Chikyu Membership Status
MemberCategory
RegularMemberCountry/Consortium

Contribution
(USD)

ECORD

1M

MOU signed in Feb.,2014

ANZIC*300K

MOU signed in Apr.,2014

StatusPartnershipp
NoneMemberProject
MemberOthersNone
Taiwan

LOI submitted by Institute ofGeophysics, National Central
University

Indonesia

LOI submitted by Agency for theAssessment and Application of
T h l (BPPT)
Technology(BPPT)

China, Korea, India, Malaysia,
Under negotiation with each
Philippine, Vietnam
country*Although ANZIC’s funding level is 300K and they are categorized as Associate Member on
MOU, we tentatively place them in regular member box in the above table because it is
written in MOU that they will strive to increase funding level to 1M.

Review of
IODP Expedition 348, NanTroSEIZE	CDEX/JAMSTEC	Exp.	
  348	  Plan	  • Expedi0on	
  start;	
  13	
  September	
  2013.	
  • Resume	
  Exp.	
  338	
  target.	
  • Extend	  C0002F	
  hole	  to	
  3,600	
  mbsf	  (or	
  deeper)	
  and	
  set	  casings.	
  • Three	
  co-­‐chiefs	
  (H.	
  Tobin,	
  D.	
  Saﬀer,	
  T.	
  Hirose).	
  • 22	
  scien0sts	
  (embark	
  26	
  November).	
  • LWD,	
  cuRngs,	
  mud	
  gas	  monitoring,	
  and	
  100	  m	
  coring	
  in	
  
the	
  accre0onary	
  prism.	
  • Expedi0on	
  ﬁnish;	
  20	
  January	  2014.	
  Exp.	
  348	
  Reality	
  
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Expedi0on	
  start;	
  13	
  September	
  2013	  (as	
  planned).	
  Telscopic	
  joint	
  failure	
  (need	
  repair).	
  Several	
  typhoons.	
  Test	
  SDRCB	
  as	
  con0ngency	
  opera0on	
  (success).	
  First	
  LWD	
  tool	  run	
  started	
  2	
  Nov.	
  (51st	  day).	
  Side	
  tracking	
  (as	
  planned,	
  C0002F	
  -­‐>	
  C0002N).	
  Set	
  13-­‐3/8”	
  CSG	
  shallower	  than	  planned	
  (2009	
  mbsf)	
  Pipe	
  stuck	
  (back-­‐oﬀ,	
  severing).	
  Another	  side	  tracking	
  (C0002N	
  -­‐>	
  C0002P).	
  Coring	  interval,	
  2,163	
  –	
  2,218.5	
  mbsf	  (recovered	
  30	
  m)	
  
LWD,	
  cuRngs,	
  mud	
  gas	  monitoring,	
  con0nues.	
  Set	
  11-­‐3/4”	
  liner	  CSG	
  shallower	  than	  planned	
  (3400	
  mbsf)	
  Expedi0on	
  suppose	  to	
  ﬁnish	
  by	
  31	
  January	  (about	
  10	
  days	  extension)	
  Exp.	
  348	
  Ops	
  Summary	
13	
  Sep.	
  2013	
  –	
  29	
  Jan.	
  2014	
  (139	
  days)	
  Sea	
  Floor	
  (1967.5	
  m	  WD)	  20”	  CSG	
  Shoe	  (860.3	
  mbsf)	
  Exp.	
  326	
  

Hole	
  F	
  
C0002F	
  TD	
  (2005.5	
  mbsf)	
  Exp.	
  338	
  WhipStock	
  11-­‐3/4”	
  Liner	  CSG	
  13-­‐3/8”	
  CSG	
  shoe	  (2009	
  mbsf)	
  17”	
  Hole	  TD	
  (2330	
  mbsf)	
  

Hole	
  N	
  

11-­‐3/4”	
  Liner	  CSG	
  shoe	  (2922	
  mbsf)	
  12-­‐1/4”	
  Hole	  TD	
  (3059	
  mbsf)	
  

Hole	
  P	
  

C0002P	
  coring	
  opera0on	
  2,163	  –	
  2,218.5	
  mbsf	
  
Core	
  #	
  

Top	
  Depth	  (mbsf)	
   Advance	
  (m)	
  Recovery	  (m)	
  Recovery	  (%)	
  

C0002P-­‐1R	
  2163.0	
  

9.5	
  

0.40	
  

4.2	
  

C0002P-­‐2R	
  2172.5	
  

9.5	
  

6.05	
  

63.7	
  

C0002P-­‐3R	
  2182.0	
  

9.5	
  

2.88	
  

30.3	
  

C0002P-­‐4R	
  2191.5	
  

9.5	
  

8.19	
  

86.2	
  

C0002P-­‐5R	
  2201.0	
  

8.0	
  

5.50	
  

68.5	
  

C0002P-­‐6R	
  2209.0	
  

9.5	
  

8.41	
  

88.5	
  

55.5	
  

30.63	
  

55.2	
  

Total	  

C0002 Opera0on	
  summary	Exp.326	
  	
  (2008.7	
  –	
  8)	

IniBal	
  casing	
  program	Casing(Depth : mbsf)

Exp.338	
  	
  (2012.10	
  –11)	

Exp.348	
  	
  (2013.9	
  –H26.1)	

Opera0on	
 36”＆20”	
  casing	

20”hole	  	

13-­‐3/8”&11-­‐3/4”casing	Troubles	

Loss	
  of	
  20”	
  casing	
  
due	
  to	
  parted	
  at	
  
CART	

・Emergency	
  disconnect	
  
due	
  to	
  rough	
  weather,	  Riser	
  touched	
  at	
  Keel.	

・Shallow	
  set	
  casing/liner	
  ・Tight	  hole,	  Pack-­‐oﬀ	
  ・borehole	
  brake	
  out,	
  Stuck	
  Cause	

VIV	
  associated	
  with	  strong	  current	

Rough	
  weather	

Borehole	
  instability	

36"
54m

20"
860m

16"
2300m

13-3/8"3600m

9-5/8"
4700m

分岐断層
Megasplay	
  約5200mfault	

Opera0on	
  overview	
  (1/2)	
1. Depart Shimizu port, Deploy BOP stuck-

9/13 Departed Shimizu port、Commenced Exp.348
WOW (41days: Typhoon x 6times)

2. Drill 17”hole, Set 13-3/8”CSG-

Drill out cement inside 20”casing.
Sidetracked just below 20”casing shoe and continued
drilling 17”hole(C0002N) to 2330mbsf.
Set 13-3/8”casing @2010mbsf, hard to run casing
below 2024.5mbsf where casing stuck.

3. Drill 12-1/4”hole	
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐

Drill out cement inside 13-3/8”casing.
Stuck pipe while drill out cement below 13-3/8”casing
shoe.
Attempted to free pipe without success. Sever the drill
collar at 1960.5mbsf, then recovered pipe.

Opera0on	
  overview(2/2)	
4. Drill 12-1/4”hole, Open hole to 14-1/2”– Set whipstock, mill out 13-3/8”casing and sidetrack.
– Drill 12-1/4”hole (C0002P) to 3058.5m, hard tocontinue drilling deeper due to pack-off/tight-hole.
Conducted RCB coring 2163 – 2218.5mbsf (6 coring)– Open hole to 14-1/2” with under-reamer to 2960mbsf,
hard to continue hole opening deeper due to pack-off/tight-hole.

5. Set 11-3/4” liner– Set 11-3/4” liner @2922.5mbsf.
– During liner hanger setting, liner packer was se by
mistake. Shoe squeeze cementing was attempted
instead of primary cementing .

6. Suspend the well

Wellbore	
  instability	Ø Early symptoms and events

5.68"
HWDP

5.68"
HWDP

-­‐ Increase volume of cavings-­‐ Increase drilling torque-­‐ Pack off

・・・C avings/D rilling
cuttings
・・・13-3/8"C S G
P rim ary	
 C M TG

8.5"
DC

8.5"
DC

8.5"
DC

S hoe	
 3975.1m V D(O M W 	
 1.15sg)

13-3/8"S hoe@ 3977.5m B R T
8.5"
DC

8.5"
DC

32.4m
29.5m

Ø 13-3/8” casing shallow set-­‐

Set 13-3/8” casing at 2010mbsf, 320m shallow against17”TD at 2330mbsf.

Ø Stuck pipe-­‐

Stuck pipe while drill out cement below 13-3/8”casing
shoe.

12.2m

8.5"
DC
F/Sub

B it	
 @ 4007m B R T
M W :	
 1.15sg

17"hole B TM
4297.5m B R Tv

TAT (Technical Advisory Team) Comments	
1. Review image data identifying wellbore breakouts and drilling-enhanced bedding
planes or natural fractures.
2. Review of leak-off pressure information.
3. Construct a 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 thebottom-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 ofhole conditions to the effects of pressure management issues using a tool suchas “DrillScene Replay” (http://sekal.com/?id=1077).

Drilling	
  Subcommihee	
  Comments	
1.

Casing program	
–2.

Drilling fluid	
–
–
–
–

3.

–

Conduct the risk assessment of hole troubles prior to drilling.	
Conduct the risk assessment while drilling.	

Management	
–
–
–

6.

The detection and correct interpretation of warning signs of drilling problems events could haveintroduced proactive actions at an earlier stage.	
Assess the mud weight window (upper limit: minimum horizontal stress Shmin , lower limit: stress ofborehole break out.	

Risk assessment	
––5.

Increase mud weight as needed.	
Select proper sealant additives.	
Maintain high viscosity for hole cleaning and hole stability.	
Consider Formate mud et al. Discuss the pros and cons of Synthetic Base Mud application.	

Real Time monitoring	
–4.

Prepare more than 2 size of casing (9-5/8” casing and 7” liner）, Set casing before getting worth.	

Conduct internal studies/engineering wherever possible.	
Development of human resources, technical tradition	
Frequent and close exchanges of views between CDEX and service companies, establish a collaborative
relationship.	

New technologies for contingency	
–Feasibility study of Expandable casing, Dual gradient et al.	

Study	  for	
  borehole	
  stability	ØData	
  
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐

Drilling	
  parameter,	
  Drilling	
  mud	
  prosperi0es	
  Drill	
  cuRngs	
  and	
  Cores	  MWD/LWD	
  survey,	
  depth-­‐based	
  &	
  0me-­‐based	
  
Leak	
  oﬀ	
  test	  ØAnalysis	
  and	  InterpretaBon	
  task	  -­‐ Events	
  based	  on	
  0me	
  and	
  depth.	
  -­‐ Forma0on	
  dip	
  and	
  azimuth	
  direc0on	  -­‐ Electrical	
  resistance	
  value	
  of	
  forma0on	
  and	
  0me-­‐based	
  borehole	
  breakouts	
  development.	
  -­‐ Es0ma0on	
  of	
  minimum	
  horizontal	
  stress	
  using	  the	
  data	  of	
  LOT	  -­‐ Stress	
  matrix	
  under	
  stuck	
  pipe	  -­‐ Simula0on	
  of	
  anisotropic	
  borehole	
  breakouts	
  using	  the	
  forma0on	
  dip	  and	
  mud	
  weight.	
  
	
  
	
  

Study	  Result	
  for	
  borehole	
  stability	Ø Mechanism	
  of	
  borehole	
  instability	
  A.	
  Steeply	
  dipping	
  bedding	
  planes.	
  B.	
  Fluid	
  penetra0on	
  into	  the	
  bedding	
  plane	  may	
  cause	  a	
  reduc0on	
  in	
  cohesion	
  and	  sliding	
  fric0on.	
  C.	
  Time-­‐dependent	
  wellbore	
  failure.	
  090deg（ver0cal）	
  A.	
  Forma0on	
  dip	B.	
  LWD	  resis0vity	
  data	  C.	
  Time-­‐dependent	
  failure	
  of	
  wellbore	
  （top）	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Simula0on	
  of	
  anisotropic	
  	
  wellbore	
  breakouts	
  (bohom）	
  Recommenda0ons	  from	
  GeoMechanical	
  Postmortem	Ø Requirement	
  of;	  
	  A	
  properly	
  engineered	  to	  prevent	
  drilling	
  ﬂuid	  invasion	
  into	  the	  bedding/fractures.	
  	
  Engineering	  an	
  op0mal	
  mud	
  formula0on	
  and	
  maintenance	
  for	
  hole	  cleaning	
  and	  controlling	
  bohom-­‐hole-­‐pressure.	
  Ø LWD	  pressure	
  while	  drilling	
  (PWD),	
  image	
  data	  (e.g.,	
  AFR,	
  GVR,	
  StarTrak)	
  image	
  data	  and	
  acous0c	
  caliper	
  data	  are	
  important	
  engineering	
  tools	
  that	
  if	
  diligently	
  collected	
  and	
  interpreted	
  in	
  real-­‐0me	
  can	
  help	
  document	
  the	
  state	  of	
  well	  integrity.	
  Ø The	  collec0ve	
  integra0on	
  of	
  pore	  pressure	
  measurements,	
  Shmin	
  es0mates,	
  LWD	
  datab	
  and	
  geologic/geochemical	
  indicators	
  from	  cuRngs	  and	  cavings	
  can	  be	
  used	  in	
  as	
  close	  to	
  real-­‐0me	
  as	
  possible	
  to	
  verify	  SHmax	
  stress	
  magnitudes,	  the	
  geomechanical	  model	  and	
  further	  verify	  mud	
  weight	
  and	
  mud	
  formula0on.	
  Review of Drilling Fluids	Ø Drilling	
  ﬂuids	
  Postmortem	
  of	
  Exp.348	
-High pH value (11.7	
  -­‐	
  12.6)	
  ⇒ Degradation of the polymer’s posi0ve	
  eﬀect	
High Plas0c	
  Viscosi0es ⇒ Obstruct proper cuttings transpotation	
Inadequate Low	  shear	
  rate	  viscosi0es ⇒ Obstruct proper cuttings removal	
Inadequate Gel strength ⇒ Obstruct to prevent suspending cuttings in hole	
Overuse of Viscous sweeps	
CuRngs	  sehling	
  in	
  hole	  due	  to	
  not	
  Overuse of Lubricants	
adequate	
  hole	  cleaning	
  (Blocky	
  cuRngs)	
Overuse of polymers		Ø Cuttings/Cavings Analysis	
-The result of analysis, it is considered that		the	
  cause	  of	
  wellbore	
  breakouts	
  is	
  NOT	  
	  the	
  forma0on	
  (clay	  mineral)	
  hydra0on	
  swelling.	
  ⇒ Synthe0c	
  Base	  Mud(SBM)	
  may	  be	
  problema0c	
  due	  to	
  ﬂuid	  penetra0on	
  into	  highly	
  dipping	  beds	  and	
  poten0al	
  wellbore	
  failure.	

RecommendaBons	
  of	
  opBmal	
  Drilling	
  Fluids	
ØOpBmizaBon	
  of	
  rheology	
ØOpBmizaBon	
  of	
  pH	
  
ØSelect proper sealant additives to prevent thefluid penetration into the bedding planes.	
ØRe-­‐formulaBon	
  of	
  the	
  eﬀecBve	
  Sweeps	  for	
  hole	  cleaning.	
  ØECD(Equivalent	
  CirculaBon	
  Density)	
  management	
  Technical	
  break	
  through	
•

•

•

•
•

Restructuring	
  of	
  casing	
  design	
  (Drilling	
  Subcommihee)	
  – Solid	  Expandable	  Technology	  (ENVENTURE)	
  – Casing	
  Drilling	
  Op0maiza0on	
  of	
  Drilling	
  Fluids(Data	
  acquisi0on	
  of	
  addi0ves)	
  （	
  TAT,	
  Drilling	
  Subcommihee	  ）	
  – Sealant	
  for	  preven0ng	
  ﬂuid	  invasion	
  into	  bedding/fractures(Soltex,	  Sealant,	
  etc..)	
  – Hole	  cleaning	
  (Fiber	  sweeps)	
  	
  Drill	
  Well	  on	
  Paper	  exercise	
  and	
  Real-­‐Time	  monitoring/interpreta0on	
  while	
  drilling（TAT	  ,	
  Drilling	
  Subcommihee	  ）	
  – GeoMechanics	
  (GMI）	
  – Drilling	
  simulator	
  (Sekal)	
  – Procedure	
  of	
  Extended	
  leak-­‐oﬀ	
  test	  – VSP	  (Considera0on	
  of	
  opera0on	
  availability	
  in	
  prac0ce)	
  6”OD	
  wire	  line	  coring	
  system	
  (NOV)	
  Addi0onal	
  ac0on	  – Non	
  Stop	
  Driller	
  system（MPO）	
  1.	
  Overview	
  of	
  CHIKYU	
  Opera4on	
  for	
  JPFY	
  2012～2013	
  	
JPFY2012	
1Q	
  

(Apr	
  –	
  Jun,	
  2012)	

2Q	
  (July	  –	
  Sep,	
  2012)	

3Q	
  

(Oct	
  –	
  Dec,	
  2013)	

USFY	
  2012	

① Exp343	
  JFAST	

JPFY2013	
4Q	
  

(Jan	
  –	
  Mar,	
  2013)	

1Q	
  

(Apr	
  –	
  Jun,	
  2013)	

USFY	
  2013	2Q	
  (July	  –	
  Sep,	
  2013	

3Q	
  

4Q	
  

(Oct	
  –	
  Dec,	
  2013)	

(Jan	
  –	
  Mar,	
  2014)	

USFY	
  2014	

Ex	
  
343	

② DOR	  -­‐1	
③ Exp343-­‐T	
  JFAST2	
④ Exp337	
  Shimokita	
⑤ Exp338	
  Nantro	
  C2	
⑥ DOR	  -­‐2	

343	

Exp337	
Exp338	
DOR-­‐2	

⑦ DOR	  -­‐3	

DOR-­‐3	

⑧ DOR-­‐4	
⑨ Exp348	
  Nantro	
  C2	

Exp348	

IODP	
  Drilling	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  69	
  (%)	  	
  UNlizaNon	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Non-­‐IODP	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
Drilling	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  2	
0	
  (%)	
  (Total)	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  89	
  (%)	
  	
	
  
	
  
OperaNon	  Cost	
  
	
  
	
  

IODP	
  Drilling	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  36	
  (%)	  	
 Non-­‐IODP	  Drilling	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  46	
  (%)	  	
  (Total)	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  82	
  
(%)	
  	
	
  	
  	
  	
  Rig	  Cost	  (incl.	
  standby	  period)	
  	  	
  USD	  	
  61m	  	
  Rig	  Cost	  (incl.	
  standby	  period)	
  	  	
  USD	  	
  51m	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  IODP	
  Drilling	
  Cost	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  USD	  	
  47m	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  IODP	
  Drilling	
  Cost	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  USD	  	
  58m	
  
	
  	
	
  	
  	
  	
  Non-­‐IODP	  Drilling	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  USD	  	
  17m	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  Non-­‐IODP	  Drilling	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  USD	  	
  25m	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  (Total)	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  USD133m	
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  (Total)	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  USD126m	
(*)USDJPY@100	2.	
  CHIKYU	  Funding	
  Structure	
  for	
  JPFY	
  2013	  	(Source	  of	
  Fund)	
  (1) Gov.	
  Fund	  (2) Gov.	
  Fund	  (Mission	
  Speciﬁc)	
  (3) Chikyu	
  member	  Fees	  	  	  -­‐	
  Regular	
  Member	  Fee	  (USD1m)	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  -­‐	  Partnership	  Fee(USD300k)	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  -­‐	
  Project	  Member	  Fee(USD10m～)	
  
(4)	
   	
  DOR(Commercial	
  Drilling)	
  (5) 	
  DonaNon	
  （Total	  Expenditure	
  in	
  JPFY	
  2013）	
  	
  USD133m	
  	

DOR	
  	
  

DOR	
  

Paid	
  
	
  
by	
  
	
  
Oil	
  Company	

Paid	
  
	
  
By	
  
	
  
	
  Oil	
  	
  
Co.	
  

IODP	
  ExpediNon	
  348	  	
  (Budget	
  Amount)	

Drilling	
  Cost	  (variable	
  cost)	

Rig	
  Cost	  (Base	  Cost)	

(4)	
  DOR	
  
	
  

	
  

(1) Gov.	
  Fund	  +	
  DOR	  contribuNon	  

USD47m	
  	
  
	
  

USD25m	  +Surplus	
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  (1)	
  Gov.	
  Fund	  	
  ContribuNon	
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  USD25m	
  +	
  Surplus

USD61m

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Apr	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  May	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Jun	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  July	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Aug	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sep	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Oct	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Nov	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Dec	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Jan	  /2014	
  	
  	
  	
  Feb/2014	  	
  	
  Mar/2014	
(*)USDJPY@100	3.	
  Summary	
  of	
  CHIKYU	
  Opera4on	
  for	
  JPFY	
  2012～2013	
  vs.	
  JPFY2014～2015	
  	● JPFY2012～2013	
  were	  the	
  most	  successful	
  years	
  for	
  CHIKYU	
  operaNon:	
  
	
  
Ø	
  High	  uNlizaNon.	
  (over	
  85%	  in	
  average)	
  Ø	  Variety	
  of	
  IODP	
  expediNons.	
  	
  
Ø	
  Good	  combinaNon	
  of	
  ScienNﬁc	
  drilling	
  and	
  commercial	
  drilling.	
  However	● JPFY2014～2015 will	
  be	
  the	
  most	  diﬃcult	
  years	
  because	
  	
  :	
  
Ø 	
  Regulatory	
  shipyard	
  maintenance	
  and	
  BOP	
  special	
  survey	
  is	
  planed	
  in	
  
mid.	
  2015	
  which	
  will	  cost	  more	  than	  USD40m.	
  Ø As	  the	  new	  “5	
  years	
  mid	
  term	  business	
  Plan”	  period	
  has	
  just	  started	  from	
  JPFY2014,	
  JAMSTEC	
  do	
  not	  have	  any	
  carry	
  forward	
  fund	  from	  previous	
  period.	
  Ø ConNnuous	
  budget	
  cut	  by	
  Japanese	
  government.	
  4.	
  Outline	
  of	
  CHIKYU	
  Opera4on	
  Schedule	
  for	
  JPFY	
  2014～2015	
  	
JPFY2014	
1Q	
  

(Apr	
  –	
  Jun,	
  2014)	

2Q	
  (July	  –	
  Sep,	
  2014)	

3Q	
  

(Oct	
  –	
  Dec,	
  2014)	

JPFY2015	
4Q	
  

(Jan	
  –	
  Mar,	
  2015)	

USFY	
  2014	

① DOR	  -­‐5	

1Q	
  

(Apr	
  –	
  Jun,	
  2015)	

2Q	
  (July	  –	
  Sep,	
  2015	

USFY	
  2015	

3Q	
  

(Oct	
  –	
  Dec,	
  2015)	

4Q	
  

(Jan	
  –	
  Mar,	
  2016)	

USFY	
  2015	

DOR-­‐5	

② Non	
  IODP	  Exp	
③ DOR	  -­‐6	

DOR-­‐6	
  (not	  ﬁrm)	

④ Non	
  IODP	  Exp	
⑤ IODP	
  Riserless	⑥ Shipyard	
  maintenance	

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Subject	
  to	
  change	Chikyu	  Subsea	
  System	
  (BOP,Riser)	
  will	  not	  be	
  available	
  unNl	  compleNon	
  of	
  shipyard	
  maintenance	  planned	
  in	
  mid.	
  2015.	

IODP	

USD40m+	⑦ Non	
  IODP	  Exp	
OpNon	  :	  DOR-­‐7	

DOR-­‐7	
  	
  (not	  ﬁrm)	

OpNon	  :	  IODP	

IODP	

IODP	
  Drilling	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  -­‐	  	
  (%)	  	
  UNlizaNon	
  	
  	
  	
  
Non-­‐IODP	  Drilling	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  16	
  (%)	
  
(As	
  of	
  10	
  July,2014)	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
(Total)	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  16	
  (%)	  		
  OperaNon	  Cost	
  
(As	
  of	
  10	
  July,2014)	
  	

	
  	
  	
  	
  Rig	  Cost	  (incl.	
  standby	  period)	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  USD	  	
  60m	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  IODP	
  Drilling	
  (not	  secured	
  yet)	
  	
  USD	  	  	  	
  -­‐	
  m	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  Non-­‐IODP	  Drilling	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  USD	  	
  29m	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  (Total)	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  USD	  	
  89m	(*)USDJPY@100	5.	
  CHIKYU	  Funding	
  Structure	
  for	
  JPFY	
  2014	  	(Source	  of	
  Fund)	
  (1) Gov.	
  Fund	  (2) Gov.	
  Fund	  (Mission	
  Speciﬁc)	
  (3) Chikyu	
  member	  Fees	  	  	  -­‐	
  Regular	
  Member	  Fee	  (USD1m)	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  -­‐	  Partnership	  Fee(USD300k)	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  -­‐	
  Project	  Member	  Fee(USD10m～)	
  
(4)	
   	
  DOR(Commercial	
  Drilling)	
  (5) 	
  DonaNon	
  
DOR	
  	
  

（Total	  Budget	
  for	
  JPFY	
  2014)	
  	
  USD89m	
  	
   +	
  	
  α	
  	
  

(secured	
  as	
  of	
  10th	  July,	  2014)	

Non	
  	
  
IODP	
  	
  

Non	
  	
  
IODP	
  	
  

(2)	
  	
  
Mission	  	  	  Speciﬁc	
  
Fund	
  
	
  

(2)	
  	
  
Mission	  	  	  Speciﬁc	
  
Fund	
  
	
  

USD10m	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	

USD10m	
  	
  	
  	
  	

IODP	
  	

(Budget	
  Amount)	

Drilling	
  Cost	  (variable	
  cost)	

Paid	
  
	
  
by	
  
	
  
Oil	
  Company	

(4)	
  DOR	  Rig	
  Cost	  (Base	  Cost)	

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  (1)	
  Gov.	
  Fund	
  	
  
	
  

USD9m	  

	  (4)	
  DOR	
  
	
  

(1)	
  
Gov.	
  
Fund	
  
	
  
Nantro	
  
	
  
IODP	
  
OBS.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	

α

USD60m	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  U
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  SD	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  α
	
  	
   	
  m	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  +Surplus	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  (3)	
  Chikyu	
  Member	  Fees	
  	
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Apr	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  May	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Jun	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  July	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Aug	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Sep	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Oct	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Nov	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Dec	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Jan	  /2015	
  	
  	
  	
  Feb/2015	  	
  	
  Mar/2015	

IODP Forum Report to CIB #2
Forum Meeting #1, Busan, 27-28 May 2014

• Minor changes to Forum Terms of Reference (ToR)• Detailed discussion of 7 aspects of Forum Mandate,with special attention to• methods for Forum to assess progress towards
achieving Science Plan, and• defining needs for mid-term renewal• interactions with ICDP
• Selection of next Forum Chair• Draft minutes posted on IODP.org last week andincluded in CIB#2 agenda bookProgress Toward New Science Plan
Forum Meeting #1, Busan, 27-28 May 2014
Forum Consensus 2014-2: The initial Forum review ofscheduled 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 theArctic, dedicated biosphere programs, the submarine landslide
aspect of Challenge #12 in the Earth in Motion theme, andChallenge #4 in the Climate and Ocean Change theme relating toocean 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.

IODP Progress Toward New Science Plan
Expeditions and Full Proposals by Theme/Challenge• Updated after April 2014 JRFB and June 2014 SEP decisions• Includes pre-proposals identified for development to full
• Key:* = sent to external review after June 2014 SEP** = holding bin after external review( ) = done at end of old IODP
[ ] = unusual proposal circumstances{ } = security issues
green font = 2012 top US priority challenge for JR
cyan font = MSPorange font = Chikyu (*** = PCT formed)
white font = JOIDES Resolution(or Chikyu riserless if CIB criteria are met)

Climate and Ocean Change (Challenges 1 & 2)
Challenge#1 Climate
response tohighatmospheric
CO2#2 Ice sheet
and sea level
response towarming
climateDone/scheduled

702 SAFARI
845 APL Agulhas

At FB’s

At SEP

567 SPac Paleogene{778 Tanzania?}
813 Ant. Cenozoic

708 ACEX2
760 Mentelle Basin
847 Scotia Sea
851Pre NW Atl Cenoz.
862Pre SW Atl Paleog.

581 Coralgal Banks
716 Hawaiian Reefs
732 Ant. Sed. Drifts(347 Baltic Sea)
820 Maldives Mons’n 813 Ant. Cenozoic
839 Amund. Sea WAIS

708 ACEX2
730 Vanuatu SL
751 Ross Sea WAIS**
847 Scotia Sea
852Pre N.S. Glacistore
863 MDP ISOLATClimate and Ocean Change (Challenges 3 & 4)
Challenge

Done/scheduled(346 Asian Monsoon)
353 Indian Monsoon
354 Bengal Fan#3 Control of
355 Arab. Sea CPP
regional
356 Indon. Thruflow
precipitation
702 SAFARI
patterns
799 WPac Warm Pool
820 Maldives Mons’n849APL Ind Pen Paleo#4 Ocean
response tochemicalperturbation

At FB’s

At SEP{549 Arabian Sea}
{595 Indus Fan}
618 E. Asian Mons’n
618 E. Asian Mons’n
777APL Okinawa

730 Vanuatu SL
819APL Arab Sea OMZ
859Pre Amazon Basin
863 MDP ISOLAT

548 Chicxulub

760 Mentelle Basin
819APL Arab Sea OMZ857APre DREAM-GOLD
858 APL NW Aust862Pre SW Atl Paleog.

Biosphere Frontiers
Challenge

Done/scheduled

At FB’s

At SEP[635 Hydrate Ridge]#5 Origin, extent,
830 APL Scott Plat.
significance of(347 Baltic Sea)
505 Mariana forearc 833 Guaymas Basinsubseafloor
758 Atlantis Massif
853Pre SAtl transect
biosphere
857APre DREAM-GOLD#6 Limits ofsubseafloor life

#7 Ecosystemsensitivity toenvironmental
change830 APL Scott Plat.

{724 Gulf of Aden}

857APre DREAM-GOLD
865 Nankai T Limit*

760 Mentelle Basin 819
APL Arab OMZ857APre DREAM-GOLD
858 APL NW Aust859Pre Amazon
862Pre SW Atl Paleog.

Earth Connections
Challenge

Done/scheduled

At FB’s#8 Upper mantle
composition anddynamics(345 Hess Deep)
800 Atlantis Bank

522 Superfast Crust 805 MDP Mohole
800 Atlantis Bank

#9 Seafloor(345 Hess Deep)spreading and ocean
349 SCS Tectonics
crustal architecture

760 Mentelle Basin
522 Superfast Crust
805 MDP Mohole
769 APL 504B logs
[838 CPP SCS II]#10 Chemical
exchange between
crust and seawater

505 Mariana forearc 853Pre SAtl transect

758 Atlantis Massif#11 Subduction and 350 IBM rear arc
698 IBM middle
formation of
351 IBM arc origins
crust***
continental crust
352 IBM forearc

At SEP

Earth in Motion
Challenge

Done/scheduled

At FB’s

NanTroSEIZE 3,4***#12 Control of(NanTroSEIZE 1,2,3)
537B CRISP B***earthquakes,(334/344 CRISP A)
781A Hikurangi
landslides, tsunamis 837 Sumatra
782B Hikurangi

At SEP
770 Kanto Asperity[796 Ligurian Slide]
811 Cape Fear
841 APL Hikurangi
835Pre JTRACK#13 Storage andflow of subseafloor
carbon811 Cape Fear
533 Cascadia CORKs
836 APL Timor Tr.
791 APL Cascadia
852Pre North Sea#14 Fluids linking
biological, chemical,
physical processes

837 New Eng. hydro.
505 Mariana forearc
633 Costa Rica mud
moundsCollaboration with ICDP
Forum Meeting #1, Busan, 27-28 May 2014
Forum Consensus 2014-5: The IODP Forum recommends thatthe 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 ajoint 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 theJune 2014 ICDP Executive Committee (EC). If the EC also endorses
them, then: (a) the IODP Forum chair will work with the ICDP SAG andEC chairs to set up the joint working group, and (b) J. Schuffert will
work with T. Wiersberg of ICDP and other appropriate individuals toorganize the joint town hall.

Collaboration with ICDP
June response from ICDP Ex. Comm. and AOG
EC: The EC fully endorses the IODP Forum decisions on calls for
coordinated projects with common goals as well as the plan for a joint
Town Hall Meeting at AGU.
AOG Consensus 19-17: The AOG endorses a joint ICDP-IODP
evaluation group (as defined by EC) so that amphibious projects are
submitted as single combined documents that will be evaluated jointly by
a combined SAG-SEP subgroup.
Actions at June 2014 SEP meeting:(1) SEP agreed with combined SAG-SEP subgroup proposed by AOG(2) SEP nominated 2 potential members for the working group to
design procedures for proposal submission and joint evaluation by
future SAG-SEP subgroup.

ICDP nominees: Pierre Francus (EC), Flavio Anselmetti (SAG)
IODP nominees: J. Erbacher (Forum), K. Miller + S. Gulick (SEP)Other Consensus/Action Items
Forum Meeting #1, Busan, 27-28 May 2014
Forum Consensus 2014-1: The IODP Forum approves updates to its Terms ofReference to reflect evolution in IODP structure since 2012, a simplified description of its
participants, and that it will choose its future 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.
Action Item: The second Forum meeting to be a three-day meeting July 8-10 2015
hosted by Neville Exon at ANU in Canberra.
Action Item: Review of education and outreach activities across IODP will be a special
focus of the second meeting of the Forum.
Action Item: The Forum chair to develop an initial draft agenda for the July 2015 Forummeeting for distribution to potential participants no later than the end of 2014.

JOIDES	  Resolution	
  Facility	
  Board	
  Report	
  Susan	  E.	
  Humphris	
  Woods	
  Hole	  Oceanographic	
  Institution	
  Science	
  Evaluation	
  Panel:	
  23-­‐26	
  June	  2014,	
  New	
  Brusnwick,	
  NJ	
  

Role	  of	
  JOIDES	
  Resolution	
  Facility	
  Board	  •	  	
  Determine	
  the	
  opera.ons	
  schedule	
  of	
  the	
  JOIDES	
  Resolu.on	
  
•	
  	
  Approve	
  the	
  JOIDES	
  Resolu.on	  Annual	
  Program	  Plan	  •	  	
  Approve	
  the	
  IODP	  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  Annual	
  Program	  Plan	  •	  	
  Provide	
  oversight	
  of	
  the	
  JOIDES	
  Resolu.on	
  Facility’s	
  advisory	
  panels	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  -­‐-­‐	
  Maintain	
  communications	
  with,	  and	  receive	  feedback	
  from,	  other	  FBs	
  regarding	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  the	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  the	
  advisory	
  panels	
  in	
  meeting	
  their	
  needs	  •	
  	
  Develop	
  and	  monitor	
  policies	
  for	
  data	  collec.on,	
  pre-­‐	  and	  post-­‐cruise	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  publica.ons,	
  and	
  core	  cura.on	
  associated	
  with	  the	
  JOIDES	
  Resolu.on	
  
	
  
	
  	
  
Mee$ngs:	
  	
  March	  and	
  August	
  2013	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  23-­‐24	
  April	
  2014	  JR	
  Facility	
  Board	
  Panels	
  
	
  

	
  	
  

•	
   	
  Science	  Evaluation	
  Panel	
  	
   	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  (merger	
  of	
  Proposal	
  Evalua.on	  Panel	  and	
  Site	  Characteriza.on	  Panel)	
  

	
  

	
  •	
  Responsible	
  for	  evalua.on	
  of	
  all	
  IODP	
  drilling	
  proposals	
  	
  
	
  •	
  Two	
  co-­‐Chairs	
  (one	  each	  for	
  scien.ﬁc	
  evalua.on	
  and	
  site	  survey	
  review)	
  
	
  •	
  Ini.ally	
  will	  remain	
  the	
  same	  size	  as	
  two	
  panels,	
  but	  may	
  reduce	
  in	
  size	  	
  Advantages:	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  

	
  -­‐	  Allows	
  more	  holis.c	
  review	
  of	
  feasibility	
  and	
  readiness	
  of	
  proposals	
  for	
  drilling	  	  -­‐	
  Proponents	
  receive	
  one	
  comprehensive	  review	
  leSer	  	  -­‐	
  Should	  result	
  in	
  fewer	  proposals	
  in	
  the	
  “holding	
  bin”	  	  	  -­‐	  One	
  message	
  to	
  the	
  appropriate	
  FBs	  on	
  status	
  of	
  proposal 	
  	
  

• 	
  Environmental	
  Protection	
  &	
  Safety	  Panel	  	  •	  Provides	
  independent	
  advice	
  with	  regard	
  to	
  safety	  and	
  environmental	
  issues	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  associated	
  with	  proposed	
  drilling	
  
	
  •	
  Used	  by	
  ECORD	  FB,	
  and	  the	
  CIB	
  only	  for	
  riserless	
  proposals	
  (riser	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  proposals	
  go	
  straight	
  to	
  Chikyu	
  safety	
  panel)	
  
	
   	
  	
  

JR	
  Facility	
  Expedition	
  Schedule	
  30	
  March–30	
  May	  2014:	
   	
  
	
  
30	
  May–30	
  July	  2014:	
  
	
  
	
  
30	
  July–29	
  September	
  2014: 	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

29	
  November	
  2014–29	
  January	  2015:29	
  January–31	
  March	  2015:	
   	
  
	
  
31	
  March–31	
  May	  2015: 	
  
	
  
	
  
31	
  July–30	
  September	
  2015: 	
  
	
  

	
  350:	
  Izu	
  Bonin	
  Mariana:	
  Rear-­‐arc	
  	
  351:	
  Izu	
  Bonin	
  Mariana:	
  Arc	  Origins	  	
  352:	
  Izu	
  Bonin	
  Mariana:	
  Forearc	
  	
  353:	
  Indian	
  Monsoon	
  	
  354:	
  Bengal	
  Fan	  
	
  355:	
  Arabian	
  Sea	
  CPP*	  	
  356:	
  Indonesian	  Throughﬂow	
  Recommended	
  for	
  Scheduling	
  in	
  FY’16	
  (and	  early	
  FY’17)	
  •	
  	
  Maldives	
  Monsoon	
  &	
  Indian	
  Peninsula	
  Paleoclimate	
  APL	  •	  	
  Indian	
  Ridge	
  Moho	  •	  	
  South	  African	
  Climates	
  &	
  Agulhas	
  Current	  Density	
  Proﬁle	
  APL	  •	  	
  Sumatra	
  Seismogenic	  Zone	  •	  	
  Western	  Paciﬁc	
  Warm	  Pool	  	  *	
  Not	  included	
  in	
  the	
  base	  budget;	
  dependent	
  on	
  external	
  funding	
  source	  Long-­‐Term	
  JOIDES	
  Resolution	  Cruise	  Track	  The	
  JRFB	  reiterates	
  that,	  based	  on	
  current	
  and	
  an.cipated	
  proposal	
  pressure,	
  the	
  JOIDES	
  Resolu.on	
  will	  follow	  a	
  path	  from	  the	
  western	
  and	
  southwestern	  Paciﬁc	
  Ocean,	
  through	
  the	
  Southern	
  Ocean,	
  and	
  into	  the	
  Atlan.c	
  Ocean	
  for	
  opportuni.es	
  for	
  drilling	
  there	
  star.ng	
  in	
  2018	  and	  2019.	
  JOIDES	  Resolution	
  Facility	
  Policies	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  Approved: 	  •	  	
  Conﬂict	
  of	
  Interest	
  Policy	
  
	
   	
   	
  •	
  	
  JR	
  Staﬃng	
  Procedures	
  
	
   	
   	
  •	
  	
  JR	
  Standard	
  Measurements	
  
	
   	
   	
  •	
  	
  SEP	
  Site	  Survey	
  Guidelines	
  
	
   	
   	
  •	
  	
  EPSP	
  Safety	  Review	
  Guidelines	
  
	
   	
   	
  •	
  	
  Third	  Party	
  Tools	
  &	
  Instruments	
  Policy	
  IODP	  Policies	  Approved: 	  •	  	
  IODP	
  Environmental	
  Principles	
  
	
   	
   	
  •	
  	
  IODP	
  Proposal	
  Conﬁden.ality	
  Policy	
  
	
   	
   	
  •	
  	
  IODP	
  Site	  Survey	
  Data	  Conﬁden.ality	
  Policy	
  
	
   	
   	
  •	
  	
  IODP	
  Proposal	
  Submission	
  Guidelines	
  Pending	
  CIB	  Comment:	
  	
  
	
   	
   	
  •	
  	
  IODP	
  Sample,	
  Data	  and	  Obliga.ons	
  Policy	
  JOIDES	  Resolution	
  Facility	
  Board	
  Membership	
  Susan	
  Humphris,	
  Chair 	
  James	  Allan 	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  WHOI,	
  USA	  (Term	
  ends	  9/30/2014)	
  	
  Na.onal	
  Science	  Founda.on,	
  USA	  Ryo	
  Anma	
  Gilbert	  Camoin

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  University	
  of	
  Tsukuba,	
  Japan	  	
  European	
  Management	
  Agency,	
  CEREGE,	
  France	  Manoel	  Cardoso
	
  
	
  
	
  
David	  Divins 	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  Coordenação	  de	
  Aperfeiçoamento	
  de	
  Pessoal	
  de	
  Nivel	
  	
  	
  
	
  (CAPES),	
  Brazil	
  	
  USIO,	
  Ocean	
  Leadership,	
  USA	  (Terms	
  ends	  9/30/2014)	
  	
  

Brad	
  Clement 	
  Gil	
  Young	
  Kim 	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  IODP-­‐TAMU	
  (As	  of	
  10/01/2014)	
  	
  Korea	
  Ins.tute	
  of	
  Geoscience	
  and	
  Mineral	
  Resources	
  (KIGAM),	
  	  	  Republic	
  of	
  Korea	  Rick	
  Murray 	
  Heiko	
  Pälike 	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  Boston	  University,	
  USA	  (Chair	
  as	
  of	
  10/01/2014)	
  	
  University	
  of	
  Bremen,	  Germany	
  Andrew	
  Roberts
Jianzhong	  Shen

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  Australian	
  Na.onal	
  University,	
  Australia	  	
  Ministry	
  of	
  Science	
  and	
  Technology,	
  China	  	
  Chris	
  Yeats

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  ANZIC,	
  Australian	
  Resources	
  Research	
  Centre,	
  CSIRO,	
  Australia	
  

B.K.	
  Bansal

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  Ministry	
  of	
  Earth	  Science,	
  India	  Two	
  new	  US	  members	
  to	
  be	
  added	
  as	
  of	
  10/01/2014	  ECORD Facility Board (EFB)
Progress Update

CIB Meeting, Yokohama, Japan, 10-11 July 2014

EFB Meeting on 5-6 March 2014:
Scheduling of MSP expeditions
Five proposals had to be reconsidered for scheduling:
581 (Coralgal Banks)
637 (New England Hydrogeology)
716 (Hawaiian Drowned Reefs)
548 (Chicxulub Crater; provisionally scheduled at EFB meeting in 2013)
758 (Atlantis Massif; provisionally scheduled at EFB meeting in 2013)
Two additional proposals were forwarded by SEP:
708 (Arctic Paleoclimate)813 (Antarctic Paleoclimate)What	  are	
  priori+es	
  for	
  MSPs?	
  	
  Shallow	
  seas	  Ice-­‐covered	
  seas	  Shallow-­‐penetra3on	
  targets	
  with	  max.	
  core	  recovery	
  Drilling	
  where	  JR	
  and	
  Chikyu	
  are	  not	  an	
  op3on	  in	
  terms	
  of	
  drilling	
  technology	
  Ø Environmentally	
  sensi3ve	
  targets	  Ø ECORD	
  priority	
  to	
  drill	
  in	
  Arc3c	
  and	  Antarc3ca	
  Ø High	
  visibility	
  of	
  drilling	
  project	
  to	  help	
  extend	  the	
  IODP	
  program	
  beyond	  2018	
  
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø

Categorizing	
  MSP	
  proposals	
  IODP	  Science	  Plan	  Themes	  low	
  cost	  (<	
  $10	  m)	  medium	  cost	  ($10-­‐20	
  m)	
  

high	
  cost	  (>	
  $20	  m)	  Climate	  &	
  Ocean	
  581-­‐Coralgal	
  Banks	
  716-­‐Hawaii	
  Rfs-­‐	  MeBo	
  813-­‐Antarct.	
  Cenoz.	
  	
  (716-­‐Hawaii	  Reefs-­‐	
  geotech	
  rig)	
  
	
  
	
  

(548-­‐Chicxulub)	
  708-­‐Arc3c	
  ACEX2	
  

	
  
	
  

(548-­‐Chicxulub)	
  	
  Biosphere	
  Fron3ers	
   (758-­‐Atlan3s	
  Massif)	
  Earth	
  Connec3ons	  Earth	  in	
  Mo3on	
  758-­‐Atlan3s	
  Massif	  	
  637-­‐N.E.	
  Hyd-­‐Geology	
  	
  
	
  

Scheduling strategy for MSPs
Ø Scheduling plan for the first 5 years of the new IODP phase (until 2018)Ø Only one high-cost expedition within the first 5-yearsØ Drilling in the Arctic Ocean (high cost) is a high priority for ECORD
Ø EFB intents to schedule an Arctic expedition in 2018 (or in 2017),
either proposal 708 or another Arctic proposalØ Relatively inexpensive expeditions (e.g. MeBo/RD-II or long-piston
coring) are likely be scheduled for the other years from 2015 to 2018Ø Expedition to Atlantis Massif (proposal 758) is scheduled for 2015Ø A low-cost expedition can be scheduled for 2016, and one for 2017.
Ø Decisions will be made until or at next EFB meeting and will dependon ECORD priorities, maturity of proposals, availability of seabed drillingsystems and suitable research vessels
2014	
  

2015	
  

2016	
  

(none)	
  758	
  Atlan+s	
  M.	
   low-­‐cost	
  exp.	
  

2017	
  

2018	
  

low-­‐cost	
  exp.	
  Arc+c	  (open)	
  IODP-MSP proposal table, ECORD FB Meeting 5-6 March 2014
IODP-MSP proposal

Drilling plan

Platform

ESO expedition
cost estimates inmill. US$(average)(from 6 Mar 2014)758 Atlantis Massif (G.
Früh-Green)

WD 750-1770 m,
10 holes 50-70 m

MeBo & RD2

3.7 - 4.4 (4.1)

813 Antarctic
Paleoclimate (T.
Williams)

WD 353-1407 m,
18 holes 80 m

MeBo/RD2

4.6 - 7.8 (6.2)

716 Hawaiian
Drowned Reefs (J.
Webster)

WD 134-1154 m,
11 holes 150 m

geotech drill or

8.0 - 13.0 (10.5) or

MeBo200

4.8 - 7.7 (6.3)

708 Arctic
Paleoclimate (R. Stein)

WD 1334-1752 m,
1 hole 1225 m

drill vessel

18.8 - 26.8 (22.8)
or
15.5

548 Chicxulub Crater(J. Morgan)

WD 17 m,2 holes 1500 m

liftboat or jackup platform

12.8 - 23.7 (18.3)

581 Coralgal Banks(A. Droxler)

WD 60-78 m,
7 holes 70-100 m

geotech drill or

5.5 - 8.7 (7.1) or

MeBo/RD2

2.3 - 3.4 (2.9)

637 New EnglandHydrogeology (M.
Person)

WD 33-79 m,
5 sites, each 2
holes cored &5 LWD 350-650 m

large liftboat orindustry rig

24.8 - 39.3 (32.1)

MSP/ECORD
priorities(outlined in
ECORD
documents)

drilling in polar
regions

Remarks

EFB decision at meetingship not included

scheduled for 2015 (2nd half)ship not included

not scheduled; perhaps
considered for 2016 or 2017

MeBo option: ship
not included
drilling in polar
regions (Arctic
in particular)

costs include
chartered icebreaker($7.3 m)without icebreaker
costs
ICDP proposal
submitted Jan 14;
possible contribution
by Mexican/Yucatangovernment

MeBo option: ship
not included

not scheduled; perhaps
considered for 2017 with
MeBo200
not scheduled, but to be kept inholding bin; seriously consideredwith other Arctic proposals to bescheduled for 2018 (or 2017 if
budget allows)
not scheduled, but to be kept inholding bin; perhaps
reconsidered if costs can be
reduced to low-cost category, orfor 2nd 5-year phase of IODP
not scheduled, but to be kept inholding bin; MeBo option perhaps
reconsidered for 2016 or 2017not scheduled, but to be kept inholding bin; perhaps
reconsidered for 2nd 5-year
phase of IODP

Addendums: 	
  548	
  Chicxulub	
  Crater	
  (submi\ed	
  to	
  SEP	  on	  1	  April	
  2014)	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  708	
  Arc3c	  Paleoclimate	
  (a]er	  more	  site	  data	  in	
  2014)	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  813	  Antarc3c	
  Paleoclimate	
  (submi\ed	
  to	
  EFB	  on	  28	  June	  2014)	
  

MSP proposals at recent SEP meeting (June 2014):
Ø 548-Add (Chicxulub Crater; at EFB): only one drill site instead of two> SEP decision: EFB should schedule one 1500 m holeØ 708-Full (Arctic Paleoceanography; at EFB): only data to review> SEP decision: Submit Addendum
Revised or new proposals:Ø 730-Full (Sabine Bank Sea Level): MeBo200 targets> SEP decision: ReviseØ 852-Pre (North Sea GlaciStore): CO2 storage> SEP decision: Full proposal as CPPØ 860-CPP (ANDRILL Coulman High Paleoclimate): co-funding> SEP decision: RejectØ 861-Pre (Antarctic Peninsula Thermochronometry): RD2> SEP decision: Deactivate with encouragementØ 863-MDP (ISOLAT Southern Ocean Paleoclimate): long-piston coring> SEP decision: Revise & submit daughter proposals

EFB Virtual Conference via email (since 28 June 2014)
Following decisions are still being discussed (not final yet!):Consensus 14-12-01 (by email vote on [date]): The EFB decides to schedule
an expedition for proposal #548 (Chicxulub Crater) in 2016 as proposed in the548-Full4-Addendum, provided that the budget constraints are met. The EFB
recommends to the ECORD Council to set a limit on ECORD's contribution to the
expedition operational costs in the order of US$ 8.5 million.
Consensus 14-13-01 (by email vote on [date]): The EFB decides to schedule
an expedition for proposal #813 (Antarctic Paleoclimate) in 2017 as proposed in
the 813-Full-Addendum of June 2014. This decision is based on the condition thatthe budget constraints are met.
Likely schedule of MSP expeditions:
2014	
  

2015	
  

2016	
  

(none)	
  758	
  Atlan+s	
  M.	
   548	
  Chicxulub	
  

2017	
  

2018	
  

813	
  Antarc+c	
  Arc3c	  (open)	
  E C O R D 	
   n e w s 	
  
	
  
	
  
G.	
  CAMOIN	  	
  Director	
  of	
  the	
  ECORD	  Managing	
  Agency	  	  E C O R D 	
   m e m b e r s h i p 	
   a n d 	
   b u d g e t 	  ($US)	
  Austria	
  100,000	  	
  Belgium	
  25,000	  	  	
  Canada	  >	
  FY15	
   150,000	
  	
  	
  
Denmark	
   >	
  FY16	
   170,000	
  Finland	  >	
  FY18	
   80,000	
  	
  	
  
Germany	
  5,600,000	
  Iceland	  *	
   >FY14	
   30,000	
  	
  Ireland	  >FY18	
   140,000	
  	
  	
  
Israel	  >	
  FY16	
   30,000	
  	
  	
  
Italy	
  400,000	  	
  	
  Netherlands	
   >FY18	
   500,000	
  	
  	
  
Norway	  >FY18	
   1,100,000	
  Portugal	
   >FY18	
   90,000	
  	
  	
  
Poland	  >FY18	
   30,000	
  	
  	
  
Spain	
  **	
  
?	
  
Sweden	  >FY18	
   528,000	
  Switzerland	   >FY16	
   600,000	
  	
  	
  
UK	
  
>FY18	
   4,080,000	
  France	  >FY18	
   5,200,000	
  TOTAL	
  18,853,000	
  *	
  Withdrawal	
  after	
  FY14	  **	
  Decision	
  to	
  be	
  taken	
  Minimum	  ECORD	
  budget	
  :	
  ~	
  US$	
  18.85	
  M	
  	
  
>	
  Annual	
  contributions	
  :	
  $	
  30,000	
  to	
  $	
  5,600,000	
  
>	
  3	
  major	  contributors	
  :	
  80	
  %	
  of	
  the	
  ECORD	
  budget	  >	
  Potential	
  newcomers	  >	
  Additional	
  project-­‐based	
  cash	  &	
  in-­‐kind	
  contributions	  	
  • Science,	
  Education,	
  Outreach	  &	  Management	
  :	
  US$	  1	  M	  • Fixed	
  ESO	
  operational	
  costs	
  :	
  US$	
  2.5	  M	  • Annual	
  budget	
  for	  JR	  &	
  Chikyu	
  operations	
  :	
  US$	  8	  M	  • Annual	
  budget	
  for	
  MSP	
  operations	
  :	
  US$	
  7.5	
  M	
  
ü ~	
  80%	  of	
  the	
  ECORD	
  budget	
  for	
  operations	  ECORD’s	  	
  partnership	  ü ECORD	
  contributes	
  to	
  the	
  funding	
  of	
  	
  
	
  the	
  Chikyu	
  :	
  
-­‐	
  Level	  of	
  annual	
  funding	
  deﬁned	  each	  year	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  by	
  the	
  ECORD	  Council	
  (US$	  1	
  M	
  min.)	
  -­‐	
  Potential	
  project	
  basis	
  funding	
  of	
  a	
  Chikyu	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  expedition	
  in	
  European/Canadian	
  waters	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  (up	  to	
  US$	
  10M)	
  	
  
	
   	
  	
  

	
  

-­‐	
  MoU	
  signed	
  on	
  Feb	
  17,	  2014	  ü ECORD	
  contributes	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  to	
  the	
  annual	
  funding	
  (US$	
  7	
  M)	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  of	
  the	
  JOIDES	
  Resolution	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  -­‐	  MoU	
  to	
  be	
  s	
   igned	  (date	
  TBD)	
  E C O R D ’ s 	
   p a r t n e r s h i p 	  E C O R D ’ s 	
   p a r t n e r s h i p 	
  

MSP	
  Expeditions	   	  ü ECORD	
  is	
  responsible	
  for	
  funding	
  and	
  implementing	
  MSP	
  operations	
  for	  the	  
	  International	  Ocean	  Discovery	
  Program	
  as	
  an	
  independent	  Platform	
  Provider	  ü	  ECORD	
  is	
  aiming	
  to	
  fund	  and	
  implement	  one	
  MSP	
  expedition	
  per	
  year	  on	
  average	
  for	  
	  the	  International	  Ocean	  Discovery	
  Program	
  –	
  Annual	
  budget	
  :	
  US$	
  7.5	  M	  -­‐	  ü	  	
  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,	
  in-­‐kind	
  contributions)	
  ü	  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	  D e v e l o p i n g t h e c o n c e p t o f M i s s i o n S p e c i fi c P l a t f o r m sSea	
  Floor	
  Drills	
  deployed	
  from	  conventional	
  R/V	
  MARUM	  –	
  Bremen,	  Germany	  MeBo-­‐1	
  (75	  m)	  MeBo-­‐2	
  (200	
  m)	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  British	  Geological	
  Survey	
  –	
  Edinburgh,	
  UK	
  
50m	
  rockdrill

oriented	
  drill	
  	
  

Long	
  Piston	
  coring	
  
IPEV	
  –	
  Brest,	  France	
  IFREMER	
  –	
  Brest,	  France	
  
	
  
(35	
  to	
  50	
  m)	
  

Developing and using new toolsIn	
  situ	  pressure	
  sampling	
  Borehole	
  observatories	
  	
  

Gas	
  hydrates,	
  Deep	  biosphere	
  

High	
  temperatures	
  tools	
  Hydrothermal	
  systems	
  ISOR	  (Iceland	
  GeoSurvey)	
  

P,	
  T,	
  ﬂuid	  ﬂows,	
  sismicity,	  	
  geochemistry,	
  microbiology	  HYACE	
  rotary	
  corer	  	
  Genius	  plus,	  MARUM	  (TU	
  Berlin,	
  TU	
  Clausthal,	  	
  Univ.	  Cardiﬀ,	
  	
  Fugro,	
  Geotek)	
  300°C	
  natural	
  gamma	  ray	  DeepIsoBUG	  	  Isolation	
  Chamber	
  Univ.	  Cardiﬀ	
  300°	
  borehole	
  televiewer	  H2020	
  -­‐	
  I3,	  Integrated	  Infrastructure	
  Ini5a5ve	
  
DEDI	
  –	
  Distributed	
  European	
  Drilling	
  Infrastructure	
  Ra<onale	  -­‐	
  	
  	
  
The	
  proposed	
  Distributed	
  European	
  Drilling	
  Infrastructure	
  (DEDI)	
  focuses	
  on	
  scien5ﬁc	
  research	  	  	
  into	  the	
  subseaﬂoor	
  and	  is	
  designed	
  to	
  increase	
  and	
  op5mize	
  trans-­‐na5onal	
  access	
  to	
  	
  
	
  cuCng-­‐edge	
  technologies	
  and	
  scien5ﬁc	
  services	  to	
  the	
  European	
  science	
  community.	
  	  	  DEDI	
  will	  improve	
  European	
  collabora5on	
  in	
  development	
  and	
  sharing	
  of	
  new,	
  innova5ve	  	
  	
  technologies	
  for	
  coring,	
  specialist	
  sampling,	
  downhole	
  logging	
  and	
  long-­‐term	
  subseaﬂoor	  	  	
  observa5ons,	
  and	  it	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  s5mulate	
  further	
  technological	
  developments	
  in	
  these	  areas.	
  	
  
	
  

>	
  Submission	
  :	
  early	
  September	
  2014	  H2020	
  -­‐	
  I3,	  Integrated	  Infrastructure	
  Ini5a5ve	
  
DEDI	
  –	
  Distributed	
  European	
  Drilling	
  Infrastructure	
  § British	  Geological	
  Survey	
  (BGS),	
  U.K.	
  § Center	
  for	
  Marine	
  Environmental	
  Services	
  (MARUM),	
  University	
  of	
  Bremen,	  Germany	  § University	
  of	
  Leicester,	
  U.K.	
  § University	
  of	
  Montpellier,	
  France	  § German	
  Research	
  Centre	
  for	
  Geosciences	
  (GFZ),	
  Germany	  § Iceland	
  Geosurvey	
  (ISOR)	
  ,	
  Iceland	  § French	
  Research	
  Institute	
  for	  Exploitation	
  of	
  the	
  Sea	  (IFREMER),	
  France	  § French	
  Polar	
  Institute	
  (IPEV),	
  France	  Science	  ü 	  New	
  drilling/coring	
  targets	
  /	
  scientiﬁc	
  issues	
  Technology	  ü 	  Technological	
  development	  ü Sharing	
  of	
  experience	
  and	
  capabilities	
  Networking	  ü 	  Stronger	
  collaboration	
  between	
  :	
  
	
  

	
  -­‐	  research	
  &	
  operational	
  groups	
  across	
  Europe	
  

	
  

	
  -­‐	
  ECORD/IODP	  and	
  other	  programmes	
  (e.g.	
  ICDP,	
  IMAGES)	
  	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  and	
  initiatives	
  (e.g.	
  EMSO)	
  Funding	  ü 	  Optimise	
  use	  of	
  research	
  vessels	
  and	
  sampling	
  capabilities	  ü 	  Cost	  eﬃciency	
  for	
  IODP	
  MSP	
  operations	
  	
  
ü 	
  New	
  opportunities	
  for	
  funding	
  (national	
  level,	  EC,	  partnership	
  	
  
	
  

	
  with	  industry,	
  SMEs)	
  Collaboration	
  with	  ICDP	  I O D P 	
   F o r u m 	  I C D P 	
   A O G 	  ECORD	
  :	
  50	
  k€	
  	
  
ECORD	  /	  ICDP	
  	
  

+	
  10	
  k€	
  („Amphibious	
  proposals“)	
  MagellanPlus	  Workshop	
  Series	
  

	
  
ICDP	
  :	
  10	
  k€	
  	
  
>	
  „Amphibious	
  proposals“	  N e x t 	
   m e e t i n g s 	
  >	
  ECORD-­‐Outreach	  and	
  Education	
  Task	  Force,	
  Zurich,	
  Switzerland	
  –	
  Sept.	
  14	
  
>	
  ECORD	  Executive	
  	  /	
  ECORD	
  Vision	
  Task	  Force,	
  Zurich,	
  Switzerland	
  –	
  Sept.	
  14	
  
	
  
>	
  ECORD	  Council	
  /	
  ESSAC,	
  Zurich,	
  Switzerland	
  –	
  Oct.	
  14	
  
	
  
>	
  ECORD	  Executive	
  	  /	
  ECORD	
  Vision	
  Task	  Force,	
  Aix-­‐en-­‐Provence,	
  France	
  –	
  March	
  15	
  
>	
  ECORD	
  Facility	
  Board,	
  Aix-­‐en-­‐Provence,	
  France	
  –	
  March	
  15	
  
	
  

The Australian and New
Zealand IODP Consortium(ANZIC)
Mike Coffin
IMAS/UTasmania

Value of scientific ocean drilling
to Australia and New Zealand• Need to understand huge offshore areas• Definitively test hypotheses built by other means• Illuminate processes of earthquakes, tsunamis,
volcanism, mountain building, erosion, anddeposition• Establish past climatic and oceanographic
conditions, including sea level rise, and look at
the driving factors• Help assess conventional hydrocarbon and gas
hydrate potential

ANZIC IODP 2 MEMBERSHIP§ ANZIC IODP consortium of Australia and New
Zealand§ Australian IODP consortium = 15 universities
and 2 government agencies§ New Zealand IODP Consortium = 3 universities
and 2 government agencies§ Membership = shipboard and panel positions,plus analytical funding§ Expedition participants (2008-2014): 35
Australian, 10 New Zealand. Two co-chief
scientists.

D/V CHIKYU ASSOCIATE
MEMBERSHIP• ANZIC keenly interested in being involved
in all Chikyu expeditions• Have joined as Associate Member at$300,000 p.a.
• Particularly interested in Chikyu drilling in
our region: Hikurangi slow-slip margin; andLord Howe Rise deep stratigraphic site
(potential CPP)
• Also part of US consortiumREGIONAL IODP 1 EXPEDITIONS
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

317: Canterbury Basin Neogene
sea level changes
318: Wilkes Land Cenozoic climatechange325: Great Barrier Reef
environmental change Co-Chief was
Jody Webster (JCU→USyd)
329: South Pacific Oceanic Gyre
Microbiology
330: Louisville Seamount Trail
geodynamics
All resulted in important science
Many other expeditions of interest
outside our region

Five Year Work Plan:
Schedule
JOIDES Resolution, 8 months a year, with a program of– Northwest Pacific, 2014
– Eastern Indian Ocean, 2015
– More Indian Ocean, 2016
– SW Pacific & Antarctic, 2017 & early 2018 (not yet scheduled)– Eastern Pacific & Atlantic, 2018

Chikyu, around 4 months a year
– Nankai Trough, 2014 to 2017
– Unknown, 2018

Alternative ECORD platforms, two months a year
– Atlantis Massif hydrology and basement, 2015
– Arctic stratigraphy, 2018 (not yet scheduled)– Antarctic Neogene and Hawaiian reefs, possibly 2016 and 2017

JR Program in 2015
Scheduled and applications for positions closed• Indian Monsoon, Expedition 353: Gianluca
Marino (ANU)• Bengal Fan, Expedition 354: Alan Baxter (UNE)• Arabian Sea monsoon, Expedition 355; one
application under SciCom review• Indonesian Thoughflow current (NW Shelf),
Expedition 356: Stephen Gallagher (Melbourne
University) co-chief scientist, biostratigraphy:
four applications under SciCom review

JOIDES RESOLUTIONOPPORTUNITIES IN 2016
• ANZIC Office will be calling for participants thisyear
• 359: Maldives Monsoon with Indian Peninsula: Neogene
currents, sea level, monsoon• 360: Indian Ridge lower crust and Moho: uplifted blockeast of Madagascar• 361: South African Climates with Agulhas LGM Density
Profile: Plio-Pleistocene off SE Africa• 362: Sumatra Seismogenic Zone: incoming plate• 363: Western Pacific Warm Pool: Neogene
paleoceanography

Thank You

translatingnatureintokno
wledgeCDEX Technical Advisory Team Report to CIB #2
TAT Meeting #1,Yokohama/Shimizu, 13-14 Feb 2014

• Note that TAT reports directly to CDEX
• Members:- K. Becker (chair)- Chanh Cao Minh (Schlumberger, Houston)- David Castillo, Insight Geomechanics, Australia- Clive Neal, Notre Dame
- Alister Skinner, ACS Coring Services, UK- Mitsugu Takemura, JAPEX, Japan- John Thorogood, Drilling Global Consultant, UK• Excellent participation by CDEX personnel• First meeting focused on:• NanTroSEIZE Exp 348 experience• Early planning for mantle drilling• Next meeting depends partly on outcome of CIB#2

TAT#1 Consensus re Mantle DrillingA	
  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	
  speci@ic	
  scienti@ic	
  objectives	
  and	
  site	  characteristics.	
  	
  To	
  provide	  such	
  clarity,	
  TAT	  recommends	
  the	
  formation	
  of	
  the	
  equivalent	
  of	
  a	
  
project	
  coordination	  team	  (PCT)	
  including	
  the	
  scienti@ic	
  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	
  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.

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	
  scienti@ic	
  ocean	
  drilling	
  record	
  2922.5	
  mbsf,	
  in	
  good	  condition	
  to	
  advance	
  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.	
  Speci@ically,	
  these	
  tasks	
  include:10	
  very	  speci@ic	
  tasks	
  on	
  next	  slide1.	
   Review	
  image	
  data	  identifying	
  wellbore	
  breakouts	
  and	
  drilling-­‐enhanced	
  bedding	
  planes	
  or	
  natural	
  fractures,
2.	
   Review	
  of	
  leak-­‐off	
  pressure	
  information,
3.	
   Construct	
  a	
  log-­‐derived	
  rock	  strength	
  and	
  internal	
  friction	
  pro@iles,
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	
  pro@iles,
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).	
  TAT#1 Consensus re Deep NanTroSEIZE DrillingThe	
  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	
  @luids	
  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	
  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	
  of	
  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.

TAT#1 Consensus re Deep NanTroSEIZE Drilling
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:
•	

Enhanced	  LWD	
  program
•	

Use	
  of	
  oil-­‐based	
  drilling	
  muds•	Re-­‐drilling	
  with	  an	
  optimum	
  casing	
  design	
  and/or	
  directional	
  trajectory	
  to	
  minimize	
  instability•	Managed	  pressure	
  drilling
•	

 AGR	
  dual	
  gradient	
  technology
•	

 NOV	
  continuous	
  circulation	
  systemExp 348 Forensic Analysis by Insight Geomechanics• Analysis confirmed role of time-dependent borehole

failure partly induced by fluid penetration into steeply
dipping beds originally penetrated without problem.
• Such time-dependent borehole failure was probably related
to unanticipated pressure spikes, which helped to trigger
shear failure along bedding planes in formation.
• Analysis confirmed that reasonable mud weights (~1.28
SG) were used in drilling to date, and provides target rangeof mud weights for future deepening (~1.36 SG).
• Future deepening will also require more comprehensive
pressure monitoring and control to minimize any
deleterious effects of unanticipated drilling events.

• In parallel, Blade Energy has provided analysis of drilling
fluid options for deepening C0002 to target depth, and
CDEX is evaluating options for casing program.

Recommendations ofth Chikyu
theChik Safety
S f t Review
R i
Committee
C
itt
for the Future Action of
NanTroSEIZE Exp. 348
28 March 2014
2nd Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) Meeting
10 July 2014
Shigemi Naganawa, Ph.D.
Chair of Drilling Safety Subcommittee

Drilling Safety Subcommittee meeting
Drilling Safety Subcommittee One of the subsidiaryy committees under the C
Chikyuyu Sa
Safetyety Review
e eCommittee
 Review IODP drilling programs and operation using Chikyu andmake suggestion and recommendation
 1st meeting was held on 28 March 2014
 Post-hole review on NanTroSEIZE Exp.
p 348 operationp Estimate the cause of drilling troubles
 Discuss countermeasures for the drilling troubles
 Attendees: chair S. Naganawa (U. Tokyo), N. Morita (Waseda U.),Y. Ishii (JAPEX), S. Ikeda (INPEX), JAMSTEC/CDEX , MQJ & Telnite
 Made recommendations for the future action of Exp.
Exp 348 with approvalof Chikyu Safety Review Committee2

Estimated Causes of Drilling Troubles in Exp. 348
Primary Cause: Borehole instability with time dependent breakout
behavior in the complex structured Nankai accretionary prism: Even small
amount of mud filtrate could penetrate deep into the bedding plane withtime, then at a certain point the formation broke-off at a stretch
1.

13-3/8" casing-stuck Borehole instability

2.

12-1/4"12
1/4 DOC string
string-stuckstuck Unnecessary installation of stabilizers in the DOC assembly3.

12-1/4" LWD assembly pack-off
 Borehole instability
 Delay of increasing mud weight and too much time spent to drill out

12 1/4 hole section
12-1/4"
 No option of contingency casing
4.

11-3/4" liner packer miss-set
 Human error induced by insufficient time with having BOP and ROV

troubles3

Recommendations for Future Action (1/3)
Casing Program Revise casing
g programp genabling
g to have more two casing/linerg/in thenext section down to the final target TD (TD : Total Depth) In addition, prepare another contingency casing if possible
 If new hhole
l willill bbe plannedld to ddrill,
ill 16" casing
i should
h ld not bbe omitted
i d
2. Mud System
KNPP (KCl-NaCl/Polymer/PPG)(KCl NaCl/Polymer/PPG) mud is fully effective to inhibit shale
swelling, however...
 Keep mud weight up to the maximum allowable weight determinedb theby
h safef maximumi
tensioni lloadd off theh Chikyu
Chik riseritensioneri
system to minimize formation breakout
 Consider more effective sealingg additives to minimize mud filter loss
invasion Keep high viscosity for good hole cleaning and borehole stability
 If no room ffor iincreasing
i mudd weight,
i ht consider
id applicability
li bilit off
formate mud or SBM
1.

4

Mud Weight Concept for Borehole Stability

Sv
Collapse (Breakout)
Pressure

Shmin

Source: GMI Catalog

M
Mud
ud Windoow

MW Lower Limit

MW Upper Limit5

Recommendations for Future Action (2/3)
Real Time Downhole Monitoring and Prompt Action
 Make the most use of earlyy and accurate detections of occurrence
and status of borehole breakout using real time data such as mud
logging and cuttings analysis for prompt action
 Formation pore pressurepressure, fracture pressure and breakout pressurepredictions made by prior study should be revised as needed using
leak-off test and LWD data to understand the upper (minimum
principal
i i lhhorizontalil stress Shmin) andd lowerllimitsli i off mud
d weight
i h(breakout pressure) at any depth based on stress analysis
4. Risk Assessment
 Sufficient risk assessment on downhole troubles should be madeprior to drilling in accordance with understanding of the complex
characteristics of accretionary prism drilling Risk assessment should be revised as needed during drilling, forexample, so as to timely set a casing before initiation of borehole
breakout
3.

6

Recommendations for Future Action (3/3)
Management Issue CDEX should fullyy conduct possiblepin-house engineeringgg studiesand should have consistent policy, not to depend too much on
outside consultants in a passive manner Pour the effort to personnel training and inheritance of technology
in CDEX Build a strong cooperative relationship with service companies suchas mud engineers by frequent and close communication
6. Feasibility of New Technologies for Contingency
 Expandable casing technology
 Dual gradient drilling system
5.

7

	
  
IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  	
  Status	  Report	
  to	  	
  Chikyu	
  IODP	
  Board	
  	
  
July	
  10-­‐11,	
  2014	
  Holly	
  Given,	  Execu9ve	
  Director	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  University	
  of	
  California	
  San	
  Diego	
  	
  

IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Massive	
  Anchovy	  School	
  Migrates	
  oﬀ	
  La	
  Jolla	  	
  “Largest	
  Northern	
  Achovy	
  School	
  seen	
  oﬀ	
  Scripps	
  in	
  >	
  40	
  years”	
  	
  

IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  scripps.ucsd.edu/news	
  

IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  • Began	
  July	  1,	
  2013	  • Funded	
  by	
  NSF	
  and	  the	  JR	  partners	
  • FY2015	
  budget	
  US$911K	
  	
  	
  
• 4.5	  person-­‐years	
  (FTEs):	
  85%	  of	
  budget	
  • Four	  tasks	  (JRFB/advisory	
  panel	  support,	
  proposal	
  submission	
  and	  review	
  management,	
  Site	
  Survey	
  Data	  Bank,	  iodp.org	
  website)	
  

IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	  	
  Deliverables:	
  Annual	
  Program	  Plan	  General	  support	
  of	
  the	  JR	  Facility	
  Board	
  and	  it	
  advisory	
  panels:	  communica9on,	
  maintain	
  membership	
  rosters,	
  maintain	  policy	
  documents	  • Logis9cal	
  support	
  of	
  SEP-­‐1,	
  SEP-­‐2,	
  JRFB,	
  EPSP	
  and	
  liaison	  to	
  CIB,	
  EFB	
  and	  IODP	  Forum	  • Proposal	
  handling	
  for	  2	  submission	
  deadlines,	
  including	
  Call	  for	
  Proposals,	
  package	
  prepara9on	
  for	  all	  evalua9ons,	
  tracking	  reviews	
  and	  responses,	
  and	
  scheduling	
  mee9ngs	
  • Maintenance	
  and	  incremental	
  improvement	
  for	
  proposal	
  handling	
  HW,	
  SW,	
  applica9ons,	
  u9li9es,	
  and	
  workﬂow,	
  emphasizing	
  integra9on	
  with	  SSDB	  • Site	  survey	
  data	  handling	
  for	  2	  submission	
  deadlines,	
  including	
  proponent	
  support,	
  quality	
  control,	  and	
  data	  publishing	  • Management	
  of	
  site	  survey	
  data	  bank,	  including	  bulk	  data	  opera9ons	  • Maintenance	
  and	  incremental	
  improvement	
  for	
  SSDB	
  HW,	
  SW,	
  and	
  applica9ons,	
  u9li9es,	
  and	
  workﬂow,	
  emphasizing	
  integra9on	
  with	  proposal	
  submission	
  e-­‐system	  • www.iodp.org	
  content	
  refreshment,	
  availability,	
  and	  version	
  maintenance	  • Award	
  administra9on	
  and	
  repor9ng	
  
•

IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  

5	
  

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	
  Proposal	
  Submissions	
  

	
  

35	
  

30	
  

25	
  

20	
  

16	
  
17	
  

15	
  

10	
  

10	
   11	
  

0	
  

IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  

New	
  	
  

Revised	  Proposal	
  download	
  site	  for	
  CIB	  • hlps://ssdb.iodp.org/CIB1407	
  • username:	
  CIB1407	
  • password:	
  PackaGe1407	
  

IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Active.IODP.Proposals.using.Chikyu.(as.of.June.2014)
Number TypeShort.Title

Lead.PI

PI.AffilOcean Platform Stage

505
537
537B
603
603C
603D
618
698
707
781
781B
782
800
805
835

Mariana+Convergent+Margin
Costa+Rica+Seismogenesis+Project+Overview
Costa+Rica+Seismogenesis+Project+Phase+B
NanTroSEIZE+Overview
NanTroSEIZE+Phase+3:+Plate+Interface
NanTroSEIZE+Observatories
East+Asia+Margin
IzuYBoninYMariana+Arc+Middle+Crust
Kanto+Asperity+Project:+Overview
Hikurangi+subduction+margin
Hikurangi:+Riser
Kanto+Asperity+Project:+Plate+Boundary+Deformation
Indian+ridge+Moho
MoHole+to+the+Mantle
Japan+Trench+Tsunamigenesis

Fryer
von+Huene
RaneroKimuraTobin
Screaton
Clift
TatsumiKobayashi
WallaceWallace
Yamamoto
Dick
Umino
KodairaUSA
USA
Germany
Japan
Japan
USA
UK
Japan
Japan
NZ
USA
Japan
USA
Japan
Japan

Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Ind
Pac
Pac

NR
R
R
NR+R
R
NR
R+NR
R
NR+R
R+NR
R
R
R+NR
R
R

JRFB/CIB BF
CIB
EM
CIB
EM
CIB
EM
CIB
EM
CIB
EM
CIB
CO
CIB
EC
SEP
EM
SEP
EM
CIB
EC
SEP
EC
CIB
EC
SEP
EC
SEP
EM

Camerlenghi Italy
Med
Rabineau
FranceMed
Hinrichs
Germany Pac

R+NR
R
NR

SEP
SEP
SEP

Full5
CDP7
Full4
CDP3
Full
Full2
Full3
Full3
MDP
MDP
Full
Pre
MDP
MDP
Pre

Submitted+April+1,+2014:857
MDP DREAM:+Mediterranean+Salt+Giant
857A preDREAM:+DeepYSurface+Connection
865
Full Nankai+Trough+Temperature+Limit
Red:+NonYRiser+by+Chikyu
Blue:+707Y770Y782+are+in+the+same+MDP.++770+is+already+at+JRFB.+

Source:+IODP+Science+Support+Office++Y++Scripps+Institution+of+Oceanography++Y++www.iodp.org

IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Top.Theme

BF
BF
BF

	
  	
  

Dram:	  Call	  for	
  Proposals	
  

“The	
  Interna9onal	  Ocean	  Discovery	
  Program	  (IODP)	
  explores	
  Earth’s	
  history,	
  structure,	  dynamics,	
  and	
  deep	  biosphere	
  through	
  seaﬂoor	
  drilling,	
  coring,	
  and	
  downhole	
  measurements.	
  Themes	
  of	
  highest	
  priority	
  are	  described	
  in	
  the	
  program’s	
  science	
  plan.	
  Three	  types	  of	
  drilling	
  plaoorms	
  permit	
  opera9ons	
  in	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  environments:	
  (1)	
  The	  D/V	
  JOIDES	
  Resolu@on	  (JR);	
  (2)	  the	
  riser-­‐equipped	
  (with	  riserless	
  opBon)	
  D/V	
  Chikyu;	
  and	
  (3)	  Mission	
  Speciﬁc	
  Plaoorms	
  (MSP)	
  which	  provide	  a	
  wide	  range	
  of	
  technologies	
  for	
  drilling	
  and	
  long-­‐coring	  in	
  environments	
  not	
  accessible	
  or	
  suitable	
  to	
  JR	
  and	
  Chikyu.	
  	
  
	
  	
  
JR	
  is	
  planned	
  to	
  operate	
  for	  8	  months	
  or	
  more	  per	
  year,	
  depending	  on	
  available	
  levels	
  of	
  support,	
  under	
  a	
  long-­‐term,	
  global	
  circumnaviga9on	
  plan	
  based	  on	
  proposal	
  pressure.	
  MSP	
  expedi9ons	
  are	
  planned	
  to	
  operate	
  once	  per	
  year	  on	
  average.	
  OperaBons	
  of	
  Chikyu	
  will	  be	
  more	  project-­‐based.	
  	
  
	
  	
  
JR	
  is	
  expected	
  to	
  operate	
  in	
  the	
  eastern	  Indian	
  and	
  western	
  and	
  south	  western	  Paciﬁc	
  oceans	  through	
  2016	
  and	  2017,	
  followed	
  by	
  a	
  track	
  across	
  the	
  southern	
  Paciﬁc	
  Ocean,	
  
with	
  an	
  opportunity	
  for	
  drilling	
  in	
  the	
  southern	
  and	
  Atlan9c	
  Ocean	
  in	
  2018	  and	  2019.	
  Although	
  proponents	
  are	
  strongly	
  encouraged	
  to	
  submit	
  drilling	
  proposals	
  for	
  any	  region,	  proposals	
  for	  the	
  southern	
  ocean,	
  and	  the	
  south	  and	
  central	
  Atlan9c	
  in	
  par9cular	  are	
  encouraged	
  at	
  this	  9me.	
  	
  Chikyu	
  drilling	
  proposals	
  concerning	
  any	
  ocean	  are	
  welcomed.	
  MSP	
  proposals	
  concerning	
  any	
  ocean	  are	
  also	  welcomed,	
  but	
  proposals	
  for	
  the	
  Arc9c	
  and	
  Southern	
  Ocean	  are	  par9cularly	
  encouraged	
  at	
  this	  9me.”	
  
	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
  
	
  

IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Website	
  ques9ons	
  for	
  CIB	  /	  CDEX	
  Are	
  you	
  happy	
  with	  CIB	
  informa9on	
  on	
  	
  
hlp://www.iodp.org/facility-­‐boards?	
  	
  Drilled	  holes	
  database	  to	
  generate	  KML	
  ﬁle	
  hlp://www.iodp.org/borehole-­‐map	
  -­‐	  up	  to	
  date	  through	
  December	
  2012	
  	
  
	
  
IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	  Google	
  Earth	  Drilled	
  Holes	
  overlay	
  iodp.org/borehole-­‐map	
  

IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  

Web	
  portal	
  for	
  proposal	
  and	
  data	  submission	
  

IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  

SSO	
  e-­‐systems	
  Development	  Plan	  Incrementally	
  improve	
  and	
  integrate	  the	
  two	  main	  e-­‐systems:	  	
  • PDB	  – Beler	
  user	  support,	
  ﬁx	
  pdf	
  upload	
  issues	  – New	
  “proposal	
  management”	
  splash	
  page	  (Yii)	
  – Add	
  “new	
  site”	  module?	
  (amer	  October	
  1)	
  

• SSDB	  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Active proposals: 107
by science plan themes

Earth in Motion
20

Earth Connections

Climate and Ocean

17

57

Biosphere
13

As	
  of	
  16	
  June	  2014	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  

50	
  

How	
  many	  proposals	
  are	  covering	  each	  challenges?	
  
1	
  :	
  CO2	  2	  :	
  Ice	
  sheets	  and	
  sea	
  level	  3	
  :	
  Precipita9on	
  
4	
  :	
  Chemical	
  perturba9ons	
  

45	
  
40	
  

8	
  :	
  Upper	  mantle	
  
9	
  :	
  Crustal	
  architecture	
  
10	
  :	
  Chemical	
  exchanges	
  
11	
  :	
  Subduc9on	
  zones	
  

35	
  

5	
  :	
  Subseaﬂoor	
  communi9es	
  
6	
  :	
  Life	  limit	  7	
  :	
  Ecosystems	
  

30	
  

12	
  :	
  Earthquakes,	
  landslides,	  tsunami	
  
13	
  :	
  Carbon	  storage	
  
14	
  :	
  Tectonic-­‐Thermal-­‐biogeochemical	
  link	
  

25	
  

FB	
  

20	
  

SEP	
  

15	
  
10	
  
5	
  
0	
  

1	
  

2	
  

3	
  

4	
  

5	
  

6	
  

7	
  

8	
  

9	
  

10	
   11	
   12	
   13	
   14	  IODP	  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Active proposal status: 107
by target ocean
Mediterranean: 3Southern:
10Arctic: 8
Pacific: 38
Indian: 22
Atlantic: 26

As	
  of	
  16	
  June	  2014	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Active proposal status: 107
by Review stage
Holding Bin:
7

FBs: 41

SEP: 59

As	
  of	
  16	
  June	  2014	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Active Proposal distribution: 107
by lead proponent’s member affiliation
China: 2 India: 2 Korea: 1

Japan:
8
ANZIC:
9

US
46
ECORD
39

As	
  of	
  16	
  June	  2014	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Active proponent distribution
Brazil: 12

Korea: 12
India: 22
ANZIC: 37
China: 46

1215 unique proponents
Others:76

Japan: 120

US: 415

ECORD: 485

IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Drilling Platforms for 107 Active Proposals

MSP
20

JR
77

1

Multiple: 700

6Chikyu17

MSP: 19!

Chikyu: 11!

JR: 70!

As	
  of	
  16	
  June	  2014	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins9tu9on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	  	
  Chikyu IODP Board #1 - July 2014

横浜市

INTEGRATED OCEANDRILLING PROGRAM

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 andgeochemical cycling in subduction zones
of non-accretionary forearcs(2) Determine spatial and temporalvariability of slab-related fluids to trace
dehydration, carbonate dissolution, andwater/rock reactions(3) Understand physical properties ascontrols over dehydration reactions andseismicity(4) Study spatial and temporal variability inmetamorphic and tectonic processes(5) Investigate controls over biologicalactivity associated with mud volcanoes

505 Full 5: Mariana Convergent Margin:
Geochemical, Tectonic, and Biological Processes
Site

WD

TD

Objective

MAF-2B

3560

150 Pacman: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids at an

MAF-3B

3850

250 Pacman: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids above

MAF-9B

2000

150 Celestial: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids at an

MAF-10B

3200

250 Celestial: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids on

MAF-11A

1260

150 Big Blue: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids at an

MAF-12B

1400

250 Big Blue: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids on

MAF-13A

2200

250 Big Blue: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids on mid-

MAF-14A

3300

250

MAF-15A

3666

100 Blue Moon: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids at an

MAF-16A

4500

250 Blue Moon: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids on

active protrusion/spring site (Cerulean Springs)
an active fault

active protrusion/spring site

lower flank for stratigraphy, age and compositional variability
active protrusion/spring site
upper flank

flank for stratigraphy age and compositional variability

active protrusion/spring site

mid-flank for stratigraphy, age and compositional variability

505 Full 5: SEP review June 2014
Site

IssuesClass

MAF-2BNo data in SSDB

3A

MAF-3BNo data in SSDB

3A

MAF-9B•

1Bc

MAF-10B•

MAF-11A•

MAF-12B
MAF-13A
MAF-14A•

No bathy and backscatter in digital andanalog form;
No interpreted seismic data with site
locations.
No information on bottom samples or
nearby cores
No metadata

1Bc
1Bc
1Bc
1Bc
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 andbackscatter 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 highresolution 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.

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

537B-Full4 (SCP review Full2 Feb. 2005)
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.

537B-Full4 (SCP review Full2 Feb. 2005)•

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 Drillingand Observatory Phase 3• Proponent(s): Kiyoshi Suyehiro,
Harold Tobin et al.
• Last SCP (SSP) Review:Feb 23, 2005

603C-Full: NanTroSEIZE Drillingand Observatory Phase 3•

SSP Consensus:

We express the following reservations regarding the proposed alternate site at the western edgeof the new 2-D grid (along Line B).
- The p-wave velocity model (and thus all estimates of target depth) is less well constrained thanon Line L, as the Nakanishi et al., 1997 OBS velocity model is situated east of Line L (andapproximately 30 km from Line B).
- Drilling an alternate site along line B would no longer correspond to the reference sites at thetoe (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 nochanges 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.

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 andisopach 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 tocheck for conformance. The proponents are also requested to acquire drillingsummaries from nearby wells. An attempt should be made to avoid a possiblebright 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 thepanel does request that an attempt be made to use available seismic data toestimate pore pressures.
- CDEX has been asked to determine whether sufficient information isavailable 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 ofhydrocarbons and sandy lithologies riser drilling will be required forthe 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 toperform 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 thisvessel.
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 thegeotechnical 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 coringat each site, starting at the seafloor.

Recent (2014) email exchanges with Peter Clift indicate they areprepared 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 manycrossing 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, whichaims 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.

• Site Characterization Completeness and Data Adequacy Classification:

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	
  be?er	  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	
  backsca?er	
  and	
  mulFbeam	
  bathymetry	
  grids,	
  and	
  velocity	
  data	  as	
  tables.	
  	
  • CharacterizaFon:	
  	
  2Cc	
  
“2C”	
  –	
  Possibly	
  viable	
  proposal	
  for	
  next	  FY	
  or	
  later.	
  SubstanFal	
  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	  acquisiFon	
  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.

• Site Characterization Completeness and Data Adequacy Classification:

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 slowerspreading 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 theprocesses creating Mid-Ocean Ridge Basalt – the most abundantmagma type on Earth, and second, resolve the controversy as towhether 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 withexcellent objectives. The PEP applauds the proponents for expanding thescience goals of the proposed drilling to include the subsurface biosphere.
The proposal has the potential to be ranked as Excellent because it has thepotential 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 areaware 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, andforwarded 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835-Pre: J-Track: Tracking the tsunamigenic slips
across and along the Japan Trench• 8 sites proposed• WD is 6900 to 7590 m• TD is 300 to 1350 mbsf

835-Pre: J-Track: Tracking the tsunamigenic slips
across and along the Japan Trench
We specifically recommend a more focused
approach to be conducted on the 2011
rupture zone for such a resubmission. Futuredata collection should expand site data in thisarea to this end. This should include both
MCS strike profiles and crossing lines, andhigh resolution data in the trench to aid themarine 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 thehalite 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 andthrough 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) anda highly variable chemical environment has produced a diverse and novel deep biospherecommunity;•

Use the biomarkers and surviving microbes trapped within brine inclusions to reconstruct thedepth, 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 theMediterranean 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 zoneof 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 toassess effects of MSC– Reconstruct history of vertical basement motions– Characterise the nature of the crust in the western MediterraneanGOLD is essentiallythe deep basin part,Target A
Data given for
GOL-01A, “alternate”
alluded to but nodata 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 intemperature 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	

Site 1174	

Site 1173	

Decollement	

Oceanic crust	
Muroto Transect: after Science party (2001), Bangs et al. (1999), Moore et al. (1999)	

June-2014, SEP2@New Brunswick	

865-Full	

The temperature limit of the microbial deep biospherein the Nankai Trough subseafloor
Lead proponent: K-U. Hinrichs and other 24 proponents.
Keywords: deep biosphere, limit of life	
WD1: Y. Takano (Biogeochem.)

WD3: M. Hornbach (Site characterization)

WD2: V. Pellizari (Microbial Ecol.)WD4: P. Jaiswal (Site characterization)
WD5: N. Eguchi (Technical issues)

COI: V. Heuer, J. Sylvan, Y. Morono

Molecular signatures

Prokaryotes(e.g. Archaea & Bacteria)

Soft tissue signatures(e.g. membrane)	

Overview (2) and lesson from Exp 337 	

865-Full	Temperature window of site 1173 and 1174	

865-Full	Focusing on the temperature range for 110-140 oC. 	
measured	May 5-7, 2014

Overview of EPSP agenda
We evaluate site locations of the following 10 proposals;
 Reviewed Proposal 837 – Sumatra Subduction Zone
 Reviewed Proposal 781 – Hikurangi Subduction Zone
 Reviewed Proposalp
820 – Maldives Reviewed Proposal 795 – Indian Monsoons
 Reviewed Proposal 793 – Arabian Sea Monsoon
 Reviewed Proposal 807 – Indonesian Throughflow
 Reviewed Proposal 813 – Antarctic Paleoclimate
 Reviewed Proposal 799 – Warm pool
 Reviewed Proposal 696 – Bonin Forearc
 Reviewed Proposal 758 – Atlantis Massif

Proposal 837– Sumatra Subduction Zone

Objective
 Establish the initial and evolving properties of theiincoming
i sedimentaryditsectionti andd th
their
i potential
t ti l effects
ff t
on seismogenesis, tsunamigenesis, and forearc
development.
development
 In addition,
addition the proposed drill sites will provide guidanceon the state of stress within the oceanic plate and will
provide information on the Bengal-Nicobarpg
fan system.
yProposal 837– Sumatra Subduction Zone

 Panel reviewed eight locations
 Two sites (SUM-10A and SUMA-12A) recommended as

proposed Three sites not recommended for approval as proposed
and were relocated (SUMA-08B, SUMA-11B, and SUMA13B)
 Proponents have been asked to provide the panel

with
ith latitudes,
l tit dlongitudes,
l
it d
and
d completed
l t d siteitsafety sheetsProposal 781– Hirkurangi Subduction
Zone(second review)

Objective ExamineEi slowlslip
li eventst (SSE) iin an area wherehthese aseismic events occur almost annually.
 This first phase of drilling will characterize the stateand compositions of the incoming plate and the natureof the shallow boundaryy near the trench,, characterizematerial properties, thermal regime and stresscondition in the upper plate in an SSE zone and to
install borehole observatories.

Proposal 781– Hirkurangi Subduction Zone
(second review)

Pavel reviewed twenty-one
ylocations Four sites (HSM-11A, HSM-12A, HSM-15A, and HSM-

18A) approved as requested (names were changed by
EPSP to maintain standard nomenclature)) One site (HSM-04A) tabled by the panel - no action
taken
 Se
Seven
e ssites
tes not
ot recommended
eco
e ded foro app
approvalo a by ttheepanel
 Six sites (HSM-13B, HSM-16B, HSM-19B, HSM-21B,
HSM-22B,, and HSM-23B)) not recommended forapproval were relocated Panel requested multi-beam surface image at HSM17A and HSM-20A
 HSM-01A approved but will require the use orpreviously discussed pressure monitoring protocol

Proposal 820 - Maldives
Objective
 Establish Neogene environmental
changehoff ththe IIndian
di O
Ocean
associated with the monsoonal
pattern and sea level change Reconstruct the drowning history of
thee Maldivesa d es ca
carbonate
bo a e babank.

Proposal 820 - Maldives Panel reviewed seven sites
 All seven sites (MAL-01A, MAL-02A, MAL-03A, MAL-04B,

MAL 05A, MAL-06B
MAL-05A
MAL 06B, and MAL-07A)
MAL 07A) recommended forapproval as requested

Proposal 795– Indian Monsoons
ObjectivejDrilling seeks to recover sediments ranging in age from Late
Cretaceous through the Holocene to: 1) establish the driving mechanism for monsoonal circulation; 2) ddetermineti whetherh th winds
i d andd precipitation
i it ti are coupled;l d 3) the effects of climate change and tectonics on erosion andrunoff; 4) provide calibration to climates models; and 5) establish the relationship between monsoons and major
global climate change events.

Proposal 795– Indian Monsoons
 Panel reviewed 17 proposed drilling locations
 Seven sites (BB-7, BB-5, BB-2B, BB-4, BB-6, AA-5, andAA-1) were recommended for approval as proposed○ Panel requestedqan uncertainty
y analysis
y be performedp
on BB-

2B to ensure that the BSR was not penetrated
 Three sites (BB-1, BB-8, and AA-4) were notrecommended for approval as proposed and wererelocated Depths were changed on two sites (AA-2B and AA-3)
 Two sites (N90E1 and N90E-2A) were handled by email
following the panel meeting Proponents will provide depths
depths, latitudes/longitudes
latitudes/longitudes, andsafety sheets as required.

Proposal 793– Arabian Monsoon
Objectivej Examine the relationship between tectonics andclimate.
 The study will examine the relative roles ofclimate and tectonics on weathering and erosionof the Himalayas and Tibet.

Proposal 793– Arabian Monsoon
 Panel reviewed five site locations
 Two sites (IND-01A, and IND-04A) wererecommended for approval as proposed One site (IND-03B) was not recommended
for approval and was relocated (IND-03C)
 Depth was reassigned for one site (IND02A)
 Proponents will need to provide depth,
latitudes/longitude and revised safety sheets
for those sites modified by the panel

Proposal 807– Indonesian Throughflow

Objective
Objti The proposal is aimed at answering a suite ofquestions dealing with the role of heat transport andclimate change.
 Examine the timing and variability of the IndonesianThroughflow and Indo-Pacific Warm Pool; recovering
material that will aid in examining
g the variability
y of theAustralian monsoon and the onset of Australianaridity; and provide information on the spatial
variability
i bili off subsidence
b id
along
l
the
h A
Australianli margin.
iProposal 807– Indonesian Throughflow
 Panel reviewed thirteen sites
 Panel approved all sites (NWS-1A,

NWS-7A, NWS-2A, NWS-8A, NWS-3A,
NWS-9A, NWS-4A, NWS-10A, NWS11A NWS
11A,
NWS-5A,
5A NWS-12A,
NWS 12A NWS-6A,
NWS 6Aand NWS-13A)
 A number of sites have been renamedby the panel in order to conform with
program standards
 Panel has requested that a better
seismic image for NWS-11A be
providedProposal 813– Antarctic Paleoclimate
Objective Gain an understanding of the timing and conditions
leading to the ice advances and determining whether
there are any leading indicators for glaciation;
 GainG i a betterb tt understandingd t di off climaticli ti flfluctuations
t ti
during the Oligocene; Determine the stability of Early Cretaceous greenhouseconditions.
 Other drilling objectives include: 1) establishing thetiming of rifting; 2) the dating of major unconformities;
and 3) establishing glacial isostatic adjustment.

Proposal 813– Antarctic Paleoclimate
 Panel reviewed forty-seven potential locations
 One site ((GVAL-03A)) was not approvedpp
because of the lack of seismicdata As a consequence of the nature of proposed MSP programtheh panell approved
dd
drilling
illi alonglsegments off seismici i liline
segments ±50 meters from the line WEGA02
WEGA02-01;
01; 970-2624
970 2624
 WEGA01-02B; 4700-4756
 WEGA01-2B; 2420-2460
 WEGA01-03;
WEGA01 03; 300
300-450450
 WEGA03-01B; 1075-1150
 WEGA03-03; 1750-2250
 WEGA03-01;
WEGA03 01; 15
15-6060
 IFP-103; 75-1100
 IFP-107; 50-1350

Proposal 799– Warm Pool
Objective 1) establishing the spatial and temporal extent of
millennial variability in the Western Pacific Warm Poolthe warmest surface waters; 2) establishingt bli hi th
the llong-termtevolutionl ti off th
the WPWP
WPWP;
 3) establishing whether hydrologic changes in thewestern p
parts of the WPWP respondpstrictly
y to changesgin East Asian monsoons or are they independently
teleconnected to the North Atlantic region; 4) determining the changes in the IndonesianThroughflow; and 5) establishing chemical changes in seawater since the
mid-Miocene.

Proposal 799– Warm Pool

 Thirteen sites were reviewed by the panel Twelve sites WP-12A, WP-11B, WP-71A, WP-2A,

WP-06A, WP-09A, WP-13A, WP-02A, WP-21A,
WP-03A, WP-04A, and WP-05A) wererecommended
d d ffor approvall as proposedd One site WP-14A was positioned by the panel

Proposal 696 – Bonin Forearc
Objective
Objecte 1) obtain a high-fidelity record of magmatic
evolution; 2) test the hypothesis that “Fore-arc Basalts”(FAB) tholeiites lie beneath boninites ; 3) understand chemical gradients within theseunits and across their transitions and tounderstandd t d ththeir
i ttectonict i significance;
i ifi 4) understand how mantle melting processes
evolve; 5) test the hypothesis that forearc lithospherecreated during subduction initiation is thebirthplace of supra-subduction zone ophiolites.

Proposal 696 – Bonin Forearc
 Seven sites reviewed by the panel All sites (BON-01A, BON-02A, BON-03A,

BON-04B, BON-05A, BON-06B, and MAR1) recommended for approval as proposed

Proposal 758– Atlantic Massif

 MSP proposal
 Sites approved to 80 meters within a defined “box”

bounded by:
 North – 30o45’N
 South - 30o12’N
 East – 42.5o5.70’W
 West - 42.5o11’W

 Once positioned the proponents have beenrequested to provide the panel with latitudes andlongitudes for their records

JTRACKWorkshop Report
CO-CONVENERS: J. KIRCKPATRICK, S. KODAIRA,
J. MORI, S. SAITO, J. SAMPLE, M. STRASSERKey findings of JFAST andsupporting datau1) Co-seismic megathrust slip was confined to a narrow (<5m) zone of a very weak clay layer (Chester et al., 2013,
Science)u2) Very low dynamic friction (Ujiie, et al., 2013, Science; Fulton
et al., 2013, Science)u3) Change of local stress directions before and after
earthquake (Lin et al., 2012, Science)u4) Co-seismic displacement reached all the way to thetrench axis (Fujiwara et al., 2011, Science; Kodaira et al.
Nature Geosci., 2012)u5) turbidities from previous earthquakes are preserved in the
trench fill

JTRACK Pre-Proposal

submitted on Oct. 1st 2013

Overall goals of JTRACKu 1. Understand the variations of physical andchemical properties of sediments and fluids of thenear-trench megathrust that enable huge fault
displacements and generate very large tsunamisu 2. Develop and implement new methods fordetermining the recurrence of giant tsunamigenic
earthquakes in the sediment record of the trench fillObjectivesu A. Sample a reference section on the incoming plate asa baseline for comparison with sediments in the prismand plate-boundary décollementu B. Continuously core the fault zone in multiple locations

to determine representative fault rock properties bystructural analysis and laboratory experimentsu C. Investigate the role of fluids in slip along a transectwith geochemical and physical property data fromcontinuous coresu D. Characterize the prism stress state from borehole andsediment property measurements, and geodetic
monitoringu E. Construct a great earthquake chronology from a

trench-axis drilling transect.

Proposed transectu

Separate central, northern, andsouthern drilling transects linked to slip
zones of the 2011, 1896, and 1677
eventu The coseismic slip distribution of the1896 event is not well definedu The fault zone of the 1677 event is very

ambiguous, may be in the southernend of Japan Trenchu

Trench-parallel transect could
efficiently capture the record of greatearthquakes in the sedimentary
recordu

Our objectives can be achieved byshort, targeted drilling operations ineach transect

SEP Reviewu“The panel feels there is potential for highly significant results fromthe proposed research that will address, in particular, Challenge 12of the IODP Science Plan. “u“We therefore encourage the proponents to submit a Full proposal
taking account of all of the above recommendations.”u“We specifically recommend a more focused approach to be
conducted on the 2011 rupture zone for such a resubmission. futuredata collection should expand site data in this area to this end. “u“This should include both MCS strike profiles and crossing lines, andhigh resolution data in the trench to aid the marine
paleoseismology objective. “u“The Pre-proposal will be sent to the CIB for approval of further
progression to Full proposal.”JTRACK Workshop Overviewu

Dates: 15-17 May 2014u

Venue: JAMSTEC Tokyo OfficeuParticipants: 65（USA 10・UK 3・Canada 2・France 1・Germany 1・
Switzerland 1・Japan 47）u

Conveners: J. Kirckpatrick, S. Kodaira, J. Mori, S. Saito,
J. Sample, M. Strasseru

Funding
USSSP, IODP-Germany, ECORD, JAMSTEC

JTRACK Workshop Overviewu

Following keynote talks, the workshop participants brokeout to six groups (core, logging, fluid, monitoring,
paleoseismology and site characterization)uThe various groups prioritized the sites and science
questions

JTRACK scientific questionsuu

Key geological properties associated with large (andsmall ) fault slip .
uHow does the weak pelagic clay in the incoming plate affectthe fault slip ?

uHow do stress and frictional properties change along strikeand down-dip ?

uWhat is the shear strength and consolidation history of slope
sediments ?

Important hydrological conditions in the area of large (andsmall) slip .
uWhat are the permeability values of rocks in and around thefault zone ?

uHow does fluid flow contribute to reducing effective stress inthe fault zone. ?

uWhat are the related microbiological responses to faulting ?

JTRACK scientific questionsuTime-dependent changes of the physical and fluid
properties of the fault zoneu How quickly does the plate boundary fault recover begin

to accumulate stress again ?

u What rock properties control the earthquake coseismic

and postseismic deformation?

  u

History of great tsunami-producing earthquakesu Is there a good proxy for identifying repeated, large slip on

the plate boundary?

u What are differences in rupture of ‘tsunamigenic’ and‘normal’ earthquakes?

JTRACK drilling strategyu

1. Sample a reference section on the incoming plate as abaseline for comparison with sediments in the prism andplate-boundary décollementu

2. Continuously core the fault zone in multiple locations todetermine representative fault rock properties by structural
analysis and laboratory experimentsu

3. Investigate the role of fluids in slip along a transect with
geochemical and physical property data from continuous
cores

u

4. Characterize the prism stress state from borehole andsediment property measurements, and geodetic monitoringu

5. Construct a great earthquake chronology from a trenchaxis drilling transect

JTRACK proposed sitesu

Two locations within the 2011 Tohoku-oki
rupture area were proposed to address theprimary JTRACKu one in the region of maximum slip andu one is in the region where the slip is substantially

lower

u

Slip models based on geodetic, tsunami orteleseismic show the slip was heterogeneous
near the trench, but resolution near the
trench is lowu

A more robust constraint on the slip
distribution is available from repeatedbathymetric surveys from before and after the2011 Tohokui-oki ruptureu

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

Fujiwara et al. in preparation

Satake et al. 2013

Region of maximum slip: Site C0019(latitude 38°N)

JFAST C0019 (water depth 6930 m, drilling length 820 m)
Reference site (water depth 6930 m, drilling length 300 m)

Paleoseismology+Reference site (water depth 7200 m, drilling length 400 m)

Region of low slip
(latitude 38° 30’N)

Frontal prism site (water depth 7350 m, drilling length 900 m)
Reference site (water depth 7100 m, drilling length 500 m)

Paleoseismology+Reference site (water depth 7500 m, drilling length 500 m)

Summaryu

To develop a focused full proposal, the workshop participants
concluded that the highest priority should be to concentrate on
the mechanical controls on the shallow coseismic slip during the2011 earthquake ruptureuWorkshop participants also agree to investigate the history of past
great earthquakes along the margin as the second objective of
the JTRACK projectu

A full proposal will therefore be prepared by the group to besubmitted by Oct. 1st 2014 for further coring, logging anddeployment of a long-term observatory at site C0019 and atlatitude 38° 30’N, where the coseismic slip was relatively lowu

Addressing variability along strike at the Japan Trench, and thespecific mechanical properties of the margin to the north where
the 1896 Sanriku rupture occurred will follow in one or more
additional proposal

Acknowledgementsu

We appreciate financial supports from USSSP,IODP-Germany, ECOD and JAMSTEC to covertravel expenses of the workshop participantsu

We appreciate CIB for their fast-track evaluationof our workshop proposal

NanTroSEIZE	
  PCT	  CPS	
  Harold	  Tobin	
  

U.	
  of	
  Wisconsin-­‐Madison	
  

CPS	
  

Gaku	
  Kimura	
  

U.	
  of	
  Tokyo	
  Kyuichi	  Kanagawa	
  Chiba	  U.	
  Structural	
  geology	  Geomechanics/Physical	
  ProperHes	
  Demian	  Saﬀer	
  The	
  Penn	  State	
  U.	
  

Heat	
  Flow	  Masataka	
  Kinoshita	  JAMSTEC/KCC	  Sedimentology	
  Michael	  Strasser	
  ETH-­‐Zürich	
  LithostraHgraphy	
   Michael	
  Underwood	
   U.	  of	
  Missouri	
  Geophysics	
  

Greg	
  Moore	
  

U.	
  of	
  Hawaii	  Observatory	  Eiichiro	
  Araki	  JAMSTEC	  Logging	
  Yasuhiro	
  Yamada	
  Kyoto	
  U./JAMSTEC	  Drilling	
  OperaHon	
  

Ikuo	
  Sawada	  CDEX/JAMSTEC	  Science	
  Services	
  

Nobu	
  Eguchi	  CDEX/JAMSTEC	
  

Lead	
  EPM	  Sean	
  Toczko	  CDEX/JAMSTEC	
  

Nori	
  Kyo	  CDEX/JAMSTEC	  Engineering	
  Dvelopment	  CRISP	
  PCT	
  CPS	
  César	
  Ranero	  CSIC	
  Barcelona	
  

CPS	
  

Kohtaro	
  Ujiie	
  

U.	
  of	
  Tsukuba	
  Structural	
  geology	
  Susan	
  Bilek	  New	
  Mexico	
  Tech	  Geomechanics/Physical	
  ProperHes	
  ChrisHan	
  Hensen	
  GEOMAR	  Drilling	
  OperaHon	
  

Ikuo	
  Sawada	  CDEX/JAMSTEC	  Science	
  Services	
  

Nobu	
  Eguchi	  CDEX/JAMSTEC	
  

Lead	
  EPM	  Sean	
  Toczko	  CDEX/JAMSTEC	
  

Nori	
  Kyo	  CDEX/JAMSTEC	  Engineering	
  Dvelopment	  PCT Activities Report
Costa RIca Seismogenesis Project (CRISP)

K. Moe & T. Sugihara

Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project(CRISP-B)

 To measure and monitor “in situ” parameters that will provide
the information necessary to understand fault constitutive laws
in regard of fault behavior evaluation and how it affects
earthquake rupture dynamics and tsunami generation.
 Complementary to Nankai accretionary margin as it’s fault
zone similar to Japan Trench at Tohoku-Oki region.

Mature research site – all data to design sites are available
Shallow drilling to characterize regional geology accomplishedwith iODP legs 334 (2011) & 344 (2012)

Shear strength test for the Geotech cores
For new candidates, formations
beneath the new sites should bewell correlated with those in Site
U1413.

CRISP Preparation Status
Accomplished Tasks
 2D seismic (processed, interpreted) Bathymetry, backscatter, sub bottom profiler GeoTechnical Coring Analysis (Done, JR X344)
 3D seismic processing (Fall 2013)

Ongoing and Remaining Items (Proponents-CDEX)
 MetOcean-ocean current studies
 3D seismic interpretation & geological prognosis; hazard
assessment-Geomechanics

Chikyu Operational Criteria Depth Limitation+ Water depth (WD) for riser drilling• Minimum depth: 500 - ~1000 mMSL-> strongly depending on sea current and weather conditions
 Sea Floor Condition• Slope angle: < 5 deg. (50 % safety margin)• No any rock blocks, boulders…
• Enough shear strength of shallow formations to set BOP and riser• ~3 times of Water Depth Distance from submarine cables
 Formation characteristics for Riser• No indication of shallow gas, no abnormal formation• As deep as casing program can be established Bottom hole static temperature• For drilling: <200-250 oC• Logging: <150 oC for LWD and <175 oC for wireline logging

Candidate Riser Sites for CRISP
Sites(science priority)

LatitudePrimary Site (CRIS13-B)
8° 44.46’N(U1413)Longitude

WD (mMSL)

Total Penetration(mbsf)

84° 6.81’W

543

5000

Alt1

8° 44’ 5.304’’ N

84° 10’ 11.817’’W

580

4900

Alt2

8° 41’ 57.786 ’’ N 84° 09’ 03.61’’W

715

4400

Alt3

8° 41’ 25.219’’ N 84° 11’ 22.385’’W

960

3840

Alt4

8° 41’ 55.927’’ N 84° 07’ 45.077’’ W

570

4374

CRISP Target Area
Bathymetry

Slope Angle Close up- Feasible area for riser drilling arelimited in the blue-green area.
- In the green area, frequentchanges of color (green to yellow),indicating smaller scale up/downhills in the green area.

2.5 5 7.5

Source data:
CRISP_Bathymetry_10A.grd

CRISP Candidate Sites in bathymetry

Primary Site CRIS-13B (WD- 543 m; TD- 5000 m)

Alternate-1 (WD- 580m; TD- 4900 m)

Alternate-2 (WD- 715 m; TD- 4400 m)

Alternate-3 (WD- 960m; TD- 3840 m)

Alternate-4 (WD- 570m; TD- 4374 m)

IODP Expedition 348, NanTroSEIZE	
  Further	  Drilling	  Plan	
CDEX/JAMSTEC	Solid	  Expandable	  Technology	
  (SET)	

Expansion	  cone	  	（Enventure	
  Home	  Page）	

• Solid	  Expandable	  Technology	
  (SET)	
  radially	
  enlarges	
  proprietary	
  tubulars	
  through	  a	
  cold-­‐drawing	
  process	
  using	  a	
  downhole	
  cone-­‐driven	
  expansion	
  assembly.	
• Pressure	
  isolaGon	
  between	
  casing	
  and	
  expandable	
  liner	  by	  Elastomeric	
  Srals.	

ConGnuous	
  CirculaGon	
  Systems	
Non	
  Stop	
  Driller	

Standard	
  opera+on	
Mud	
  pumps	Mud	
  pumps	

Sekal	  Drilling	
  Simulator	
  (DrillScean	  Replay)	

（Sekal Abadeen	  Ltd.）	
•••DrillScene	
  Replay	
  studies	  are	  performed	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  determine	
  the	
  root	  cause	  of	
  non-­‐producGve	  Gme	
  (NPT)	
  related	
  to	
  poor	  hole	  cleaning,	
  pack	
  oﬀ,	
  hole	  collapse,	
  fracturing	
  of	
  the	
  formaGon,	
  stuck	
  pipe,	
  mud	
  losses,	
  or	
  mud	
  inﬂuxes.,	
  and	
  hole	  collapse	
  uGlizing	
  ﬁrst	  principles	
  transient	
  models.	
  Post-­‐well	
  DrillScene	
  invesGgaGons	
  are	  performed	
  by	
  analyzing	
  data	  that	  had	  previously	
  been	  recorded	
  on	
  the	
  rig.	
  This	  analysis	
  provides	
  a	
  pure-­‐physics	
  based	
  descripGon	
  of	
  the	
  acGviGes	
  and	  related	  hole	  condiGons	
  leading	
  up	
  to	
  the	
  NPT	
  event.	
  DrillScene	
  Replay	  are	
  essenGal	
  for	
  proper	
  post-­‐well	
  analysis	
  and	
  lessons-­‐learned	
  acGviGes.	
  Sekal	  performs	
  both	  mulG-­‐well	
  DrillScene	
  Replay	
  across	
  problemaGc	
  ﬁelds	
  or	
  on	
  a	
  single	
  well.	
  Drilling	  Plan	
Case	

A

B

C

Operation	

Drilling below 11-3/4"Liner

Sidetrack from 13-3/8"CSG

New hole

Number of
Casing	

4

5

8

Hole	
  
SchemaGc	Core	
  hole	  LWD	  hole	  Case A (Sidetrack below 11-3/4”Liner shoe)	
(Example)	
  2	
  x	
  Casing	

(Example)	
  3	
  x	
  Casing	

(Example)	
  4	
  x	
  Casing	

Casing	  size	Depth,	
  mbsf	Casing	  size	Depth,	
  mbsf	Casing	  size	Depth,	
  mbsf	

11-­‐3/4”Liner	
  (exisGng)	

2922.5	

11-­‐3/4”Liner	
  (exisGng)	

2922.5	

11-­‐3/4”Liner	
  (exisGng)	

2922.5	

9-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  11-­‐3/4”	
  (Expandable)	

3800	

9-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  11-­‐3/4”	
  (Expandable)	

3500	

9-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  11-­‐3/4”	
  (Expandable)	

3400	

9-­‐3/8”	

4700	

9-­‐3/8”	

4100	

9-­‐3/8”	

3900	

7-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  9-­‐3/8”	
  (Expandable)	

4700	

7-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  9-­‐3/8”	
  (Expandable)	

4300	

7”Liner	

4700	

11-­‐3/4”Liner	
  11-­‐3/4”Liner	
  11-­‐3/4”Liner	  9-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  11-­‐3/4”	
  Expandable	
  Casing	  9-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  11-­‐3/4”	
  Expandable	
  Casing	  9-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  11-­‐3/4”	
  Expandable	
  Casing	  9-­‐3/8”	
  CSG	  9-­‐3/8”	
  CSG	
  7-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  9-­‐3/8”	
  Expandable	
  Casing	  7-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  9-­‐3/8”	
  Expandable	
  Casing	  9-­‐3/8”	
  CSG	
  Mega-­‐splay	
  fault	

Mega-­‐splay	
  fault	
8-­‐1/2”hole	  7”	
  Liner	  Mega-­‐splay	
  fault	

6”hole	  6”hole	  Case B (Sidetrack from13-3/8”CSG)	
(Example)	
  5	
  x	
  Casing	
Casing	  size	13-­‐3/8”CSG	
  (Set	
  @Exp348)	
  11-­‐3/4”Liner	
  (Set	  @Exp348)	
  11-­‐3/4”	
  x	
  13-­‐3/8”	
  	
  Expandable	
  casing	
  10-­‐3/4”CSG	
  8-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  10-­‐3/4”	
  Expandable	
  casing	  7-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  8-­‐5/8”	
  Expandable	
  casing	
  7”Liner	  Mega-­‐splay	
  fault	

6”hole	  Depth,	
  mbsf	13-­‐3/8”CSG	
  (ExisGng)	

2010	

11-­‐3/4”	
  x	
  13-­‐3/8”	
  (Expandable)	
  

3200	

10-­‐3/4”	
  

3600	

8-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  10-­‐3/4”CSG	
  (Expandable)	
  

4000	

7-­‐5/8”	
  x	
  8-­‐5/8”	
  (Expandable)	

4300	

7”Liner	

4700	

Case C (Drill new hole)	
36”CSG	(Example) 8 x Casing20”CSG	

Casing	  size	16”	
  x	
  20”	  	
  Expandable	
  casing	

16”CSG	
13-­‐3/8”	
  x	
  16”	  	
  Expandable	
  casing	13-­‐3/8”CSG	
11-­‐3/4”Liner	

9-­‐5/8”CSG	
Mega-­‐splay	
  fault	

8-­‐1/2”hole	

Depth,	
  mbsf	

36”	

55	

20”	
  

860	

16”	
  x	
  20”	  (Expandable)	

2300	

16”	
  

3600	

13-­‐3/8”	
  x	
  16”	  (Expandable)	

4000	

13-­‐3/8”	

4300	

11-­‐3/4”Liner	

4500	

9-­‐5/8”	

4700	

Drilling	  Plan	
  	
Case	

A

B

C

Operation	

Drilling below 11-3/4"Liner

Sidetrack from 13-3/8"CSG

New hole

Final Hole size	

6”

6”

8-1/2”

Max. number of
CSG	

4

5

8

Flexibility of
CSG design	Low

MiddleHigh

Operation Risk	

High

MiddleLow

Duration	(days)	

230

Hole	
  
SchemaGc	

1 cruise	

2 cruises	

1 cruise	

2 cruises	

260

293

319

335

CHIKYU Funding Structure for IODP Operation&
Operation Criteria(Source of Fund)(1) Gov. Funds (for Fixed Cost)(2) Project Funds (for IODP Project from Chikyu Project Members,
Members Governments,
Governments Scientific Foundations
Foundations,
Industries, etc.)(3) Chikyu member Fees
(4) DOR(Commercial Drilling)(5) Donation
Non‐IODP Operation（including Commercial Drilling)

IODP Expedition(B d t Amount)(BudgetAt)(2) Project Funds(Subject to Project Plan)
Drilling Cost
(Variable Cost)

USD?? ~
USD??m(1) Gov. Funds
Rig Cost(Fixed Cost)

Contribution(4) DOR (Commercial Drilling)(Total Rig Cost) USD70m/yr(3) Chikyu Member Fee / (5) Donation

1yr.

Chikyu	
  IODP	
  Long-­‐term	  Planning	
4	

5	

JFY	
   non-­‐IODP	  2014	
 Commercial	
IODP	
  
2015	
Riserless	

6	

7	

R&M	

non-­‐IODP	  Science	

8	

9	

10	

11	

12	

(under	  nego6a6on)	

R&M	
  (@Doc,	
  BOP,	
  Riser)	
IODP	
  Riserless?	

2016	
IODP	
  Riser	

2017	
 IODP	
  Riser	

2018	
IODP	
  Exp.	

Commercial	
  work	

R	
  &	
  M	

Non	
  IODP	  Science	  Exp.	

1	

2	

3	
IODP	
  
Riserless	IODP	
  Proposal	
  Summary	  Proposal	
  #	
   Short	
  Title	
  Drilling	  Status	
  

505	
  

Mariana	
  Convergent	
  Margin	
  Riserless	
  JRFB/CIB	
  

537B	
  

CRISP	  B	
  Riser	  

CIB/PCT	
  

603	
  

NanTroSEIZE	
  Riser/Riserless	
   CIB/PCT	
  

618	
  

East	
  Asia	  Margin	
  Riser/Riserless	
   CIB	
  

698	
  

IBM	
  Arc	
  Middle	
  Crust	  (IBM4)	
  Riser	  CIB	
  (PCT）	
  

781B	
  

Hikurangi:	
  Riser	  Riser	
  

SEP-­‐>CIB	
  

782	
  

KAP:Plate	
  Boundary	
  Deforma6on	
  Riser	
  

SEP	
  

800	
  

Indian	  Ridge	
  Moho	  Riser/Riserless	
   JRFB	
  	
  

805	
  

MoHole	  to	
  the	  Mantle	  Riser	
  

SEP	
  

835	
  

JTRACK	
  Riserless	
  

SEP	
  

857/857A	  DREAM-­‐GOLD	
  Riser	
  

SEP	
  

865	
  

Nankai	  Trough	
  T	
  limit	  Riserless	
  

SEP	
  

Chikyu	
  IODP	
  Long-­‐term	  Planning	
4	

5	

JFY	
   non-­‐IODP	  2014	
 Commercial	
IODP	
  
2015	
Riserless	

2016	

2017	
 IODP	
  Riser	

6	

7	

R&M	

non-­‐IODP	  Science	

8	

9	

11	

12	

(under	  nego6a6on)	

R&M	
  (@Doc,	
  BOP,	
  Riser)	
IODP	
  Riserless?	

Possible	  Op6ons:	
  IODP	
  Riser		
  505	
  Mariana	
  Convergent	
  Margin	
  603	
  NanTroSEIZE	
  Riserless	
  Observatory	
  
	
  

2018	

10	

IODP	
  Exp.	

Commercial	
  work	

R	
  &	
  M	

Non	
  IODP	  Science	  Exp.	

1	

2	

3	
IODP	
  
Riserless	Chikyu	
  IODP	
  Long-­‐term	  Planning	
4	

5	

JFY	
   non-­‐IODP	  2014	
 Commercial	
IODP	
  
2015	
Riserless	

6	

7	

R&M	

non-­‐IODP	  Science	

8	

9	

10	

11	

12	

(under	  nego6a6on)	

R&M	
  (@Doc,	
  BOP,	
  Riser)	
IODP	
  Riserless?	

2016	

2017	
 IODP	
  Riser	

2018	

IODP	
  Riser	Possible	  Op6ons:	
  
	
  
505	
  Mariana	
  Convergent	
  Margin	
  603	
  NanTroSEIZE	
  Riserless	
  Observatory	
  

	
  
IODP	
  Exp.	

Commercial	
  work	

R	
  &	
  M	

Non	
  IODP	  Science	  Exp.	

1	

2	

3	
IODP	
  
Riserless	Chikyu	
  IODP	
  Long-­‐term	  Planning	
4	

5	

JFY	
   non-­‐IODP	  2014	
 Commercial	
IODP	
  
2015	
Riserless	

6	

7	

R&M	

non-­‐IODP	  Science	

8	

9	

10	

11	

12	

(under	  nego6a6on)	

R&M	
  (@Doc,	
  BOP,	
  Riser)	
IODP	
  Riserless?	

2016	
IODP	
  Riser	

2017	
 IODP	
  Riser	

2018	

Possible	  Op6ons:	
  
	
  
603	
  NanTroSEIZE	
  C2	
  Riser	
  
	
  

IODP	
  Exp.	

Commercial	
  work	

R	
  &	
  M	

Non	
  IODP	  Science	  Exp.	

1	

2	

3	
IODP	
  
Riserless	CHIKYU	  CPP	  	
  Criteria	
  (Case	  A)	

Assump6on:	
  a.	
  Project	  period	
  =	
  5	
  months	
  b.	
  Riser	
  Hole,	
  Remote	  Area,	
  Deep	
  water	
  :	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Rig	
  cost	
  =	
  USD	
  6m/month,	
  Drilling	
  cost	
  =	
  USD	
  16m/month	
  	
  	
  	
(Budget	
  Amount)	

Project	
  Funds	
  (Subject	  to	  Project	  Plan)	
  
16m	
  x	
  5	
  month	  =	
  Approx.	
  USD80m	

80/110	
  =72.7%	

	
  	
  	
  
Gov.	
  Funds	
  
6m	
  x	
  5	
  month=	  Approx.	
  USD30m	
  	
Note:	
  Non-­‐ordinal	
  R&M	
  cost	  is	
  not	  included.	

Drilling	
  Cost(Variable	
  Cost)	
  -­‐ Drlg.	
  Materials/Equipment	  -­‐ 3rd	  Party	
  Services	  -­‐ Logis6cs	
  -­‐ Fuel	  -­‐ Etc.	

Rig	
  Cost(Fixed	  Cost)	
  -­‐ Crew	
  &	
  Management	  -­‐ Repair	
  &	
  Maintenance	  -­‐ Insurance	  -­‐ Etc.	
5	
  months	

1	
  year	
  (USD	
  70m)	

CHIKYU
CPP
Criteria(Case
A)
Assumption:a. Project period = 5 months
b. Riser Hole, Remote Area, Deep water :Rig cost = USD 6m/month
6m/month, Drilling cost = USD 16m/month(Budget Amount)

80/110=72.7%

Project Funds(Subject to Project Plan)
16m x 5 month =Approx. USD80m

Rig Cost(Fixed Cost)‐ Crew & Management‐ Repair & Maintenance‐ Insurance
‐ Etc
Etc.

Gov. Funds
Gov
6m x 5 month=Approx. USD30m
Note: Non‐ordinal R&M cost is not included.

DrillingDilli Cost(Variable
C (V i bl Cost)C )‐ Drlg. Materials/Equipment‐ 3rd Party Services‐ Logistics‐ Fuel‐ Etc.

5 months

1 year(USD 70m)

2nd CIB Meeting (July 10‐11, 2014)

KCC Report on Core Sample
Curation
Masa Kinoshita, Lallan Gupta andNaokazu Ahagon
K hi C
Kochi
Core C
Center, JAMSTEC

KCC Role & Responsibility
in the new IODP framework•

As a member of CIB
CIB, we at KCC plan to conduct following tasks:•

Curation of samples according to the geographical model– Legacy & (old) IODP cores– Cores, cuttings and DeepBIOS to be obtained in the new IODP
– ABS based JAMSTEC policy may be applied on DeepBIOS samples in near future•

Chikyu Mirror site
– Complementlsamplingl & measurements thath were not ffinishedh ddduring Chikyu
h k expeditionsd•Encourage more intensive use of core and related information– Offer core inventory info using Virtual Core Viewer and Sample availability•

Curation‐specificCuration
specific researches– Monitoring core quality for longterm effects••

Facilitate access to analytical facility of KCC by IODP researchers from abroad
Pre‐cruise training & J‐DESC core school

C ti tasks
Curationt k
 Core storage management Sample request evaluation
 Sampling plan Organize sampling party Samplep data managementg Education & OutreachC ti off core material
Curationt i l
IODP Expedition  IODP core curation
New IODP
1%
IODP
17%

IncludingLegacy core curationca. 102 km of core
DSDP
22%

ODP
60%

Non‐IODP Expedition JAMSTEC core curationd
including Chikyu shakedown cruises

IODP core curation• IODP Sample, Data & Obligations Policy• Geographic model of core distribution• Curation of cores, cuttings & DeepBIOS• Collaborate
C ll bwithi h 2 otherh IODP core repositories:i i
BCR and GCR• Facilitate access to analytical facility of KCC by
IODP researchers from abroad• Pre‐cruise training & J‐DESC core school

IODP Sample Data & Obligation Policy• Ensure availability of samples & data to science
community• Encourage scientific analyses across various disciplines• Preserve core material for future description andobservations,, nondestructive analyses,
y , and samplingp g• Support education and outreach by providing corematerials to educators, museums, and outreach
institutions.

IODP Sample Data & Obligation Policy
Implementation plan
• KCC will accept and implement the new policy
approvedd byb theth 3 FBFBs• Apply “NoNo publication obligation
obligation” policy to previous
post-moratorium requesters, too ?
• Provide nominations to the FBs to set up new CAB• MaintainM i t i regular
l communicationi ti among th
the repositories
it iKochi Core Center

Bremen Core Repository

Gulf Coast Repository

ASIA

KCC

Geographic model: 3 oceanic regions, 3 IODP core repositories

IODP & Legacy (ODP/DSDP) cores
Repository

Institution

Amount of core

BCR

University ofBremen154 kmGCR

Texas A&M
University

128 kmKCC

JAMSTEC & Kochi
University

102 km

NJ Geological
SurveyRutgers University

0.62 km
ODP Leg 150X

Curation of core material

10 cm long whole rounds(DeepBIOS) at ‐80˚C
296 nos.

Core storage beyond capacity
1.5 m long core sections (AH & WH)
at +4˚C, ~80% humidity
ca. 102 km

Cuttings
at +4˚C, ~80% humidity
1242 nos.
nosSample Request decision making
Expedition Specific~ 6 months pre-expedition
to 12 months post expedition

Post-moratorium> 12 months post expedition
CAB

Advice, Appeal,
Permanent Archive
requests and longterm loans

AppealIODP Curator

Advice, Appeal

IODP Curator
Ad i
Advice,Ti
Tie-breaker,
b k Appeal
AlOnboard SAC
Feasibility of proposed research
SAC : Sample Allocation Committee
CAB : Curatorial Advisory Board

Investigator

Conflict with other sample requests
Sample volume / frequency

Sample requests
Legacy core

IODP core

Legacy core

120

300

100

250

80

200

60

150

40

100

20

50

0

0

Chikyu Exp.

US FY

US FY
Total

IODP core

736

T t l
Total
(as of June 2014)1456

Samples shipped
Legacy

IODP
32842

61478
15000
12000

Large number
due tosampling party:
Exp. 323 & 346

9000
6000
3000
0
2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

US FY

Total

136,516(as of June 2014)

Visitors
Japan

AbroadLegacy

80

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

0

0

US FY

IODP

US FY

T t l
Total

295
(as of Jun. 2014)

Publications based on
sample requests
2

Chemical Geology

1 Marine Micropaleontology

1Chinese Science Bulletin

1 Micropaleontology

2

Deep Sea - Marine Biology, Geology, and Human Impact

1 Nature Climate Change

5

Earth and Planetary Science Letters

2 Nature Geoscience

1

Earth-Science Reviews

1 Newletters on Stratigraphy

1

Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems

4 Paleoceanography

1

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta

6 Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology

1

Geological Magazine

1 PNAS

1

Geological Quarterly

1 Quaternary Research1

G l i l Society,
Geological
S i t London,
L dSpecialS
i l Publications
P bli ti

2 Quaternary
Q t
Science
S i
Reviews
R i

5

Geology

1 Review in Micropaleontology

2Geophysical Research Letters

1 Sedimentary Geology

1

J
Journall off GeophysicalGh i lR
Researchh

1 Sedimentology
S di
t l

1

Jounal of Nannoplankton Research

3 Stratigraphy

2

Journal of Foraminiferal Research

1 Studia UBB Geologia

1

Marine and Petroleum Geology

1 Tectonics

1

Marine Geology

1 Global and Planetary Change

Total

58

(as of May 2014)

Core Summary
Keyword based search, overview and links to reports of all cores being
curated in the KCC (http://www.kochi(http://www.kochi-core.jp/cs/)core.jp/cs/)

WH sample availability
Check the amount of core material available in Working Half (WH)
http://www kochi core jp/sample availability/
http://www.kochi-core.jp/sample-availability/

Virtual Core Viewer
3D rendering of XCT images of cores on PC, tablet & smart-phone
Coloring based on CT values
Slice 3D image vertically
Sh
Share
image
i
throughthh SNS servicesi(Twitter,(T itt F
Facebookb k etc.)t )Annotation/marking possible, similar to Google map

Exp 346 Sampling party
Exp.
(Mar. 2014)• Cores collected by JOIDES Resolution
in the Japan Sea
Total length : 6135.3 m
Total no.
no of core sections : 10816• Number of core sections sampled: ca.
2 650
2,650
• Samples taken : ca. 31,000• Sampling party participants : 45

Coreprotection• Core sections packed in water-tightzip-lock plastic bags to protect themfrom tsunami related damage.
• Packing started in October 2013,and completed in February 2014.
• About 130,000 core sections were
packed.
k dCollaborate with BCR & GCR• Evaluation of multi
multi‐repository
repository sample requests• Discuss modifications in curatorial procedures• Review IO
IODP
P Sample, Data
ata & Obligations policy

Analytical facility for IODP researchers• Opened for IODP community outside Japan sinceJune 2012• Logging equipment :XCT scanner• MSCL-S, -color, -NGR
• XRF core scanner• Core Image Scanner

Some showed interest in utilizing it; some have actually utilized it.

Pre‐cruise training and
J‐DESC core school
About IODP policy and shipboard measurements• Pre
Pre‐cruise
cruise training
IODP Expeditions: 324, 330, 336, 338, 340, 342, 345• J‐DESC core school
Once every year

Core materials to be received
in KCC in 2014
JOIDES Resolution(IODP Exp. 350 – IBM Rear‐arc)(IODP Exp. 351 – IBM Arc Origins)(IODP Exp
Exp. 352 – IBM Fore
Fore‐arc)arc)

Additional repository
ready by August 2014
New
repository

K C CCore repository

New repositorypySep. 2014 onwards :Core
repository

Transfer 102 km of IODP/ODP/DSDP coresfrom existing reefers to the new building
Clear backlog of >20 sample requests
related to sampling of Legacy cores2014/7/11
CHIKYU International Board meeting (CIB)

CDEX outreach activity
Augustg 2013〜June 2014

Contents
Topic

CDEX Action

Media

Onboard interview (expedition/port call)
Onshore interview
Providing photos and movies

Web

Expeditionpsite,, CHIKYU TV,, CHIKYU Hakken etc.

Event

Booth exhibition, Workshop

JFAST Promotion

Press release , expedition site, workshop etc.

JOIDES port call

Ship tour (Media(Media, Scientists
Scientists, students
students, general public)

IOs/PMOs
communication

Providing materials for AGU and EGU
CCommunicationi i aboutb
media
di relation,
l i
etc.

Education

Lecture, practical work, Internet session, field excursion

MediaCDEX activity
ti it ffor mediadi Onboard Interview(expedition/port call) Onshore Interview
 Providing photos and movies

MediaCHIKYU Onboard Interview

periodInternational/D Company/interviewer
omestic(Number ofinterview)

Port callInternational(2)

The Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan (20‐30
person))Ms. Sandi Doughton (The Seattle Times) : Authorof “Full Rip 9.0

Domestic(16)

16 interviews (NHK, TBS, Nihon TV, Media
participatns of Japan, Mainichi News paper,
Sankei News Paper, Novelist, etc)

International(2)

France3 (MFP: Multimedia France Production)“Earth Moving” with Jamy Gourmaud, thejjournalist‐presenterli
Stephen Vaughan (UK) photographer

Expedition(NanTroSEIZE
E 348)
Exp.348)

Domestic(0)

Contribution to Media (onboard interview)

Chu‐nichi Newspaper

NHK

Toyo Business

NHK Aomori branchMediaOnshore activities
A i i
Activity

IInternational/il/Domestic

Ti l
TitlesOnshoreinterview

International(2)

Australia Broadcast Science Show "Catalst”
ABC Radio、Future Tense

Domestic(10)

Science article of Nikkei newspaper“Deep‐sea”
Deep sea special booksetc.

MediaPublications covering CHIKYU

Activity

International/D
omestic

TitlesProvidingmovies andphotosInternational(9)

Discovery Channel Canada (Canada)
University California Santa Cruz (Web magazine)(USA)
Magazine Oceano (Spain)
CNRS radio (France)
Etc.

Domestic(42)g, Gakken
Picture Book for kids: Shogaku‐kan,
Text book for high school: Suken Publishing
Etc.

EventEvent

Category
Booth Exhibition

Workshop

Event

Remarks

JpGU

Exhibit IODP booth(with J‐DESC)

AGU, EGU

Providing materials

Australian Earth Science
Convention(July 2014)

Providingg Materials
Loan for JFAST core replica

AOGS (Asia Oceania)(Juliy 2014)

Exhibit booth(with J‐DESC)JFAST scientific achievement

Iwate (co‐organized by Iwate
Prefecture and JAMSTEC)
Miyagi (co‐organized by Tohoku
univ and JAMSTEC)
univ.

IODP 10th Symposium

Co‐organized by J‐DESC, JAMSTEC
and National Science Museum

Web

Web

Top pageSpecial site for IODP expedition

CHIKYU TV (Movie)

CHIKYU Hakken (magazine)

Web

Number of hits on CDEX website
Tohoku Earthquake
300000JFAST

Shimokita

250000200000150000100000

50000

Octt
Decc
Feb
b
Aprr
Jun
n
Augg
Octt
Decc
Feb
b
Aprr
Jun
n
Augg
Octt
Decc
Feb
b
Aprr
Jun
n
Augg
Octt
Decc
Feb
b
Aprr
Jun
n
Augg
Octt
Decc
Feb
b
Aprr
Jun
n
Augg
Octt
Decc
Feb
b
Aprr
Jun
n

0

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Average: 88,000
88 000 hits/month
Increasing the hits after Tohoku earthquakes and JFASTJFAST

Promotion of JFAST scientific results
Put out the information

contents

Press release byy JAMSTEC

Dec. 6,, 2013.
Press conference
Providing photos and movies

WebsiteJFAST Special website
CHIKYU TV, CHIKYU Hakken

Symposium at damaged areas
during Tohoku earthquakes

At Iwate (co‐organized by Iwate pref. and
JAMSTEC)At Miyagi (co‐organized by Tohoku univ. and
JAMSTEC)

JAMSTEC Blue Earth vol.130(By JAMSTEC)

English version may be released at AGU

Covered by the media
Promotion of understanding for general publicMediaNews report about JFAST scientific achievement

Oha‐Sta ((TV Tokyo)y )Fujij TV FNN Speakp

Fuji TV Super news

TBS Sundayy Morningg

Shizuoka Dai‐ichi TV

JR port call

JOIDES Resolution port call at Yokohama

Ship tour
Researcher
Students
Media
General Public
Interview(JAMSTEC magazineBlue Earth)

Communication
IOs and PMOs

Communication with IODP countries
Sharing information on daily basis

From USIO and ECORD
Providing materials for CDEX activities (involving JpGU)
Providing opportunity for JOIDES ship tour at Yokohama (USIO)
Information for media interviews
To USIO and ECORD
Co‐organizing port call event at Yokohama
Providing materials (involving AGU)
Internet session with JOIDES Resolution
Communication about interview,, etc.
To IODP Australia (For Australian Earth Science Convention)
Providing Materials
Loan of JFAST core replica

Education/Lecture

Education

Category
LecturePractical work

TargetRemarks

General Public(16)

Lifelong learning Etc.

Students(11)

Kamaishi high school, Hachinohe Kita highschool, Hikawa high school,
Osaka Tech. univ.
Etc.

Students(6)#Sand for Students
Yokohama HS,
HS Tagajo HS,
HS Uto HS#Deep sea sediments observation
3 elementary school (Shingu city)
JpGU event for high school students
Science event at Aso volcano museum
Yokohama Science frontier HS

Globalcommunication

Students(1)

CHIKYU ship tour Teachers and(Shimizu port
students
call)

English ship tour of JOIDES Resolution
J‐DESC, Teachers near Shimizu, Hikawa HS,
International Earth Science Olympiad Etc.

Education

Practical Works
Field Excursion (Sand for Students)

Microscope observation(Deep sea sediments)

Education

Global communication in English

Skype session with JOIDES Resolution(Jan. 2013)

Ship tour in English (Jun. 2014)

http://www.city.yokohama.lg.jp/kyoiku/sidou2/koukou/sfh/ysfhdiary/backnum201302.html

Education

Output by high school students

Presentation during study tour

Poster session for HS students

UK Science Tour 2013
Yokohama Science Frontier High School,
School Japan

Miyu Yamamoto (11th grade)
I was selected as one of members the UK Science Tour 2013 and visited The United
Kingdom to learn about the history of science and cutting‐edge research from August 26th toSeptember 2nd 2013. In this tour, I studied at The University of Oxford, The University ofCambridge, The Cavendish Laboratory, The Gurdon Institute, The Royal Greenwich Observatory,
and some world famous museums in London. At The Gurdon Institute, I made a researchpresentation in front of the researchers there, and was followed by very impressive lectures by
Sir John Gurdon: 2012 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology or Medicine and other researchers.
The subject of my presentation was “Marine Creatures’ Distribution Examined by Ooze
Samples”. The Japan Agency for Marine‐Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) offered twocore samples to our school. I collected microfossils of foraminifers from the samples and madeestimates of the ancient environment. In the question and answer session, one researcher
asked me if I had collected the samples myself. I answered, “No, these samples were offered tome by JAMSTEC. I would really like to ride on a research ship and take core samples for myresearch in the future.”

Geological Society of JapanI fulfilled my wish this year. There was a cruise for high school students called “JAMSTECHigh School” in March. I applied and was accepted as one of members. Now, I’m carrying on myresearch with the samples I took myself off Tateyama Bay on this project. I have a dream to bea scientist who is active globally. I wish to research the ocean. Thanks to a lot of supporters, mydream is coming true.

JpGU

Future plan

Future plan: AGU Fall Meeting 2014
EMERGENCYPEDESTRIAN RAMP

WOMEN

MEN
RESTROOMSWFPHONESSNACK BARKEEP CLEAR

Refini
ng

Micro
Supp

2050

2051

2150

Terra
plus,

USRA Univer
sity

2151

2350

2351

SEATINGKEEP CLEAR2352
FACILITY

Appli Bluepr
ed
int

1746

1747

1847

1946

1947

2046

2047

Nation Earth,alPlanetAsia
Oceania

Riegl
USA

PP
Syste

2338

2539

HORI
BA

GeoSI OSOP,G Ltd S.A.

Clark

2234

2235

2037

2136
2134

2135

40'

Photo
n

2239

2335

2334

2535

2743

Reser
ved

2640

2641

2740

2638

2639

2738

Reser
ved

2741
FACILITY

Ocea
n

2636

2637

Steve
ns

ARC Nature
Scien Publis

2634

2635

STORAGE

2739

2736
2737

2734

2735

20'

20'

20'

Xylem, Inc
Aanderaa /Sontek / YSI/ Waterlog

REF TEK (ADivision of
Trimble)Navigation

Reserved

1929

2029

2129

2229

2329

Onset
-

2429

20'

2631
20'

20'

20'
ThermoScientific

20'

20'
Universityof Alaska Fairbanks

20'

30'

40'

20'
Picarro, Inc.

20'

2529

2730

Pro- Intern
Seism ationa

2629

2728

ToolikField

SeaBird

2724

2831
2729

2828

20'

CUAHSI

EuropeanGeoscience

20'

The
an
Europea

20'2405

NSF Street

2615

2714

Reser Reser
ved
ved

2612

2613

2712

2610

2611

2710
2708

2509

2608
2606

AIP
Publis

2505

2821

20'

2614

Reserved

20'

OpenTopog
raphy /

20'
30'

Reserved

20'

20'
National
ScienceFoundation
Geoscience

2404

2716

Reser
ved

Reser
ved

2408

2823

Soil
Scien

2604

2607

2818

2717

2816

2819

Reser
ved

2817

Reser Reser
ved
ved

Reser
ved

2715

2814

2815

2713

2812

2813

Reser
ved

2811
2809

Reser
ved

2706

Reser Agilen
ved
t

2605

2719

2704

2707

2806

UMS

2305

2511

2825

2802

2805

2800

2803

Reser
ved

2807
Reser
ved

20'

2304

2510

LacCo
re/CS

2616

20'

Geom
etrics

2306

2205

20'

Geop
hysic

2207

Rober
Iris
tson Instru

2105

2411

2513

20'

2310

2412

2519

20'

2313

Oyo
Corporation

20'

Environmen
tal Systems
Research
Institute,

2005

UNAVCO,
Inc.

UMIAQ

20'

2211

20'

Japan
Geoscience
Union

1905

20'

20'

AmericanMeteorologi

2414

USGIN ECOR
D/IOD

2309
20'

30'

30'

2515

2315

Los Gatos
Research

1805

2514

2314

SEPM
Societ2210

Consortium for
Ocean Leadership

20'

IKON Mining&
Exploration

20'

LI-COR
Biosciences

1705

2111

Reser Reser
ved
ved

2617

National

NCRNational

2110

Intergr Union
ated
of

AURA
Natio

20'

30'

20'

40'

20'

ASC
Scient

2718

2517

2416

Earth
Cube

2213

2619

Kochi
Core

Eleme
ntal

2317

The
Geolo

2618

2516

Zoom
Digital

2316

2215

2720

Rigak
g
u

2417

Natio
nal

ACS Reser
Public ved

2214

2621

NSF
AntarcRefreshment

2722

2418

2319

2217
Kong
sberg

Critical Zone

2521

20'

2011

2012

2318

2623

Radio
carbo

20'

2112

1913

2219

2622

2420

20'

SIAMSociet

2218

2523

The Europ
Arctic
ean

Stock
holm

UCAR
Community

2114

2423

2625

2321

Lawrence
Berkeley

2015

2422

Space Earth
Scien Scope

20'

Avent
ech

2119

2323

20'
IRIS
Consortium

National
Ecological

LatitudeeEngineerrin

ESRP Coper
C&
nicus

20'

2116

Apog
ee

20'

2017

Kipp &
Zonen USA

20'

InterM Scinte
et
c

2016

Micro-gScintrex

Mount Senso
Sopris rs &

1917

20'

20'

1912

2118

Campbell
Scientific,

1813

2019

20'

2223

GeologicalSociety

Elsevier

20'

30'

1713

Met
One

20'

2222

Reserved

Gems &
Crystals

1916

20'

Cambridge
University

1817

HuksefluxU
SA, Inc.

20'
Decagon
Devices, Inc

Dropl
et

Korea
Institute ofMicrosoft
Research

20'

2123

1921

2827

20'
Nanometrics

Deltares
s

2023

20'

30'

20'

1823

20'

20'
Kinemetrics,
Inc.

30'

20'

2829
Centerfor

HALL C
20'

30'

30'

Komodo2642

Taylor
&

2541

Natio
nal

2238

Nature’s
Own

1721

1714

1704

2543
50'

NASA

2340

Ecote
ch Pty2139

2036

Refreshment
2644

Rod Eleme
Griffin ntar

2342

Seism GEM
ologic Advan

2241

2240

On
The

2035

1729

University of

Springer

POSTERS

Beta
Analytic Inc

2243
Nation Ameri
al
can

2141

2140

2545

20'

1718

1712

2646

Saville
x

Wiley

2G
EnterpPrince
ton

2547

Essex
Indust2544

2138

AGU Marketplace

20'
Google,Inc.

Isotopx Inc.

2546

2039

To Posters

1716

Dyna
max,

2445

Institu ZongetIntern2142

Scien MALA
ce/AA Geosc

2041

Instru gemp
menta
a

DOSE
CC

1720

2447

Natio
nal

2444

IOP
Publis

50'

1732

1728

2446

Society of
Exploration

1734

1937

2345

2038

20'

Assoc
iation2344

Aerodyne
Research,

1736

2245

Unive
rsity

National
Academies

Scripp
s

2043

20'

GuralpSystems

20'

1941

1839

AAAS Colleg
Scien
e of

2042

Renis
haw

Research In
Germany

Refreshment

1738

Refreshment

2144

Reser
ved

Reserved

1943
20'

Geosp
ace

1740

2146

Turne
RM
r
YOUN

2045

Spect Diana
ral
March

20'

Geote
ch

1742

Sequo
ia

Reser
ved

2044

Johns
Hopkins

1945

Colu
mbia

20'

Little
River

1944

20'

1845

20'

KMS GWR
Techn Instru

1844

20'

1846

GNS Jewell
Scien Instru

1745

20'

Mathw
orks

1744

20
0'

Reso
non,

Reserved
R

Real
World

OxfordUnniversity

SERD
P/

20
0'

Gasm
et

20
0'

Planet Reser
ary
ved

Ocean
Networks

STORAGE

CAME
CA

2701

2801

ENTRANCE

Purdu Scho* e* ol of

Unive
rsity

3101

3100
*

Texas
A&M

3200

3103

*

3102

*

*

*

*

*

*

3105

3104

3107
3109

3301

3300

*

Texas
Tech

3204

3303
STAN
FORD
*

SOUTH LOBBYBusiness
CenterReser
ved

EarthLife

3201

Virgini Reser*a Tech * ved

TO UPPER

3206

Unive
rsity

3205
*

3208

3207
*

3210

3209

3211

3213

3215

3302

3305

3304

3307

3306

3309

* LAST IN, FIRST OUT

ACADEMIC SHOWCASE

*

3112

*

3114

*

*

*

3212

3214

3216

3311
3308

ブース№
JAMSTEC ：2510（2ブース）
⾼知コア：2514（1ブース）

3313

JAMSTEC BoothMediaOnboard filming plan during expedition

CHIKYU’s situation

Recommendation# Drilling ship has a lot of rules # Period as short as possible
to keep safety.
# Cl
Clear objectives
bj ti
and
d filming
fil i# Drilling works during
placesexpedition is sensitive andhave a lot of risks.
# Understanding theuncertainly for the filming plan
# POB is usually almost full
during Scientists’ onboard# Making a filming plan
period.
i dcarefully.
f ll
There are more chances to film at drill floor during port call thanthat of expedition.

CIB Six Leading Scientists
Gaku Kimura(Chair) 2 years

Yoshiyuki Tatsumi 2 years

Hodaka Kawahata

The University of Tokyo,
Japan

Kobe university, JapanThe University of Tokyo,
Japan

Kenneth H. Nealson 2 years

J. Casey Moore

Heinrich Villinger

University of Southern
California, USA

University of California,
Santa Cruz, USA

University of Bremen,
GermanySix CIB Scientific Member Selection• Selection Committee– Members are p
pointed byy JAMSTEC President– 3~5 people from IODP member countries– Basically e‐basee base (electrical) meeting• Call for nomination through PMOs, web,advertisement on journals and/or news letters