Chikyu IODP Board #1 meeting
23-25 July 2013
Miyoshi Memorial Auditorium
JAMSTEC Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences (YES)
List of ParticipantsNameInstitution

Members
Wataru Azuma
Hodaka Kawahata
Gaku Kimura
Yuzuru Kimura
Casey Moore
Kenneth Nealson
Yoshiyuki Tatsumi
Heinrich Villinger

Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, JapanThe University of Tokyo, JapanCIB Chair - The University of Tokyo, Japan
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
University of California, Santa Cruz, USA
University of Southern California, USA
Kobe University, Japan
University of Bremen, Germany

Liaisons
Keir Becker
David Divins
Robert Gatliff
Holly Given
Susan Humphris
Masa Kinoshita
Dick Kroon
Gilles Lericolais

IODP Forum chair - University of Miami, USA
US Implementing Organization (USIO) - Consortium for Ocean Leadership, USA
European Science Operator (ESO), British Geological Survey, UK
IODP-Management International, Inc./IODP Support Office, USA
JR Facility Board Chair - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA
Kochi Core Center (KCC), JapanPEP chair - The University of Edinburgh, UK
SCP Chair - Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (IFREMER), France

Observers
Naokazu Ahagon
Jamie Allan
Yoshito Ando
Nobu Eguchi
Lallan Gupta
Stuart Henrys
Shinji Hida
Hitoshi Hotta
Yuichi Inoue
Akira IshiwatariThomas Janecek
Issa Kagaya
Shomei Kobayashi
Nori Kyo
Shigemi Matsuda
Sidney L. M. Mello
Shin'ichi Mizumoto
Kyaw Moe
Shigemi Naganawa
Yoko Okamoto
Kentaro Saeki
Ikuo Sawada
Jeff Schuffert
Toshikatsu Sugawara
Kazuhiro Sugiyama
Kiyoshi Suyehiro
Asahiko Taira
Sean Toczko
Kumiko Tsukamoto
Shouting Tuo
Michiko Yamamoto
Masaoki Yamao
Chris Yeats
Other CDEX Attendees
Akiko Fuse
Shinya Goto
Kiyoshi Hatakeyama
Yoshihisa Kawamura
Hiroyuki Kikuta
Shin'ichi Kuramoto
Tamano Omata

Kochi Core Center (KCC), Japan
National Science Foundation, USA
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Kochi Core Center (KCC), JapanGNS Science, New ZealandCenter for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
JAMSTEC, Japan
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J-DESC) - Tohoku University, Japan
National Science Foundation, USA
IODP-Management International Inc., Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
IODP-Capes/Brazil Office, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brazil
JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, JapanThe University of Tokyo, Japan
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, JapanUS Science Support Program (USSSP), Consortium for Ocean Leadership, USA
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
IODP-Management International Inc., Japan
President of JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Australian Education International, Australian Embassy, Japan
IODP-China Office, Tongji University, China
IODP-Management International Inc., Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Australian/New Zealand IODP Consortium, Australian Resources Research Centre, CSIRO,
Australia

Tomokazu Saruhashi
Koji Takase
Aki Tanaka
Keita Umetsu
Yasuo Yamada

Chikyu IODP Board #1 meeting
23-25 July 2013
Miyoshi Memorial Auditorium
JAMSTEC Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences (YES)
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 theworkshop 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 bereviewed.
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).

1

CIB_Consensus_0713-14:
The
CIB
endorsedslightly
modified(CIB_Consensus_0713-05) Proposal Advisory Team (PAT) terms of reference.
CIB_Consensus_0713-15:
The
CIB
endorsedslightly
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 membershipselection 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, intime 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 somemodification 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.

2

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 thatthe 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 meetingschedule of next meeting is 18 – 20 February 2014.
The following consensus items were electronically made after #1 CIB meeting.
CIB_Consensus_0713-31: The CIB established CRISP Project Coordination Team.
The team member consists of César Ranero (Chief Project Scientist; CPS), Kohtaro
Ujiie (CPS), Susan Bilek (member), Christian Hensen (member), Ikuo Sawada(CDEX), Nobu Eguchi (CDEX), Sean Toczko (CDEX), and Nori Kyo (CDEX).
CIB_Consensus_0713-32: The CIB established NanTroSEIZE Project Coordination
Team. The team member consists of Harold Tobin (Chief Project Scientist; CPS),
Gaku Kimura (CPS), Kyuichi Kanagawa (member), Demian Saffer (member),
Masataka Kinoshita (member), Michael Strasser (member), Michael Underwood(Science Coordinator), Greg Moore (Science Coordinator), Eiichiro Araki (Science
Coordinator), Yasuhiro Yamada (Science Coordinator), Ikuo Sawada (CDEX), Nobu
Eguchi (CDEX), Sean Toczko (CDEX), and Nori Kyo (CDEX).
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 andendorsed its implementation.

3

Chikyu IODP Board #1 meeting
23-25 July 2013
Miyoshi Memorial Auditorium
JAMSTEC Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences (YES)
Final 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 thegroup 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 ofoperation. 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, andother 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 wasdiscussed; 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 werediscussed. In answer to Holly Given’s question, the Japanese FY terms are April to thefollowing March. Masa Kinoshita asked if FY14 operation plan was endorsed, the chairanswered 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 alreadyestablished 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 is1

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 thehighest 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 beenasked to review it.
Heinrich Villinger questioned the lack of connection between the SSDB to Chikyu activities inthe 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 willbe 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 wasdescribed: 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 forbudget support.
Casey Moore asked about the stability of this business model. W. Azuma affirmed that it’shighly 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 regularmembers, 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.

2

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 liketo 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, andhow, 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 endingin 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 ofinterest (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 notnecessarily active or even aware of this, 3. K. Becker suggested that such cases shouldhave 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.

3

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 theother FB meetings. This relationship is established in this framework. Any other issues canand should be raised here. S. Humphris pointed out that the JRFB is responsible for thevarious 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, technicalfeasibility 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 outsidefunding, 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 15minute 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. Oncecomplete, 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 makeseveral 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? Whatmechanism 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.

4

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 thisAgenda Item are summarized here.
N. Eguchi presented a summary of the new Chikyu project guidelines for proposals andevaluation 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, andusage 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 safetycommittee (Chikyu Safety Review Committee) will review riser operation safety. Anotheritem 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, wasthat with the large costs involved in riser drilling projects, a great deal of planning isnecessary, 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 thefirst-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 handledsimultaneously.
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 isdesignated as a project, Site Geohazards sub-committee review a safety package preparedby the proponent, once a drilling program is made by CDEX, Drilling Operation subcommittee review the program and verify operational feasibility/safety and report to theCSRC. 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.

5

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 thesame as the current Project Management Team (PMT). The membership includes theoperator, engineers and scientists, a core group of 5-8 members. Experience shows this tobe 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 thatthe 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 theconsensus was that a new statement was needed, clarifying that the “Ad-Hoc” PEP is notneeded 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 thepurview 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-6

proposal be included at PAT members; N. Eguchi recommended that these scientists notinclude 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. Someof the consensus items include:
1. No more “Ad-Hoc” PEP, instead external members will be invited to join PEP on acase-by-case basis. This leaves scientists and the technical experts to drive theproposal 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 wasreviewed. 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 becovered 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 prescoping 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

7

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 thatprioritization 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 mentionedthat in this summary of budgets and costs, the Shimokita expedition (Exp. 337) costs were8

borne by MEXT/JSPS. C. Moore asked if Chikyu is owned by JAMSTEC, and if there is anamortization fee included annually in these summaries. N. Eguchi stated that Chikyu isowned 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 specificrequirements as determined by the science goals. Non-IODP income is a requiredcomponent of this budgetary outlook. H. Villinger asked if non-IODP contracts are alreadysecured, or are they in process of negotiation. W. Azuma responded no, and the reality offluctuating 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 ofoperations (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, thenFall Oct 2015 NanTroSEIZE C0010 LTBMS riserless operation. The other plan (B) has thesame schedule for 2013. Then do Aug 2014 NanTroSEIZE C0010 LTBMS riserless workwith 2015 NanTroSEIZE C0002F Megasplay Riser drilling. Y. Yamada pointed out thedependency 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 availabilityof Chikyu to work on other riser projects.
Vice Chair K. Nealson noted that without any further questions, it seemed consensus was oncompleting 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 operationsas 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.

9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 Officepresentation. 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 themap 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 Indianridge 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 andmoney 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 andpotential riser/non-riser operation, however PEP recognized this proposal is not quite readyto go and still waiting for lead PI response.
Site Characterization Panel (SCP) proposal reviews(12:05 h.)

10Chair G. Kimura called for G. Lericolais to present on the SCP reviewed proposals, followedby 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 2017section 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 torevision of the new riser drill site, for which CDEX has requested and received ageotechnical 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, andsub 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 iscorrected 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 theupcoming 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 shearstrength data sets. One-year ocean current monitoring by mooring system is planned to takeplace 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). Transpacific11transit is 30 days one-way; 60 days round trip. Casing plans still very “rough”. “Planned” 200m 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 scaleenvisaged.
Chair G. Kimura asked if the coring interval were from the proposal. N. Eguchi repeatedthese 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 “onego”. 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 ofcommercial 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 areequivalent. 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 bitchanges – 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 NanTroSEIZELTBMS 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. Nonriser 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 planningfor 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

12

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 thesame. Chair G. Kimura mentioned that prioritization at this meeting (at least) is difficult sinceboth 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 toremain 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, theChair asked if there was consensus on designating IBM and CRISP as projects, and directthat 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 mightwant to go back to drill deeper, and these are good examples of appropriate Chikyu riserlesstargets. 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. Pacificafter 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 madeconsensus on PCT establishment and its procedure.
C. Yeats suggested that the PIs be contacted to suggest a list of qualified scientists to serveon 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.

13

Consensus was made with respect to asking the CIB to contact the IBM and CRISP PIs tonominate 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. Kimurastated 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 thatas 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 theexecutive 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 Meeting14(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, somediscussion 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 thispolicy 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 ofa 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 bedetermined by the local laws governing the seas being drilled in; these will likely change withevery 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 andresubmit 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 importanceof a cross-platform policy, with simplified policy and standardized curatorial procedures andsample & 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 therepositories. H. Villinger agreed, with the need for revising the policy. T. Janecek said theCuratorial 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 thebest 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 andObligation 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 theversion 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 tostate that proponents writing for the Chikyu riser proposal need to go thru the pre-proposalroute. 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.

15

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 storageand J-DESC related core school and pre-cruise training are in their scope. M. Kinoshita thenintroduced “virtual core viewer” “sample availability” webpages of the KCC which help
sample requesters. KCC will construct a new additional core repository by Spring 2014; thecapacity 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 by2015 and may be effective retroactively on the data that Japan ratified the CBD. Because ofthis, KCC and CDEX looking to form a Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) for biologicalmaterial 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 definedin this document. The CIB encouraged that the geographic core distribution model should be
kept as it is.

16

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 repliedthat 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 teamfor 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 withseveral 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 eachconsensus 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. Humphrisconfirmed 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. Humphrisconfirmed 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.

17

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 scheduleof next meeting is 18 – 20 February 2014.

23. Any Other Business
H. Villinger asked if the US operator been selected; T. Janacek stated that noannouncement 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.
The following consensus items were electronically made after #1 CIB meeting.
CIB_Consensus_0713-31: The CIB established CRISP Project Coordination Team. The
team member consists of César Ranero (Chief Project Scientist; CPS), Kohtaro Ujiie (CPS),
Susan Bilek (member), Christian Hensen (member), Ikuo Sawada (CDEX), Nobu Eguchi(CDEX), Sean Toczko (CDEX), and Nori Kyo (CDEX).
CIB_Consensus_0713-32: The CIB established NanTroSEIZE Project Coordination Team.
The team member consists of Harold Tobin (Chief Project Scientist; CPS), Gaku Kimura(CPS), Kyuichi Kanagawa (member), Demian Saffer (member), Masataka Kinoshita(member), Michael Strasser (member), Michael Underwood (Science Coordinator), Greg
Moore (Science Coordinator), Eiichiro Araki (Science Coordinator), Yasuhiro Yamada(Science Coordinator), Ikuo Sawada (CDEX), Nobu Eguchi (CDEX), Sean Toczko (CDEX),
and Nori Kyo (CDEX).
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.

18