Biostratigraphic Visual core description Smear slides Thin sections Split-core digital photography (section line-scan and/or table layout) Core logging:

• natural gamma ray • gamma ray attenuation • magnetic susceptibility

Temperature profile Moisture and density/porosity (discrete samples) Downhole logging:

• natural gamma ray • spectral gamma • density • porosity • resistivity • sonic • borehole imaging

Borehole depth scale IODP Standard Measurements:

Defined as standard measurements that shall, whenever practicable and appropriate, be carried out across all platforms and/or shore-based labs).

Core Petrophysics: Natural remnant magnetism (NRM) with step-wise demagnetization Core logging: P-wave velocity P-wave velocity (on split cores) P-wave velocity (discrete samples) Thermal conductivity (both whole core and pieces) X-ray CT scanning Whole round core digital surface photography Color reflectance Close-up and micro-imaging Core orientation and structural measurements

Downhole Petrophysics: Vertical seismic profile or checkshot Downhole pressure Open-hole temperature Caliper Magnetic susceptibility Magnetic field

Note: For MSPs, downhole minimum/standard measurements may be dependent on the size of the borehole.

Microbiology and Geochemistry: Pore Water Chemistry (e.g., nutrients, pH, alkalinity, sulfate, chloride, major and trace elements) Whole rock major and trace elements Microbiology (Cell counts on fixed samples) Bulk carbon-hydrogen-nitrogen-sulfur (CHNS) analyses Contamination testing Carbonate analyses

Rig Floor

Weight on bit Penetration rate Mud pressure Mud density Mud logging (including gas analysis) Driller depth Pumping rate Rotation rate Heave compensation

IODP Supplemental Measurements: Defined as measurements that if are needed to satisfy expedition objectives should be made available to IODP. Some of these techniques will undoubtedly be 3rd party tools or require single expedition leasing of a tool.

Downhole Petrophysics: Logging While Drilling and Measurements While Drilling Logging While Coring Permeability through packer tests High-resolution gamma Nuclear magnetic resonance Formation testing Pressurized core sampling Downhole sidewall sampling Pressurized fluid/gas sampling Spontaneous potential (SP)

Core Petrophysics:

Anhysteretic Remanent Magnetization (ARM) and Isothermal Remanent Magnetization (IRM) with step-wise acquisition and demagnetization (step-wise acquisition and demagnetization) Permeability on discrete samples Vp and Vs, anisotropy and attenuation Vs Thermal imaging of core with infrared Nuclear magnetic resonance Particle size analyzer Shear strength (i.e., miniature vane method) Non-contact resistivity XRF scanner

Geochemistry and Microbiology:

Laser ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) DNA, biomarker, and Phospholipid microbiological analysis Microbial activity measurements using radiotracers

Measurements for safety:

Expedition specific as implemented by IOs with advice from Environmental Protection and Safety Panel (EPSP)

Measurements that Affect Drilling Decisions The following a measurements that could affect drilling decisions while an expedition is underway. There are two categories of measurements – those that could affect drilling at a specific site and those that could affect drilling during a specific expedition. Specific Site

Safety Measurements Minimum Measurements: Biostratigraphy Visual Core Description Smear Slides Thin Sections Moisture and density/porosity (discrete samples) Core logging: natural gamma ray gamma ray attenuation magnetic susceptibility Standard Measurements:

X-ray CT scanning Pore Water Chemistry (e.g., nutrients, pH, alkalinity, sulfate, chloride, major and trace elements) Whole rock major and trace elements Penetration rate Mud pressure Mud logging (including gas analysis) Driller depth Pumping rate Cell counts on fixed samples

Supplemental Measurements: Logging While Drilling and Measurements While Drilling

Measurements that Affect Drilling Decisions (continued) Specific Expedition

Minimum Measurements: Temperature profile Downhole logging:

natural gamma ray spectral gamma density porosity resistivity sonic borehole imaging

Standard Measurements: Natural remnant magnetism (NRM) with step-wise demagnetization Core logging: P-wave velocity Vertical seismic profile or checkshot Caliper Downhole Magnetic susceptibility Whole rock major and trace elements Cell counts on fixed samples

Supplemental Measurements: High-resolution gamma Formation testing

JOIDES Resolution Standard Measurements

1

JOIDES Resolution Standard Measurements (Revised: August 2013)

A. Standard Measurements JOIDES Resolution (JR) standard measurements are those that should be made on all JR expeditions if practical for the material being drilled or recovered. Deviations from standard measurements should be identified in the Scientific Prospectus. In addition, the Implementing Organization may require additional measurements to meet safety requirements and protocols. 1. Core Characterization Measurements

• Core orientation (APC only) • Headspace gas analysis (sediments) • Pore water chemistry (e.g., nutrients, pH, alkalinity, sulfate, chloride, major and

trace elements) • Borehole depth scale • Thermal conductivity (both whole core and pieces) • Core logging

- Whole Round Natural gamma ray Gamma ray attenuation Magnetic susceptibility P-wave velocity

- Split Core Digital imaging Reflectance spectroscopy and colorimetry Natural remnant magnetism (NRM) with step-wise

demagnetization • Moisture and density/porosity (discrete samples) • P-wave velocity (discrete samples) • Biostratigraphy • Visual core description • Smear slides and/or thin sections • Carbonate analyses (sediments) • Bulk carbon-hydrogen-nitrogen-sulfur (CHNS) analyses • Whole rock major and trace elements (hard rock)

2. Downhole Logging and Measurements Once per site, as practical:

• Natural gamma ray • Spectral gamma • Density • Porosity • Resistivity • Sonic

JOIDES Resolution Standard Measurements

2

• Borehole imaging • Caliper • Formation temperature

3. Rig Floor Measurements

• Driller depth • Heave compensation • Weight on bit • Penetration rate • Mud pressure • Mud logging (important for Expeditions with Microbiology component) • Pump rate

B. Supplemental Measurements Supplemental measurements are defined as additional measurements that may be needed to meet expedition objectives, and are conducted where possible and scientifically justified. 1. Core Characterization

• Anhysteretic Remanent Magnetization (ARM) and Isothermal Remanent Magnetization (IRM) with step-wise acquisition and demagnetization

• Shear strength • Cell counts • Contamination testing • Microbial activity measurements using radiotracers • Whole rock major and trace elements (sediments) • Rock maturity analysis • X-ray diffraction • Micro-imaging • Whole round core digital surface photography (hard rock)


• Magnetic susceptibility • Borehole temperature • Vertical seismic profile or check-shot (requires permitting) • Magnetic field • Formation pressure • Logging and measurement while drilling • Packer tests

Chikyu Standard Measurements

1

D/V Chikyu Standard Measurements Draft version 1.0: 6 July 2014

A. Standard Measurements Chikyu standard measurements are those that should be made on all Chikyu IODP riser and riserless expeditions if practical for the material being drilled or recovered. Data from standard measurements are critical to long-term IODP and Chikyu science, regardless of scientific or operational purposes of an expedition. Deviations from standard measurements should be identified in the Scientific Prospectus. In addition, the Implementing Organization (CDEX) may require additional measurements to meet safety requirements and protocols. In the case of riserless drilling, Chikyu will follow the standard measurements of the JOIDES Resolution. 1. Core Characterization Measurements

• Borehole depth scale • X-ray Computed Tomography • Core logging

- Whole Round § Gamma ray attenuation § Magnetic susceptibility

- Split Core § Digital imaging

• Thermal conductivity (either whole core and pieces) • Moisture and density/porosity (discrete samples) • P-wave velocity (discrete samples) • Visual core description • Smear slides and/or thin sections • Carbonate analyses (discrete samples) • Bulk carbon-nitrogen-sulfur (CNS) analyses (discrete samples) • Whole rock major elements (XRF) • X-ray diffraction


Once per site, either by logging while drilling or wireline (Availability of logging services subject to scientific requirements and budgetary constraints, see optional measurements):

• Natural gamma ray • Resistivity

3. Cuttings Characterization Measurements

• Visual cuttings description • Cuttings smear slide and/or thin sections • Cuttings density

4. Mud-gas Monitoring

• Hydrocarbon

5. Rig Floor (Surface) Measurements • Driller depth • Heave compensation • Weight on bit


2

• Penetration rate • Torque • Mud pressure • Pump rate • Mud composition • Mud weight

B. Optional Measurements Optional measurements are defined as additional measurements that may be needed to meet expedition objectives, and are conducted where possible and scientifically justified. 1. Core Characterization

• Core logging o Whole round

§ P-wave velocity § No-contact resistivity § Natural gamma ray

o Split half § Reflectance spectroscopy and colorimetry § Natural Remnant Magnetism (NRM) with step-wise

demagnetization § Whole rock elements and mapping by XRF-CL

• Headspace gas analysis (sediment) • Biostratigraphy • Pore water chemistry (e.g., nutrients, pH, alkalinity, sulfate, chloride, major

and trace elements) • Anhysteretic Remanent Magnetization (ARM) and Isothermal Remanent

Magnetization (IRM) with step-wise acquisition and demagnetization • Shear strength • Cell counts • Contamination testing • Microbial activity measurements using radiotracers • Whole rock major and trace elements (sediments) • Rock maturity analysis • Micro-imaging (Scanning Electron Microscope) • Headspace gas analysis • Particle size analysis • Infrared observation • Resistivity (discrete samples) • Drilling mud chemistry


• Annular pressure (LWD only) • Borehole imaging • Borehole temperature • Caliper • Density • Formation pressure • Formation temperature • Nuclear magnetic resonance • Packer tests


3

• Porosity • Spectral gamma • Sonic • Sidewall coring

Pressurized fluid/gas sampling

3. Cuttings Characterization Measurement • Carbonate analyses • Bulk carbon- nitrogen-sulfur (CNS) analyses • Whole rock major elements (XRF) • X-ray diffraction • Cuttings photographs • Rock maturity analysis • Micro-imaging (Scanning Electron Microscope) • Headspace gas analysis • Particle size analysis

4. Mud-gas Monitoring

• Methane carbon isotope • Whole gas mass spectrometry

IODP Third-Party Tools Policy (Approved by Science Planning Committee, 9 March 2006)

General Principles Governing Third-Party Tools and Instruments In addition to the standard instruments and tools that are available on all Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) scientific expeditions, ocean drilling expeditions have historically drawn upon tools or instruments that were purchased or developed outside the framework of the primary contractors. These are known as third-party tools. In IODP the term tool includes all forms of scientific instrumentation intended for use as part of an IODP expedition. Third-party tools may be classified as either developmental or certified for deployment. Broadly speaking, tools can be divided into three types: (1) downhole (transient borehole measurements), (2) observatory (left behind in the hole after hole is completed), and (3) laboratory (shipboard or IODP core repository). Each of these categories has unique characteristics, but all of them require technical support from the implementing organizations (IOs) that, in turn, may require IODP-MI approval of associated science operating costs. In the Appendix to this statement of principles, we specify guidelines for development and acceptance of third-party tools. Support for the purchase or development of third-party tools can come from a variety of sources. In the United States, third-party tools have generally been supported by the National Science Foundation, using funds earmarked for ocean drilling and allocated to highly ranked, unsolicited proposals. International partners operate similar procedures. It is recognized that the IODP cannot impose standards on external funding agencies, but it is hoped that principal investigators and those agencies will ensure that proposals for funding of third-party tools include plans and funds for satisfying the criteria set out in this document. The final responsibility for the use of a third-party tool during an IODP expedition or in an IODP core repository rests with the IODP-MI and the IOs.

It is important that third-party tools are certified as satisfying all of the operational and safety criteria that the IODP applies to its own in-house tools and instruments. Careful pre-cruise planning is essential if third-party tools are to be successfully integrated into the scope of shipboard work. This planning is particularly necessary when a tool requires dedicated ship time for deployments. Funding agencies are urged to include sufficient funds in a third-party tool development project for travel to the IO’s main office to participate in pre-expedition planning that will ensure proper communication and laboratory testing during development, as well as sufficient funds for field tests of the tool(s) prior to deployment during an IODP expedition. The principal investigator (PI) for a third-party tool is responsible for providing funds for planning activities, shipping the tool to the site of deployment, and integrating tool deployment into the expedition work and data flow. Requests for deployment of third-party tools often are made late in the schedule when IODP program budgets have been completed. Work that the IO is expected to contribute must therefore be identified as early as possible to minimize the impact of potential resource requirements.

It is important to note that funding of a third-party tool by an external agency does not guarantee time or space aboard a drilling platform for experiment execution. Scheduling of implementation of a tool on an expedition is subject to approval by the Operations Task Force (OTF) and Science Planning Committee (SPC) during their iterative planning process. Deployment also depends on acceptance by the IO. The primary responsibility for integrating a tool into IODP operations rests with the PI and not with the IO. The level of integration and potential sharing of associated costs depend on the nature of development and timing. Tools

that are not ready for deployment or demand inordinate operator resources during the course of an expedition are a drain on support and platform time for all expedition participants. It is crucial that the IO accept a tool for deployment before an expedition begins and that there are no ambiguities in operation and support responsibilities. Data and/or samples acquired through the use of certified third-party tools are subject to the same dissemination rules as any other data or samples collected by the IODP. Furthermore, the data produced through the use of third-party tools is the property of the IODP and therefore will be made publicly available after the moratorium period ends. Any third-party tool deployment plan must specify the current and potential future data and sample deliverables for the tool. PIs are required to submit a Deployment Report and relevant digital data files for the Proceedings of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program volume for the expedition. If a certified third-party tool has proven itself as crucial for answering certain scientific questions, the PIs and the operator are encouraged to work collaboratively to add it to the standard pool of IODP capabilities for the duration of the program to make it accessible to the IODP community. After the tool has been added to the IODP standard measurement capabilities, it is no longer considered a third-party tool.

Appendix: Guidelines for Third-Party Tool Development and Deployment Communication is the key to the successful development and deployment of third-party tools. It is the responsibility of the scientist wishing to deploy a third-party tool to consult with the appropriate IO early in the development planning process and provide tool specifications and operational criteria. Where the tool is a laboratory instrument to be operated by the PI, this process may simply require power, space, safety information, and a sampling and measurement plan. Off-the-shelf borehole tools will additionally require plans for integration with existing systems (e.g., drilling pipe, cable heads, data retrieval and storage). In the case of developmental tools for downhole or observatory deployment, the investigator must identify development milestones in terms of both the level and the timing of technical achievements such that the tool will be ready when it is scheduled for operation. For all categories of tools, the project planning phase must define explicitly how much time and resources (funds and personnel) are needed and how much the IO is willing to commit during the development phase (if applicable) and during deployment. Development timelines and requirements as described below may be modified by agreement between the IO and the PI, subject to approval by Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management International (IODP-MI) because the necessary IO support is related to science operating costs (SOCs). Such agreements will be reported to the Scientific Technology Panel (STP), Engineering Development Panel (EDP), and Operations Task Force (OTF). The following guidelines for third-party tool development and deployment have been formulated to reflect the fact that the IOs are responsible for assisting with and monitoring third-party tool developments and reporting status to the STP, EDP, OTF, and IODP-MI. These guidelines indicate a general progression through which new tools are introduced to IODP operations.

Developmental Tool: For a non-certified tool to be considered for deployment on an IODP expedition, the following criteria must be met:

1) There must be an identified PI who is the primary proponent and point of contact for the use of the tool by the IODP.

2) The PI must formulate a development plan in consultation with the appropriate IO. Where a tool is intended for multiple platforms, the appropriate IO will be the one responsible for the first deployment. The lead IO will coordinate with the other IOs and the IODP-MI as necessary. 3) The development plan should, where appropriate:

• indicate the usefulness of the proposed measurements and the financial and technical feasibility of making them

• include a brief description of the tool, schematic diagram(s), details of the operational procedure, and technical specifications such as dimensions, weight, temperature and pressure ratings, cable-length restrictions, cable type, etc.

• identify a development timeline in terms of technical achievements and reporting requirements, including a specific deadline for a yes or no decision by the IO on deployment

• provide for initial testing on land, when possible, and request ship time if testing from the drillship is necessary, subject to OTF approval

• satisfy safety considerations • specify shipboard requirements such as the data processing necessary to make the

information accessible aboard ship, if applicable, any special facilities (emphasizing where the tool is not compatible with existing hardware and software), and appropriate technical support

• specify the data deliverables • provide for transporting tools for shipboard testing, in terms of both cost and time • contain a signed (pro forma) statement of agreement with these requirements

4) The IO will report the submission of development and deployment plans to the STP, EDP, OTF, and IODP-MI. The STP will normally bear the responsibility of determining action on these submissions in accordance with the panel mandate and will provide advice to the IO regarding further tool development. In the instance of engineering development playing a significant role in the delivery of a tool for an expedition, the STP and EDP will designate individuals to coordinate panel input to the OTF, SPC, and IOs. The EDP may take the lead where engineering is the major focus of the development. The IODP-MI will ensure that this third-party tools policy is enforced.

5) If the IO and the STP (and/or EDP when appropriate) endorse the development plan, a staff liaison will be appointed by the appropriate IO to monitor the tool’s progress through the development plan. The IO’s tool liaison will be charged with providing status reports of the tool’s progress to the STP, EDP, and OTF through their panel liaisons, and to the IODP-MI.

6) With a positive OTF recommendation, an IODP development tool may be scheduled for testing during an upcoming expedition. Development tools must be deployed in test mode. By their very definition, they are not certified tools, and therefore the scientific success of an expedition must not be contingent upon the proper functioning of such a tool.

7) It is incumbent upon the PI to ensure that the appropriate IO is fully advised of the tool’s status. If the development plan falls seriously behind schedule and the PI is unlikely to have satisfied all of the above criteria prior to a planned deployment, the IO has the right to withdraw the tool from further consideration for an expedition after consulting with the IODP-MI. The shipboard test may be canceled, and an agreement may be reached on a revised schedule.

8) If the above procedures have not been followed, then the tool in question cannot be regarded as an IODP development tool and therefore cannot be scheduled for testing in future

expeditions. A development tool cannot be deployed during an IODP expedition unless the IO and the IODP-MI are fully satisfied that the terms of the development plan have been fully met.

Certified Tool: For a tool to be considered an IODP certified tool, and thus suitable for routine scheduling on IODP expeditions, the following criteria must be met:

1) The tool must have satisfied all the requirements for an IODP development tool. 2) The tool must have been tested at sea during an IODP expedition(s) and performed satisfactorily in the opinion of the relevant (lead) IO. 3) The PI must formulate a request for certification in consultation with the appropriate IO.

4) The request for certification should: • be prepared in coordination with the operator’s tool development liaison (or designate)

to ensure adequate communication between the developer and the operator • indicate the cost of routine shipboard operations including data processing • outline the operational requirements for routine deployment and data processing • detail the availability of spare components,; • provide information on adequate maintenance facilities • include an operating and maintenance manual • satisfy safety considerations • confirm the long-term usefulness of the data • confirm accessibility of the data • provide source code with documentation where appropriate • define performance specifications (pressure, temperature, vibration, shock limits, etc.)

5) The request for certification must be submitted for approval to the lead IO .The lead IO submits a request for certification to the IODP-MI. The IODP-MI seeks agreement from the other IOs and coordinates a discussion if appropriate. If and when an IO consensus has been achieved, the IODP-MI seeks endorsement by the STP and/or the EDP. 6) If and when the STP and/or the EDP endorse the request for certification, the IODP-MI will issue a certificate confirming the satisfactory conclusion of tests and compliance with all requirements to the PI. A copy of this certificate must be forwarded to the STP and EDP chairs. 7) Maintenance and operation of an IODP certified tool remains the charge of the third party. A certified tool can be scheduled for deployment during an upcoming IODP expedition and would be expected to contribute to the scientific success of the expedition.

8) Third-party tools that do not possess a certificate cannot be programmed for scientific deployment on future expeditions as part of the regular planning process.

IODP Third Party Tool and Laboratory Instrumentation Development, Procurement and Deployment Guidelines

Version 4.0 September 8, 2008

Prepared by: Integrated Ocean Drilling Program – Management International

2

Table of Contents

IODP THIRD PARTY TOOL AND LABORATORY INSTRUMENTATION DEVELOPMENT, PROCUREMENT AND DEPLOYMENT GUIDELINES ...................................................................................... 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 3

DEFINITION ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

FORMER THIRD PARTY TOOL POLICY OVERVIEW .................................................................................... 3

TOOL LIFECYCLE ................................................................................................................................................... 4

IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS ......................................................................................................................... 4

Development tool: ................................................................................................................................................ 4Certified Tool: ...................................................................................................................................................... 6Off-the-Shelf Tool: ............................................................................................................................................... 7Laboratory Instrumentation:................................................................................................................................ 7

APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................................................. 9

3

Executive Summary The IODP Tool Development, Procurement and Deployment Guidelines is the next step in the evolution of the process that governs the development and deployment of tools and equipment, such as laboratory instrumentation new to IODP, which includes tools previously designated as a “third-party tool”

A third party tool, which has been defined as a tool or instrument developed with funds or resources outside the realm of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), must adhere to the development and deployment guidelines established by the IODP Science Advisory Structure (SAS) prior to deployment on any IODP expedition. The IODP SAS, in conjunction with IODP-MI and the Implementing Organizations (IO), has created a policy to provide consistent oversight of third party development activity and to provide guidance to all proponents with technology or developments new to the IODP. This document expands upon the Third Party Tool policy by providing additional contextual and timing elements to assist proponents, Implementing Organizations, and the SAS in executing this policy.

[NOTE: Blue text in the body of this document represents text quoted directly from the Third Party Tool Policy].

DefinitionA third party tool has been defined as a tool or instrument developed, purchased, or leased with funds or resources outside the realm of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP).

Former Third Party Tool Policy Overview The guidelines for third-party tool development and deployment have been formulated to reflect that the IOs are primarily responsible for assisting with and monitoring third-party tool developments and reporting status to the STP (Scientific Technology Panel),EDP (Engineering Development Panel), OTF (Operations Task Force), and IODP-MI. It is the responsibility of the scientist wishing to deploy a third-party tool to consult with the appropriate IO early in the development planning process and provide tool specifications and operational criteria. Where the tool is a laboratory instrument to be operated by the proponent, this process may simply require the proponent to definepower, space, safety information, and a sampling and measurement plan. Off-the-shelf borehole tools will also require plans for integration with existing systems (e.g., drilling pipe, cable heads, data retrieval and storage). In the case of tool development for downhole or observatory deployment, the investigator must also identify development milestones in terms of both the level and the timing of technical achievements such that the tool will be ready when it is scheduled for operation.

For all categories of tools, the project planning phase must define explicitly the time and resources (funds and personnel) required for both the development (if applicable) and deployment phases. Development timelines and requirements as described below may be modified by agreement between the IO and the proponent subject to approval by IODP-MI. Such agreements will be reported to the STP, EDP, and OTF.

4

Tool Lifecycle A number of steps/milestones are required to successfully move a tool from the proposal stage to final deployment, including:

Third Party Tool Idea: A third party tool may enter the program as a proposal or as completed tool.

Development: The tool is designed, constructed, bench and land tested.

Scheduling: If the development process is completed satisfactorily, then the tool may be considered for scheduling by the OTF.

Deployment: The tool is deployed.

Review: The results of the initial deployment are evaluated by SAS and the IODP-MI Operations Review Task Force.

Certification: If development, deployment and review are completed satisfactorily, an application can be made for tool certification to IODP-MI.

Review: Following all subsequent deployments, a tool operations report is provided to the IODP-MI Operations Review Task Force.

Details of these Third Party Tool implementation steps/milestones are provided below and shown graphically in Appendix A.

Implementation Pathways This section outlines the implementation pathway for the three types of third party tools: Development Tools, Certified Tools, Off-the-Shelf Tools, and Laboratory Instrumentation. A graphical depiction of the process outlined below may be found in Appendix A.

Development tool: A development tool includes: (1) a new technology that has been created, (2) modifications to existing technology that have been completed, (3) an existing prototype tool untested at sea, or (4) an existing prototype tool that has been used at sea, but has not been certified.

For a (development) tool to be considered for deployment (testing) on an IODP expedition and for eventual certification for standard usage, the following criteria must be met:

1) Identification of a proponent who is the point of contact for the use of the tool.

2) The proponent must formulate a development plan in consultation with the IO most likely to deploy the tool first. In cases where a tool is intended for use on multiple platforms, the appropriate IO will be the one responsible for the first deployment. The lead IO will coordinate with the other IOs and the IODP-MI as necessary.

3) The development plan should, where appropriate:

5

• indicate the usefulness of the proposed measurements and the financial and technical feasibility of the development.

• include a brief description of the tool, schematic diagram(s), details of the operational procedure, and technical specifications (i.e., dimensions, weight, temperature and pressure ratings, cable-length restrictions, cable type, etc.)

• identify a development timeline in terms of technical achievements and reporting requirements, including a specific deadline for a deployment decision by the IO

• provide for initial testing on land, when possible, and request ship time if testing from the drillship is necessary (subject to OTF approval; see below)

• satisfy safety considerations defined by the operator.• specify shipboard requirements including data processing necessary to make the

information accessible aboard ship, special facilities (emphasizing where the tool is not compatible with existing hardware and software), and appropriate technical support

• specify the data deliverables • define the tool or instrument performance expectations • provide for transportation of the tools for shipboard testing, in terms of both cost and

time• contain a signed (pro forma) statement of agreement with these requirements

4) The IO will report the submission of development and deployment plans to the STP, the EDP, the OTF, and IODP-MI. The STP will determine the action on these submissions in accordance with the panel mandate and will provide advice to the IO regarding further tool development. Where engineering development is significant,the STP and EDP will designate individuals to coordinate panel input to the OTF, SPC, and IOs. The EDP may take the lead where engineering is the major focus of the development. The IODP-MI will work in concert with the SAS, the IO’s and proponents to ensure that this third-party tools policy is fully utilized.

5) Once the IO and SAS panel(s) endorse the development plan, a staff liaison will be appointed by the appropriate IO to monitor the tool’s progress through the development plan. The IO’s tool liaison will provide status reports on the tool’s progress to the STP, EDP, OTF and IODP-MI.

6) When the lead IO is satisfied that the development has progressed to a point where it is ready for a sea-trial, the lead IO will notify IODP-MI. IODP-MI will then bring the development to the attention of the OTF for a possible scheduling recommendation.

7) With a positive OTF recommendation, an IODP development tool may be scheduled for testing during an upcoming expedition. Development tools must be deployed in test mode (i.e., the scientific success of an expedition must not be contingent upon the proper functioning of such a tool).

8) It is incumbent upon the proponent to ensure that the appropriate IO is fully advised of the tool’s status. If the development plan falls behind schedule and the PI is unlikely to have satisfied all of the above criteria prior to a planned deployment, the IO has the right to withdraw the tool from further consideration for an expedition after consulting with the IODP-MI. The shipboard test will be rescheduled after reconsideration by the OTF.

6

9) Following initial deployment, a tool operations report is provided to the SAS and included in the standard expedition operations report provided to the IODP-MI Operations Review Task Force.

Certified Tool:A certified tool includes: (1) a new or modified existing technology that has been tested at sea (following the steps described in the previous section for Development Tools). For a tool to be considered an IODP certified tool, and thus suitable for routine scheduling on IODP expeditions, the following criteria must be met:

1) The tool must have satisfied all the requirements for an IODP development tool.

2) The tool must have been tested at sea during an IODP expedition(s) and performed satisfactorily in the opinion of the relevant (lead) IO and the Operations Review Task Force.

3) The PI must formulate a request for certification to IODP-MI in consultation with the appropriate IO.

4) The request for certification should:• be prepared in coordination with the operator’s tool development liaison (or

designate) to ensure adequate communication between the developer and the operator

• indicate the cost of routine shipboard operations including data processing • outline the operational requirements for routine deployment and data processing • detail the availability of spare components • provide information on adequate maintenance facilities • include an operating and maintenance manual • satisfy safety considerations as defined by the operator(s)• confirm the long-term usefulness of the data • confirm accessibility of the data • provide source code with documentation where appropriate • define performance specifications (pressure, temperature, vibration, shock limits, etc.)

5) The lead IO submits the request for certification to IODP-MI. If the tool has potential cross platform usage IODP-MI will coordinate a multi-operator agreement. IODP-MI will then seek endorsement by the STP and/or the EDP.

6) Upon STP and/or the EDP endorsement of the certification request, IODP-MI will issue a certificate confirming the satisfactory conclusion of tests and compliance with all requirements to the proponent (with copies sent to the STP and EDP chairs).

7) Maintenance and operation of an IODP certified tool remains the charge of the third party. A certified tool can be scheduled for deployment during an upcoming IODP expedition and would be expected to contribute to the scientific success of the expedition.

8) Following all certified tool deployments, a tool operations report is included in the standard operations report provided to the IODP-MI Operations Review Task Force.

7

Off-the-Shelf Tool:Off-the-shelf or leased tools play a vital role in successful IODP operations and they typically include (1) a technology new to IODP that has been utilized routinely in other markets, or (2) leased or purchased tools/instruments from recognized providers.

In order to deploy an off-the-shelf tool during an IODP expedition, the following steps must be taken:

1) Ensure that no other similar technology exists within known IODP tools. Formal or informal discussions should be held with IO’s prior to selecting off-the-shelf technology. If needed, the OTF could be consulted.

2) Procure detailed specifications including performance requirements of the desired tool or instrument and ensure that it is suitable to meeting the objectives of a specific IODP expedition.

3) A lead IO will be assigned to work with the proponent to develop a deployment plan. The deployment plan should demonstrate adherence to policy and procedure outlined in the QA/QC Task Force Report adhere to policies and procedures outlined in the QA/QC Task Force Report (http://www.iodp.org/qaqc-taskforce/). The assigned lead IO is determined by the platform on which the technology will first be deployed.

4) The SAS must be informed by the proponent/Lead IO of the potential use of the technology. A positive recommendation by SAS allows the tools or instruments to be considered for scheduling by the OTF. IODP-MI should be briefed on potential tool usage by the lead IO well in advance of the SAS meeting to ensure appropriate time is allocated for discussion of the tool.

5) The results of the initial deployment are evaluated by SAS and the IODP-MI Operations Review Task Force. Following all subsequent tool deployments, a tool operations report is included in the standard operations report provided to the IODP-MI Operations Review Task Force.

Laboratory Instrumentation: Often it is necessary for a scientist to bring aboard his or her own laboratory equipment in order to meet a specific expedition objective or simply to make the most of the unique opportunity and collect additional exciting and important ancillary data. The third party tool category of Laboratory Instrumentation includes (1) an instrument new to IODP that has been utilized routinely in other markets, or (2) leased or purchased instrumentation from recognized providers.

In order for a third-party laboratory instrument to be included as part of an IODP expedition, the following steps must be taken:

1) Contact the appropriate IO to ensure that the specific instrument is not already a part of the IODP platform’s laboratory.

2) Procure detailed specifications including performance requirements of the desired instrument and ensure that it is suitable to meeting the objectives of a specific IODP expedition.

8

3) A lead IO will be assigned to work with the proponent to develop an instrument deployment plan which will identify the most appropriate laboratory space for the instrument, access power requirements, address data dissemination plans, adhere to policies and procedures outlined in the QA/QC Task Force Report (http://www.iodp.org/qaqc-taskforce/) , and any other logistical considerations that may apply. The assigned lead IO is determined by the platform on which the technology will first be deployed.

4) The SAS must be informed by the proponent/Lead IO of the potential use of the instrument. A positive recommendation by SAS allows the instruments to be considered for scheduling by the OTF. IODP-MI should be briefed on potential instrument usage by the lead IO well in advance of the SAS meeting to ensure appropriate time is allocated for discussion of the instrument.

5) The results of the initial instrument use are evaluated by SAS and the IODP-MI Operations Review Task Force. Following the expedition, an instrument performance report should be included in the standard operations report provided to the IODP-MI Operations Review Task Force.

9

Appendix A

JOIDES Resolution Third-Party Tools and Instruments Policy

Draft: July 14, 2013

General Principles Governing Third-‐Party Tools and Instruments

In addition to the standard instruments and tools that are available on all JOIDES Resolution International Discovery Program (IODP) scientific expeditions, ocean drilling expeditions have historically drawn upon tools or instruments that were purchased or developed outside the framework of the primary contractors. These are known as “third-party tools and instruments”. Broadly speaking, tools and instruments can be divided into three types: (1) downhole (transient borehole measurements), (2) observatory (left behind in the hole after hole is completed), and (3) laboratory based (shipboard or IODP core repository). Each of these categories has unique characteristics, but all of them require technical support from the implementing organization (IO) that, in turn, may require approval of associated operating costs by the JOIDES Resolution Facility Board (JRFB).

Support for the purchase or development of third-party tools and instruments can come from a variety of sources. The JRFB cannot impose standards on external funding agencies, but it is hoped that principal investigators and those agencies will ensure that proposals for funding of third-party tools include plans and funds for satisfying the criteria set out in this document. The final responsibility for the use of a third-party tool or instrument during a JOIDES Resolution IODP expedition or in an IODP core repository rests with the IO

Third party tools and instruments must satisfy all of the operational and safety criteria that the IO applies to its own in-house tools and instruments. Careful pre-cruise planning is essential if third-party tools and instruments are to be successfully integrated into the scope of shipboard work. The principal investigator (PI) for a third-party tool or instrument is responsible for providing funds for planning activities, shipping the tool to the site of deployment, and integrating tool deployment into the expedition work and data flow. Work that the IO is expected to contribute must therefore be identified as early as possible to minimize the impact of potential resource requirements.

Funding of a third-party tool or instrument does not guarantee time or space aboard the JOIDES Resolution for use of that tool or instrument. The primary responsibility for integrating a tool or instrument into IODP operations rests with the PI and not with the IO. Should the IO accept a tool or instrument for deployment then there should be no ambiguities in operation and support responsibilities. Data and/or samples acquired through the use of third-party tools and instruments are subject to the same dissemination rules as any other data or samples collected by the JOIDES Resolution during IODP expeditions. For example, the data produced through the use of third-party tools and instruments will be made publicly available after the moratorium period ends. Any third-party tool or instrument deployment plan must specify the current and potential future data and sample deliverables for the tool or instrument. PIs are required to submit a Deployment Report and relevant digital data files for the “Proceedings” volume(s) for the expedition.

Guidelines for Third-‐Party Tool and Instrument Development and Deployment

Communication is the key to the successful development and deployment of third-party tools. The scientist wishing to deploy a third-party tool or instrument should consult with the appropriate IO early in the development planning process and provide specifications and operational criteria. For example, for a laboratory instrument to be operated by the PI this process may simply require power, space, safety information, and a sampling and measurement plan. Off-the-shelf borehole tools will additionally require plans for integration with existing systems (e.g., drilling pipe, cable heads, data

retrieval and storage). In the case of developmental tools for downhole or observatory deployment, the investigator must identify development milestones in terms of both the level and the timing of technical achievements such that the tool will be ready when it is scheduled for operation.

For all categories of tools, the project planning phase must define explicitly how much time and resources (funds and personnel) are needed and how much the IO is willing to commit during the development phase (if applicable) and during deployment. Development timelines and requirements as described below may be modified by agreement between the IO and the PI, subject to approval by the JRFB.

The following guidelines for third-party tool and instrument development and deployment have been formulated to reflect the fact that the IO is responsible for assisting with and monitoring third-party tool and instrument developments and reporting status to the JRFB. These guidelines indicate a general progression through which new tools and instruments are introduced to JOIDES Resolution IODP operations.

Developmental Tool or Instrument: For a non-certified tool or instrument to be considered for deployment on a JOIDES Resolution IODP expedition, the following criteria must be met:

1) There must be an identified PI who is the primary proponent and point of contact for the use of the tool or instrument by the JOIDES Resolution during an expedition. 2) The PI must formulate a development plan in consultation with the IO. 3) The development plan should, where appropriate: • indicate the usefulness of the proposed measurements and the financial and technical feasibility

of making them, • include a brief description of the tool or instrument, schematic diagram(s), details of the

operational procedure, and technical specifications such as dimensions, weight, temperature and pressure ratings, cable-length restrictions, cable type, etc.,

• identify a development timeline in terms of technical achievements and reporting requirements, including a specific deadline for a yes or no decision by the IO on deployment,

• provide for initial testing on land, when possible and appropriate, and request ship time if testing from the drillship is necessary, subject to JRFB approval,

• satisfy safety considerations, • specify shipboard requirements such as the data processing necessary to make the information

accessible aboard ship, if applicable, any special facilities (emphasizing where the tool is not compatible with existing hardware and software), and appropriate technical support,

• specify the data deliverables, • provide for transporting tools and instruments for shipboard testing, in terms of both cost and

time, • contain a signed (pro forma) statement of agreement with these requirements. 4) The IO will report the submission of development and deployment plans to the JRFB. The JRFB will normally bear the responsibility of determining action on these submissions and will provide advice to the IO regarding further tool or instrument development.

5) If the IO and JRFB endorse the development plan, a staff liaison will be appointed by the IO to monitor the tool’s progress through the development plan. The IO will be charged with providing status reports of the tool’s progress to the JRFB.

6) With a positive JRFB recommendation, a JOIDES Resolution IODP development tool or instrument may be scheduled for testing during an upcoming expedition. Development tools and

instruments must be deployed in test mode. By their very definition, they are not certified tools or instruments, and therefore the scientific success of an expedition must not be contingent upon the proper functioning of such a tool or instrument.

7) It is incumbent upon the PI to ensure that the IO is fully advised of the tool’s or instrument’s status. If the development plan falls seriously behind schedule and the PI is unlikely to have satisfied all of the above criteria prior to a planned deployment, the IO has the right to withdraw the tool or instrument from further consideration for an expedition after consulting with the JRFB. The shipboard test may be canceled, and an agreement may be reached on a revised schedule.

8) If the above procedures have not been followed, then the tool in question cannot be regarded as a JOIDES Resolution IODP development tool or instrument. A development tool or instrument cannot be deployed during a JOIDES Resolution IODP expedition unless the IO and the JRFB are satisfied that the terms of the development plan have been fully met. Certified Tool or Instrument: For a tool or instrument to be considered a JOIDES Resolution IODP certified tool, and thus suitable for routine scheduling on JOIDES Resolution IODP expeditions, the following criteria must be met:

1) The tool or instrument must have satisfied all the requirements for a JOIDES Resolution IODP development tool.

2) The tool or instrument must have been tested at sea during a JOIDES ResolutionIODP expedition(s) and performed satisfactorily in the opinion of the IO.

3) The PI must formulate a request for certification in consultation with the IO.

4) The request for certification should:

• be prepared in coordination with the operator’s tool or instrument development liaison (or designate) to ensure adequate communication between the developer and the operator,

• indicate the cost of routine shipboard operations including data processing, • outline the operational requirements for routine deployment and data processing, • detail the availability of spare components, • provide information on adequate maintenance facilities , • include an operating and maintenance manual, • satisfy safety considerations, • confirm the long-term usefulness of the data, • confirm accessibility of the data, • provide source code with documentation where appropriate, • define performance specifications (pressure, temperature, vibration, shock limits, etc.). 5) The request for certification must be submitted for approval to the IO .The IO submits a request for certification to the JRFB.

6) If and when the JRFB endorses the request for certification, the IO will issue a certificate confirming the satisfactory conclusion of tests and compliance with all requirements to the PI.

7) Maintenance and operation of a JOIDES Resolution IODP certified tool or instrument remains the charge of the third party. A certified tool or instrument can be scheduled for deployment during an upcoming JOIDES Resolution IODP expedition and would be expected to contribute to the scientific success of the expedition.

8) Third-party tools and instruments that do not possess a certificate cannot be programmed for scientific deployment on future expeditions as part of the regular planning process.

Chikyu Third-‐party tool policy

1

D/V Chikyu Third-Party Tools and Instruments Policy Draft version 1.0: 2 July 2014

General Principles

In addition to the standard instruments and tools that are available on all D/V

Chikyu International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) scientific expeditions (ref to

Standard Measurements), ocean drilling expeditions have historically drawn upon

tools or instruments that were purchased or developed outside the framework of

the primary contractors. These are known as “third-party tools and instruments”.

Tools and instruments can be divided into three types:

1. Downhole (transient borehole measurements),

2. Observatory (left behind in the hole after hole is completed), and

3. Laboratory based (shipboard or IODP core repository).

Each of these categories has unique characteristics, but all require technical

support from the Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX) that, in turn, may

require approval of associated operating costs by the Chikyu IODP Board (CIB).

Support for Development or Purchase Support for third-party tools and instruments can come from a variety of sources.

The CIB cannot impose standards on external funding agencies, but principal

investigators and those agencies should ensure that proposals for funding of

third-party tools include plans and funds for satisfying the criteria set out in this

document. The final responsibility for the use of a third-party tool or instrument

during a Chikyu IODP expedition or in an IODP core repository rests with IO.

Third party tools and instruments must:

1. Satisfy all of the operational and safety criteria that CDEX applies to its

own in-house tools and instruments.

2. Develop and present to CDEX careful pre-cruise and science planning. This

is essential if third-party tools and instruments are to be successfully

integrated into the scope of shipboard work.

3. Demonstrate a clear need. Define how the tool or instrument will expand

current observation or fill gaps in data collection or analysis.


2

4. Not interfere in the collection of standard shipboard measurements.

5. Be funded through the efforts of the principal investigator (PI). This includes

providing funds for planning activities, shipping the tool to and back from

the site of deployment, and integrating tool deployment into the expedition

work and data flow. Work that CDEX is expected to contribute must be

identified as early as possible to minimize the impact of potential resource

requirements.

6. Share all data and samples with the shipboard expedition scientists, as per

standard IODP sample and data sharing policy (ref. needed). In addition, the

data produced through the use of third–party tools and instruments will be

made publicly available after the moratorium period ends.

None of these conditions should be seen as mandating approval for deploying any

third-party tool. CDEX reserves the right to refuse any tool or instrument boarding

rights, especially if there are any safety concerns. The primary responsibility for

integrating a tool or instrument into IODP operations rests with the PI (not the

CDEX). If a third-party tool or instrument is accepted for deployment, there will be no

ambiguities in operation and support responsibility.

Any third-party tool or instrument deployment plan must specify the current and

potential future data and sample deliverables for the tool or instrument. PIs are

required to submit a Deployment Report and relevant digital data files for the

“Proceedings” volume(s) for the expedition.

Guidelines for Third Party Tools

Communication is the key to the successful development and deployment of third-

party tools. Tool or instrument development must be officially proposed to CDEX,

including a schedule of milestones and a developmental and testing timeline. The

final approval of tool or instrument development will require realistic scheduling

plans.

The PI wishing to deploy a third-party tool or instrument should consult with

CDEX early and often in the development planning process and provide

specifications and operational criteria. For example, a laboratory instrument to be


3

operated by the third-party PI may have special space, power, and consumable

requirements. These needs must be shared with CDEX in a timely manner. Failure to

do so will negatively affect the chance of the tool or instrument being deployed. The

sampling plan must be shared with the Co-Chief Scientists, who will discuss the

proposal with the third-party PI.

For all categories of tools or instruments, development and deployment must follow

these guidelines:

1. There must be at least one PI who has ultimate responsibility for

tool/instrument development and oversight. They must either themselves, or

appoint a delegate to, sail on Chikyu to monitor their tool/instrument.

2. Project planning must explicitly define the time and resources needed (funds

and personnel) together with the portion that CDEX has agreed to commit

during this phase.

3. The PI must maintain good communication with CDEX, including updates on

progress and development. Any potential delays in production or delivery to

the ship must be communicated as soon as possible.

4. The PI must clearly identify shipping, loading, storage, space, environmental,

electrical, and any other requirements (e.g. consumables) to use or store the

tools or instruments aboard Chikyu.

5. The science plan must be integrated with the expedition’s goals. Close

communication with the expedition Co-Chief Scientists is required.

Proposal and Development A tool or instrument proposal needs to be submitted to CDEX. The development

plan should be shared with CDEX from the earliest stages. Once CDEX (and the

CIB, where appropriate) gives approval for a tool or instrument proposal, a clearly

defined development plan, with schedule and milestones, must be submitted to

CDEX. This plan should include, where appropriate:

1 . The financial and technical feasibility of making the proposed tool or

instrument.

2. A brief description or diagram of the tool or instrument. A detailed schematic


4

drawing, technical specifications (weight, dimensions, temperature and

pressure ratings, power needs, etc.), or additional required components

(cables, etc) may be requested.

3. A detailed development timeline, including milestones, for development and

testing the tool or equipment.

4. Operational procedures should be clearly written out.

5. Procedures for testing on land or under controlled situations should be

described. If ship time is needed for testing, both CDEX and the CIB need to

agree.

6. Description of how the tool or instrument complies with basic safety standards.

7. All transportation, shipping, and handling fees are to be borne by the PI, unless

described in writing otherwise.

All of these will be compiled into a formal written statement of agreement between

CDEX and the PI, before formal approval for the tool or instrument development begins

(when applicable). CDEX will advise and present all development plans to the CIB for

further detailed discussion and review. CDEX and the CIB will appoint a liaison to

monitor development progress and report to CDEX (and CIB) as needed. CDEX will

report progress updates to the CIB as appropriate. If the tool or instrument falls

seriously behind schedule, and deployment seems unlikely or impossible, CDEX has

the right to withdraw the tool or instrument from further consideration. CDEX and the

CIB, after review with the PI, may reschedule deployment. In general, missing

deployment will result in the tool or instrument being dropped by CDEX altogether.

Deployment When the tool or instrument has reached a stage ready for deployment, the PI and

CDEX will report to the CIB (as necessary). The IO will report the submission of

development and deployment plans to the CIB. The CIB will normally bear the

responsibility of determining action on these submissions and will provide advice to

the IO regarding further tool or instrument development. The PI will work with the

CDEX liaison, Expedition Project Manager (EPM) and the expedition Co-Chief

Scientists to arrange inclusion of the tool or instrument in the expedition.

Off-the Shelf Tool


5

Off-the-shelf or leased tools include (1) technically new to Chikyu that has been utilized

routinely in other markets, or (2) leased or purchased tools/instruments from

recognized providers. In order to deploy an off-the-shelf tool on Chikyu, the following

steps must be taken:

1. Discussion should be made with CDEX prior to selecting off-the-shelf

technology. CDEX will consult with the CIB if necessary.

2. Procure detailed specifications including performance requirements of the

desired tool or instrument and ensure that it is suitable to meeting the

objectives of a specific Chikyu expedition.

Laboratory Instruments Often it is necessary for a scientist to bring aboard their own laboratory equipment in

order to meet a specific expedition objective or simply to make the most of the unique

opportunity and collect additional exciting and important ancillary data. The third party

tool category of Laboratory Instrumentation includes (1) an instrument new to Chikyu

that has been utilized routinely in other markets, or (2) leased or purchased

instrumentation from recognized providers.

In order for a third-party laboratory instrument to be included as part of a Chikyu

expedition, the following steps must be taken:

1. Contact CDEX to ensure that the specific instrument is not already a part of

the Chikyu’s laboratory.

2. Procure detailed specifications including performance requirements of the

desired instrument and ensure that it is suitable to meeting the objectives of

a specific Chikyu expedition.

Export/Import Control Responsibility PIs bear complete and sole legal responsibility for ensuring that tools and

instruments comply with all domestic and foreign law requirements applicable to

import, export, and technological restrictions. Tools may be subject to the Japan

Export Administration Regulations and must satisfy all JAMSTEC regulations.

IODP approval guidelines for Second Post-Expedition Meetings

General The main purpose of the second post-expedition meeting is to maximize scientific impact through review and coordination of post-expedition investigations in advance of publication of scientific results in accordance with the IODP Sample, Data, and Obligations Policy. It is the responsibility of the Co-chief scientists with help from the staff scientist to plan for and chair an efficient and timely meeting. The meeting requires authorization by the IODP-MI Science Managers.

Request for meeting and approval process The staff scientist will on behalf of the Co-chief scientists, and with the consent of the Implementing Organization (IO), submit a meeting request to the IODP-MI science managers ([email protected]) for meeting authorization. This request must be made a minimum of 6 months pre-meeting and should include primary and alternate choices for a meeting site, a draft agenda, comments on timeliness in relation to progress of work and publication obligations, a named host, indications of the level of costs (accommodations and facilities) and an initial roster. It should also briefly explain the rationale behind the choices of meeting venue. A majority of the expedition participants must support the choices of meeting venues submitted for approval.

Meeting location and costs Second post-expedition meetings should take place in an IODP member country and must have a host, preferably an expedition participant. The host will be responsible for all costs associated with the meeting facilities, excluding accommodations and meals. The meeting facility will require suitable meeting room(s), audio-visual facilities, internet access, and printing and copying equipment, as deemed necessary for a specific meeting. Meeting attendees travel on their own travel funds and may seek support from their national IODP program. An appropriate balance of meetings among IODP member countries is desirable. Meeting locations requiring complex and/or expensive travel should be avoided. The national IODP support programs are encouraged to provide guidelines for the level of travel support that meeting attendees can expect to obtain.

Related activities Holding meetings in conjunction with related scientific conferences or at locations of specific scientific relevance (e.g., geology, institution, outreach) is encouraged. If an associated field excursion is proposed the rationale for this and possible travel and cost implications it might impose on the meeting participants must be documented. Authorization by the IODP-MI of a meeting with an associated field excursion does not imply that meeting attendees will be reimbursed for participation in the field excursion by their national support program.

CDEX-IODP approval guidelines for Second Post-Expedition Meetings General The main purpose of the second post-expedition meeting is to maximize scientific impact through review and coordination of post-expedition investigations in advance of publication of scientific results in accordance with the IODP Sample, Data, and Obligations Policy. It is the responsibility of the Co-chief scientists with help from the staff scientist to plan for and chair an efficient and timely meeting. For D/V Chikyu-related expeditions, the meeting requires authorization by the Chikyu operator, JAMSTEC-CDEX. Request for meeting and approval process The Expedition Project Manager will, on behalf of the Co-chief scientists, submit a meeting request to the CDEX IODP Group for meeting authorization. This request must be made a minimum of 6 months pre-meeting and should include primary and alternate choices for a meeting site, a draft agenda, comments on timeliness in relation to progress of work and publication obligations, a named host, indications of the level of costs (accommodations and facilities) and an initial roster. It should also briefly explain the rationale behind the choices of meeting venue. A majority of the expedition participants must support the choices of meeting venues submitted for approval. Meeting location and costs Second post-expedition meetings should take place, in principle, in an IODP member country and must have a host, preferably an expedition participant. The host will be responsible for all costs associated with the meeting facilities, excluding accommodations and meals. The meeting facility will require suitable meeting room(s), audio-visual facilities, internet access, and printing and copying equipment, as deemed necessary for a specific meeting. Meeting attendees travel on their own travel funds and may seek support from their national IODP program. Meeting locations requiring complex and/or expensive travel will, in general, not be approved. The national IODP support programs are encouraged to provide guidelines for the level of travel support that meeting attendees can expect to obtain. Related activities Holding meetings in conjunction with related scientific conferences or at locations of specific scientific relevance (e.g., geology, institution, outreach) is encouraged. If an associated field excursion is proposed the rationale for this and possible travel and cost implications it might impose on the meeting participants must be documented. Authorization by CDEX of a meeting with an associated field excursion does not imply that meeting attendees will be reimbursed for participation in the field excursion by their national support program.

Agenda Item 20 KCC Report

KCC Report

Agenda Item 21 Outreach Activities

Outreach Activities

EDUCATION and OUTREACH CDEX communicate with each stakeholder such as researchers, student, teacher, administrator, politicians, media, general public, etc. After JFAST expedition, CDEX/JAMSTEC is especially expected to report the scientific achievements of JFAST and most recent findings about seismogenic zone as well as other IODP scientific themes. CDEX outreach activity after previous CIB is as follows: Booth exhibition at meeting CDEX exhibited the booth at annual meetings at Geological Society of Japan, JpGU and AOGS with collaboration with J-DESC and JAMSTEC’s research departments. CDEX provided the materials for AGU and EGU to support Oceanleadership and ECORD. Education for younger generation CDEX members gave about 15 lectures for students as requested by schools. Field excursions of the education program, Sand for Students (S4S), were organized for one high school. CDEX supported International Earth Science Olympiad to give a lecture at field excursion and an opportunity for CHIKYU ship tour. Collaborating with JpGU annual meeting in Yokohama city, CDEX supported JpGU/Yokohama city to provide a practical work program in microscope observatory of deep-sea cores for high school students. During JOIDES Resolution’s port call in Yokohama, UISO held a ship tour for a Japanese high school in both English and Japanese with CDEX’s support. English lecture by USIO staffs for Japanese students seemed to have great significance in promoting interest in IODP as international science collaboration. Media During the CHIKYU’s port call, CDEX often holds ship tours for domestic and international media participant. For the interview and filming at the rig floor, CDEX accept their request if the situation permits. CDEX cooperated

with two filming project from France and England during IODP expedition 348 of NanTroSEIZE. CDEX is also requested to provide the photos and movies on a daily basis. Last year, CDEX had about 60 requests of the photos/movies and 10 requests of interviews. General Public CDEX members gave about 15 lectures for outside workshops. CDEX communicates with general public at work shops organized by JAMSTEC/CDEX, JAMSTEC open-house and/or update the website etc. JAMSTEC/CDEX held two workshops in the theme of scientific achievements of JFAST in Iwate and Miyagi, where are the damaged areas of Tohoku earthquakes and tsunamis in 2011. Participants seemed to strongly expect to know about mechanism of huge earthquakes with most recent scientific results. CDEX supported a workshop, which is organized by J-DESC and supported by National Science Museum, Nagoya city science museum and Hachinohe city. The theme of this workshop was the scientific achievements of Integrated Ocean Drilling Project and the future of scientific drilling. Communication with other member countries CDEX communicates and supports the outreach activities each other IODP member countries. JOIDES Resolution had port call event in Yokohama at the end of 2014 May and CDEX supported ship tours of JOIDES, which had about 100 visitors of media, general public and high school. CDEX had some interviews and requests of photos/movies from media with ECORD’s negotiation. Australian IODP office at Australian National University (ANU) exhibited the booth at Earth Science Convention in Australia, and CDEX/JAMSTEC lent JFAST core replica to ANU.

Agenda Item 22 CIB Member Rotation

Gaku Kimura(Chair) Yoshiyuki Tatsumi Hodaka Kawahata

The University of Tokyo, Japan

Kobe university, Japan The University of Tokyo, Japan

Kenneth H. Nealson J. Casey Moore Heinrich Villinger

University of Southern California, USA

University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

University of Bremen, Germany

CIB Six Leading Scientists

2 years

2 years 2 years

http://www.geo.uni-bremen.de/sensorik/mitarbeiter/Vill_2011_kl.jpg

http://d.hatena.ne.jp/kimura-gaku/about

Agenda Item 23 Review of Consensus Statements and Action Items

Agenda Item 24 Next CIB Meeting

Agenda Item 25 Other Business

Documents

Chikyu IODP Board #2 Meeting · 2019-08-02 · Chikyu IODP Board #2 Meeting Logistics 10th – 11th July, 2014 Yokohama, JAPAN MEETING DATES & TIMES: 10th Jul 09:00 - 17:00 CIB Meeting@Miyoshi