#6

CHIKYUIODPBOARDMEETING
19-20 March, 2018
Kobe, Japan

Agenda book Ver.2.0

#6 CIB Meeting Agenda Book ver.2 revision summary
as of 16 March 2018

Agenda Item

Sub Item

Action taken

Material

2

Revision

List of Participants2

Insertion

Wireless LAN connection information

3

Revision

Draft Agenda ver.1.5

6

Insertion

CIB message to Riser proposal lead proponents

7eInsertion

MEXT Report9aRevision

Overall Chikyu Operation11aInsertion

Proposal 866-Full2_Strasser cover sheet

Revision

Safety Review Committee Update

Revision

Main Points of JFY2017 Review

15
16

a

Agenda Item 1
Welcome Remarks

Agenda Item 2
Introductions and Logistics
Welcome and meeting logistics
1）Meeting Logistics
2）List of Participants3）Emergency Escape RouteChikyu IODP Board #6 Meeting Logistics
19-20 March 2018
Kobe, JAPANMEETING DATES & TIMES:
Monday, 19 March
09:00 - 17:30
Tuesday, 20 March
09:00 - 17:30
MEETING LOCATION: Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) will be held at the
Takigawa Memorial Hall, Rokkodai Campus, Kobe University
Access: http://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/en/campuslife/campus_guide/campus/rokkodai2.html
SOCIAL EVENT:
1) Field Trip:
2) Ice breaker:
3) Reception:*Details to be announced later.
Sunday, 18 March 08:30- : Nojima Fault Preservation Museum
Sunday, 18 March 19:00-21:00: TBD
Not an official event
Monday, 19 March 18:30-20:30: ANA CROWNE PLAZA KOBE
Lavender (9th floor of the Hotel)
http://www.anacrowneplaza-kobe.jp/en/banquet/space/medium/
Free of charge

RECOMMENDED HOTEL AND LODGING RESERVATIONS(Important Deadline Information):
There is a block of rooms at “ANA CROWNE PLAZA KOBE” at a rate of ¥15,120 per night for 18, 19,
21 March, and ¥23,760 per night for 17, 20 March. Please send your hotel reservation form via email to CDEX office by no later than 15 January 2018.
E-mail: cib-reservation@jamstec.go.jp
ANA CROWNE PLAZA KOBE
Address: 1-Chome, Kitano-cho Chuo-ku Kobe, 650-0002 JAPAN
Phone: +81 78 291 1121, Hotel Fax: +81 78 291 1154
Website: http://www.anacrowneplaza-kobe.jp/en/
For those who are staying at other hotels, please forward the name of your hotel and your checkin/check-out dates to cib-reservation@jamstec.go.jp
ACCESS TO & FROM THE VENUE:
Our Staff will escort you from the hotel to the meeting venue by shuttle bus (about 30minutes trip)
during the meeting. Please meet at the hotel lobby at 8:15.

TRAVEL INFORMATION●From Kansai/Osaka/Kobe
airport, see Appendix 1●From Narita/Haneda, see
Appendix 2 and 3

Appendix 1
From KIX/Osaka/Kobe Airport to ANA CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL KOBE①

Kansai International Airport(KIX)High Speed Ferry& Monorail

AirportLimousine Bus

approx. 30min
¥1850

②

③

Osaka International Airport

Kobe Airport

AirportLimousine Bus

approx. 65min¥1950(normal traffic)
approx. 40min¥1050(normal traffic)

approx. 18min¥330④

Sannomiya Station
SubwayTaxi

approx. 2min
¥210
(one stop)

approx. 10min¥1,000(normal traffic)

Shin-Kobe Station / ANA CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL KOBE
①From Kansai International Airport (KIX)
Airport Limousine Bus
Approximately 65 minutes from Kansai International Airport to Sannomiya (Fare: 1950 yen)High Speed Ferry (Bay Shuttle)
Approximately 30 minutes from Kansai International Airport to the Kobe Airport Kaijyo
Access Terminal (Fare: 1850 yen, please note that if you show your passport at the counter,it will be discounted for 1000 yen.)
For more information, please check the following website.
http://www.kobe-access.jp/en/half/index.html
Port Liner (Monorail)
Approximately 18 minutes from Kobe Airport to Sannomiya station (Fare: 330 yen)
http://www.kairport.co.jp/eng/access/port.html

Appendix 1
From KIX/Osaka/Kobe Airport to ANA CROWN PLAZA HOTEL KOBE
② From Kobe Airport
Port Liner (Monorail)
Approximately 18 minutes from Kobe Airport to Sannomiya station (Fare: 330 yen)
http://www.kairport.co.jp/eng/access/port.html③ From Osaka International Airport
Airport Limousine Bus
Approximately 40 minutes from Osaka International Airport to Sannomiya (Fare: 1050 yen)
For more information, please check the following website.
http://www.okkbus.co.jp/en/④ From Sannomiya Station to the Hotel
SubwayTake the Kobe city subway to Shin-Kobe station. Approximately 2 minutes from Sannomiya
Station (one stop away).
For more information, please check the following website.
http://www.kobe-access.jp/en/half/index.html
Taxi
Approximately 10 minutes from the Sannnomiya station taxi stand to the hotel .
(Fare: about 1000 yen)Appendix 2
From Narita/Haneda to ANA CROWN PLAZA HOTEL KOBE⑤

Narita Airport (NRT)

Airport Limousine Bus
http://www.limousinebus.co.jp/en/

Narita Express (NEX)⑥

Haneda Airport (HND)
Approx. 90 min; 3,190 Yen

Approx. 105 min; 3,100 Yen

Keikyu Line

Approx. 15 min; 410 Yen

Shinagawa Station
http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/stations/e788.html

Nozomi Shinkansen
Approx. 3 hours; 15,100 Yen(reserved seat)

Shin-Kobe Station⑦

Approx. 3 min walk

ANA CROWNE PLAZA KOBE
⑤ From Narita Airport: take the Narita Express (NEX) or Limousine bus to Shinagawa station.
At Shinagawa Station, follow the signs to the JR bullet train (Shinkansen) gate and buy "Nozomi”
tickets for Shin-Kobe station (reserved seats cost additional 5,810 Yen).
http://www.limousinebus.co.jp/en/⑥ From Haneda Airport: take the Keikyu Line to Shinagawa Station. At Shinagawa Station takethe Shinkansen and get off at Shin-Kobe station.

⑦ From Shin-Kobe Station: walk straight to the end of the concourse from the exit and crossthe connecting bridge on the left.

Appendix 3
From Narita/Haneda to KIX/Osaka/Kobe Airport

Narita Airport(NRT)

AirportLimousine Bus
approx. 65～85 hour
¥3,100(normal traffic)

approx. 90min

Haneda Airport(HND)
approx. 100min
approx. 70min

approx. 75minapprox. 85min

Osaka Airport
Kansai International Airport(KIX)

Go to Appendix1 ①

Kobe Airport

Go toAppendix1 ③
Go to
Appendix ②

#6 Chikyu IODP Board Meeting
List of participants

MemberInstitution

Keir

BeckerUniversity of Miami, USA

GilbertCamoinECORD Managing Agency (EMA), CEREGE, France

BenoitIldefonse

University of Montpellier, France

Hiroshi

Kitazato

Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Japan

Shin'ichi

Kuramoto

Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Jim

Mori

Kyoto University, Japan

Tatsuya

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan

Yoshiyuki

Watanabe
TatsumiBen

van der Pluijm

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor, USA

Liaisons

CIB Chair - Kobe University, Japan
Institution

James

AustinIODP Forum chair - University of Texas, Austin, USA

Brad

Clement*

JR Science Operator (JRSO), USA

Bob

Gatliff*

ECORD Science Operator (ESO), British Geological Survey, UK

Holly

Given*IODP Science Support Office - Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA

Sean

Gulick*SEP Co-chair - East Carolina University, USA

TsuyoshiIshikawa

Kochi Core Center (KCC) - JAMSTEC, Japan

Barry

Katz*

EPSP Chair - Chevron Corporation, Houston, TX, USA

Anthony

Koppers

JR Facility Board Chair - Oregon State University, USA

GillesLericolais*

ECORD Facility Board Chair - IFREMER, France

KenMillerSEP Co-chair - Rutgers University, USA

SallyMorganECORD Science Operator-University of Leicester-,UK

Observers

Institution

Naokazu

AhagonKochi Core Center (KCC) - JAMSTEC, Japan

Jamie

Allan

National Science Foundation, USA

LeanneArmandAustralian and New Zealand International Ocean Discovery Program Consortium(ANZIC), Australia

WataruAzuma

JAMSTEC, Japan

Akiko

Fuse

Marine Works Japan, Ltd.

Lallan

Gupta

Kochi Core Center (KCC) - JAMSTEC, Japan

NadineHallmann

ECORD Managing Agency (EMA), CEREGE, France

Gaku

KimuraJapan Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J-DESC) - Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Japan

Shota

Kobayashi

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan

Harue

MasudaJapan Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J-DESC) - Osaka City University, Japan

AntonyMorrisESSAC, University of Plymouth, UK

ShigemiNaganawa

Akita University, Japan

Sho

Nan

Kochi Core Center (KCC) - JAMSTEC, Japan

Mika

Saido

Marine Works Japan, Ltd.

KiyoshiSuyehiro

JAMSTEC, Japan

Yasu

YamadaJAMSTEC, Japan

Michiko

Yamamoto

IODP Science Support Office - Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA

Greg

YaxleyAustralian and New Zealand International Ocean Discovery Program Consortium(ANZIC), Australia

HiroshiYonezawa

Mantle Quest Japan Company Ltd., Director and General Manager, Marine Operations Dept.Japan

JAMSTEC

Institution

ChihiroBaba

Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Yumi

EbashiCenter for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Nobuhisa

EguchiCenter for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Nori

Kyo

Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Kazuhiro

Maeda

Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Eigo

MiyazakiCenter for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Toshimune

Nakamura

Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Tomohisa

NawateCenter for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Yoshinori

SanadaCenter for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Tomokazu

SaruhashiCenter for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Ikuo

SawadaCenter for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Kae

TakahashiCenter for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Sean

ToczkoCenter for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Takehiko

Yano

Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

non-attendance*Location and Emergency Escape Route of #6 CIB

Takigawa Memorial Hall

Emergency Escape RouteFire extinguisher
Escape route
Entrance and Hale

Women

ToiletMenz
Cafeteria

Terrace

1st Floor

Emergency Escape RouteFire extinguisher
Escape route

Roof

Stairwell
ToiletWomen

Terrace

Exit

Exit

Conference Room

Men
Store

2nd Floor

How to use Wireless LAN
in Takigawa Memorial Hall, Kobe University
1.

Connect to Wireless LAN on your PC.

2.

Select SSID “KUVISITOR” if there are
Kobe Univ. networks on your PC.

3. Enter Pre-Shared Key “KUVISITORWLAN”.
4. Launch a web browser and enter USERNAME
and PASSWORD as web authentication ID/PW.
USERNAME: cib2018
PASSWORD: jeiy5644
5. Click Log In.

You will be connected to the Internet after you are done above.

Agenda Item 3
Approval of Agenda

Chikyu IODP Board #6 meeting
19 – 20 March 2018
Kobe University Takigawa Memorial Hall
Draft Agenda ver. 1.5

Day-1

Monday, 19 March 2018

0900-0905

1. Welcome Remarks(Kuramoto)

0905-0915

2. Introductions and Logistics(Maeda)0915-0920

3. Approval of Agenda(Tatsumi)

0920-0930

4. Approval of Last Meeting Minutes(Tatsumi)

0930-0940

5. CIB Decisions since Last Meeting(Tatsumi)

0940-0950

6. CIB Action Item Status(Tatsumi)

Coffee Break1015-1215

7. Other FB, IODP Forum, and Agency Activities
a. IODP Forumb. JR Facility Board
c. ECORD Facility Board
d. ECORD
e. MEXT
f. NSFg. ANZIC
h. PMOs(Austin)(Koppers)(Camoin)(Camoin)(Watanabe)(Allan)(Armand)

USSSP(Brenner)

LUNCH

1315-1400

8. JR Advisory Panels Report/Proposal Overview
a. Science Support Officeb. Science Evaluation Panel

1400-1530(Yamamoto)(Miller)

9. Chikyu Operation/Status Update(CDEX)

a. Overall Chikyu Operationb. NanTroSEIZE
PCT report
IODP Exp. 380 Results
Core-Log-Seismic-Integration (CLSI)@Sea Program Results
IODP Exp. 358 Planningc. Lord Howe Rise ProjectCurrent Status
PCT Report

Coffee Break
1600-1700

10. TAT Report1830-

Reception(Becker)1Day-20900-1000

Tuesday, 20 March 2018
11. Chikyu Proposals (update and discussion)(Miller/Tatsumi)a. Potential Chikyu Proposals at CIB and SEP
b. Workshop Proposal

1000-1100

12. Long Term Strategy for Future Chikyu Implementation
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

(All)

Chikyu Riser proposals
Collaboration with JRSO (TDCS)
Collaboration with ESO? (Proposal 866)
CDEX M2M Task Force Team
Education/Research Program onboard Chikyu

Coffee Break
1130-1200

13. Chikyu Outreach Activities(CDEX)

LUNCH

1300-1320

14. KCC Report(Ishikawa)

1320-1340

15. Safety Review Committee Update(Naganawa)

1340-1540

16. Chikyu/IODP Performance Review(All)a. JFY2017 Review
b. Current Mid-term (JFY2014 – 2018) Review Introduction

Coffee Break
1600-1615

17. Review of Consensus Statements and Action Items

1615-1630

18. Next CIB meeting

1630-1700

19. Any Other Business
Adjourn meeting2

Agenda Item 4
Approval of Last Meeting Minutes

NameMembers
Keir
BeckerGilbertCamoinBenoîtIldefonse
Hiroshi
Kitazato
Shin'ichi
Kuramoto
James J.
Mori
Eisho
Sato
Yoshiyuki
TatsumiBen A.
Van der Pluijm
Liaisons
James
AustinBrad
Clements
RobertGatliff*
Holly
Given
Sean
Gulick*TsuyoshiIshikawa
Barry
Katz*
Anthony
Koppers*
GillesLericolais*
KenMiller*Jin-OhPark
Observers
Naokazu
Ahagon
Jamie
Allan
Carl
Brenner*
Se wonChang*
KazumaDoi*
Akito
Furutani
Akiko
Fuse
LallanGupta
NadineHallmannAndrew
Heap
Satoshi
Hirano*Fumio
Inagaki*ThomasJanecek*
Gil Young
Kim*
Gaku
KimuraYoung Joo
Lee*
TakeshiMaki*
Sidney L. M.
Mello*
ShigemiNaganawa
HiroshiNishi
Yoko
Okamoto*Dhananjai K. Pandey*
Mika
Saido
Yasuji
Saito*
Toshikatsu
Sugawara*
KazuhiroSugiyama*
KiyoshiSuyehiro
Shouting
Tuo
Yasu
YamadaMichiko
Yamamoto
AsahikoTaira*
WataruAzuma
ChihiroBaba
Yumi
EbashiNobuhisa
Eguchi
Yusuke
Kubo*
Nori
Kyo
ShigemiMatsudaEigo
MiyazakiTaiseiNakamura*
Noriaki
Sakurai
Ryoko
Sato*
Ikuo
SawadaSean
ToczkoKazuyasu
Wada*
Takehiko
Yano
non-attendance*

Institution
TAT chair - University of Miami, USA
ECORD Managing Agency (EMA), CEREGE, France
University of Montpellier
Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology,Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Kyoto University, Japan
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), JapanCIB Chair - Kobe University, Japan
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor, USA
IODP Forum chair - University of Texas, Austin, USA
JR Science Operator (JRSO), USA
ECORD Science Operator (ESO), British Geological Survey, UK
IODP Science Support Office - Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA
SEP Co-chair - East Carolina University, USA
Kochi Core Center (KCC) - JAMSTEC, JapanEPSP Chair - Chevron Corporation, Houston, TX, USA
JR Facility Board Chair - Oregon State University, USA
ECORD Facility Board Chair - IFREMER, France
SEP Co-chair - Rutgers University, USA
University of Tokyo, Japan

Kochi Core Center (KCC) - JAMSTEC, Japan
National Science Foundation, USA
USSSP, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, USA
Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), Korea
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
Mantle Quest Japan Company Ltd.
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
Kochi Core Center (KCC) - JAMSTEC, JapanECORD Managing Agency (EMA), CEREGE, France
Geoscience Australia, Australia
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
ECORD FB, Kochi Core Center (KCC) - JAMSTEC, Japan
National Science Foundation, USA
K-IODP, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), Korea
Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J-DESC) - Tokyo University of Marine Science and Techn
Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM), Korea
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
IODP-Capes/Brazil Office, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brazil
The University of Tokyo, Japan
Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J-DESC) - Tohoku University, Japan
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
IODP-India, National Centre for Antarctic & Ocean Research
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
Committee for Earth Drilling Science,Japan
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
JAMSTEC, Japan
IODP-China Office, Tongji University, China
JAMSTEC, Japan
IODP Science Support Office - Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA
President of JAMSTEC, Japan
JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Chikyu IODP Board meeting #5
15 - 16 March 2017

Takigawa Memorial Hall
Kobe University
Executive Summary (List of Consensus Items)

3. Approval of Agenda
CIB_Consensus_0317-01: Approve agenda.
The CIB approved the #5 meeting agenda as is.
4. Approval of Last Meeting Minutes
CIB_Consensus_0317-02: Approve minutes.
The CIB approved the last meeting’s minutes without modification.
9. Chikyu Operation/Status Update
CIB_Consensus_0317-03: CIB liaison to NanTroSEIZE PCT.
The CIB selected Keir Becker to participate in the May 2017 NanTroSEIZE PCT
meeting as a CIB liaison.
13. Chikyu Proposals
CIB_Consensus_0317-04: IODP Exp. 380.
The CIB endorsed IODP Proposal 603D, NanTroSEIZE shallow riserless LTBMS, for
Chikyu IODP Exp. 380 that will be scheduled in October - December 2017.
CIB_Consensus_0317-05: WS/Field work at Sea.
The CIB encourages the presented ambitious plan of workshop/field work at sea
during Exp. 380; the call for application should not solicit only graduate students but
should also be open to post-doc, young, and early career scientists.
CIB_Consensus_0317_06: Deepening C0002 Riser Hole.
The CIB endorsed IODP Proposal 603, NanTroSEIZE Deep riser drilling at Site
C0002 for Chikyu IODP operations to be scheduled in the Nov. 2018 - Mar. 2019 time
window. C0002 operations include logging the deep accretionary prism, sampling thehanging wall, and installing a borehole observatory to measure strain and stress near
the plate boundary and observe fluid properties of the Nankai plate boundary. The
CIB recognized that deepening the current borehole C0002 to about 1000 m below its
current depth will significantly improve the observations in the hanging-wall of theplate boundary. The observatory will be installed in a higher velocity unit as indicatedby recent re-processing of 3D seismic data, and a monitoring location closer to theplate boundary fault will enable more sensitive measurements.
CIB_Consensus_0317_07: LHR Project.
The CIB designates IODP Proposal 871-CPP “Lord Howe Rise Continental Ribbon”
as a “Chikyu Project”.

CIB_Consensus_0317_08: LHR Project Coordination Team.
The CIB creates a Project Coordination Team (PCT) for the LHR project. Membershipwill be;Science Representatives (italics are alternate member):Lead Proponent: Ron Hackney (GA),
Earth theme: Yasu Yamada (JAMSTEC) & Sanny Saito (JAMSTEC),
Oceans/Climate theme: Kliti Grice (Curtin Univ., Perth) & Junichiro Kuroda (Univ.
Tokyo),
Life theme: Marco Coolen (Curtin Univ., Perth) & Fumio Inagaki (JAMSTEC)
Additional GA representatives:
Andrew Heap
Jessica Gurney
CDEX representatives:
Kan Aoike
Nobu Eguchi
Tomo Saruhashi
Take Yano
14. Long Term Strategy for Future Chikyu Implementation
CIB_Consensus_0317_09: Proposal update.
The CIB will ask proponents of three riser proposals (CRISP (537), IBM (698), andHikurangi (781)) to submit updates to the CIB by 1 October 2018 based on new
results and drilling operations for further assessment of those proposals at the CIB.
The CIB will contact the JRFB chair and the SEP co-chairs for potential involvementin this process.
CIB_Consensus_0317_10: Call for new riser pre-proposals.
The CIB recommends a change in the next IODP call for proposals. Currently, only
CPP’s are being considered as new riser proposals. To encourage exciting new riser
projects for current and future IODP consideration, pre-proposals for new projects will
be solicited. At its 2018 meeting, the CIB will resume its evaluation of any riser
pre-proposals forwarded to it by the SEP.
CIB_Consensus_0317_11: Scheduling Lord Howe Rise Project.
The CIB applauds the efforts of the proponents of IODP Proposal 871-CPP Lord
Howe Rise to obtain CPP funding for the project. The CIB recommends this riser
operation be scheduled during the available time window in 2020, on condition thatfunding is available. This window will not be automatically extended without CIB
discussion. The LHR PCT will work to ensure that the 2020 IODP window is met.
16. Chikyu/IODP Performance Review
CIB_Consensus_0317-12: Chikyu/IODP Operation.
Based on Chikyu operation/Status Update (Agenda item 9) and TAT Report (Agenda
item 10), the CIB commends the great operational successes of the Chikyu inriserless mode during IODP Expeditions 365 and 370. The CIB also applauds the
CDEX engineering and operational developments, especially development of “highcurrent drill pipe support system” for safe and efficient onboard work. The CIB
recognized that CDEX was well prepared for each IODP expedition and the CIB
encourages CDEX to maintain the same level of effort for future expedition planning.
CIB_Consensus_0317-13: Fund Raising/Saving.
The CIB commends the success of Chikyu IODP operations not only for basic
science but also for disaster mitigation. To conduct further high-impact IODP
expeditions, the CIB endorses CDEX for continued effort towards fund raising as wellas cost savings for Chikyu IODP operations. The CIB recommends CDEX to consider
those newly developed engineering equipment as a venue for raising funds fromindustries. Although the CIB is pleased with cost savings in creating a more flexible
operation budget, the CIB expressed some concerns whether too much cost savingsin the current five-year phase might negatively affect Chikyu maintenance andtherefore readiness and preparedness of Chikyu beyond JFY2018.
CIB_Consensus_0317-14: Education & Outreach.
The CIB praises CDEX’s education and outreach efforts, including several expedition
video products for international audiences as well as the inaugural international
Chikyu onboard school. The CIB recommends that CDEX decouples education andoutreach activities, and endorses CDEX to consider future education opportunities foryoung and early career scientists.
CIB_Consensus_0317-15: Long Range Plan.
The CIB was pleased to schedule one riserless expedition (Exp. 380), one riser
expedition (Exp. 358), and one potential riser CPP expedition at this meeting. The
CIB understands that the final scheduling of IODP expeditions ultimately depends on
JAMSTEC budgets; however, the CIB strongly encourages CDEX to ensure Chikyu
continues to operate for excellent science.
18. Next CIB meeting
CIB_Consensus_0317_16: Next meeting.
The CIB decided the next meeting will be held on 19 – 20 March 2018 in Kobe,
Japan.
19. Any Other Business
CIB_Consensus_0317_17: Extension of Chair term.
The CIB recommends a 2-year term extension of the current CIB chairperson be
granted.
CIB_Consensus_0317-18: Proposal 898-Pre workshop proposal.
The CIB learned that the IODP Proposal 898-Pre “Fore Arc Mohole-to-Mantle”
proponent team is planning to hold a workshop in October 2018. The CIB reviewed
898-Pre, and decided to invite a “Full-proposal development workshop” proposal witha submission deadline of 16 February 2018.

Chikyu IODP Board #5 meeting
15–16 March 2017
Takigawa Memorial Hall
Kobe University
Draft minutes ver. 1.1
Day-1
Wednesday, 15 March 2017
Agenda Items
1. Welcome Remarks(Shin’ichi Kuramoto)(09:00 h.)
Shin'ichi Kuramoto (CDEX) welcomed the CIB members, liaisons, and observers,
appreciating, first of all, Chair Yoshiyuki Tatsumi, for providing a nice venue for thefifth CIB meeting, and for the nice weather. He welcomed new CIB members
Hiroshi Kitazato, Keir Becker, and Benoit Ildefonse. In addition, Kuramoto briefly
mentioned the main task of the CIB—to discuss Chikyu future operations in
specific and report to the president of JAMSTEC, and discussed the schedule ofthis two-day meeting. Kuramoto ended his opening remarks thanking theattendees.
2. Introduction and Logistics(Shigemi Matsuda)(09:02 h.)
The Chair moved on to Agenda Item #2, Introduction and Logistics. Shigemi
Matsuda briefly explained the meeting location and emergency escape route to
the participants, and provided a small tip in case of Earthquake (follow the greensign).
Participants self-introduction started at 09:05 h.
3. Approval of Agenda(Chair - Tatsumi)(09:09 h.)
The Chair shared the present agenda with the group, including a new discussion
item for the CIB, the Chikyu performance review. The agenda was approved withno major changes. The Chair asked if there were any conflict of interests (COIs)
1

related to this agenda, and Andrew Heap identified himself as potentiallyconflicted over the next day’s Lord Howe Rise (Proposal 871) discussion. The
Chair said Andrew Heap may need to recuse himself. Jim Mori also identified
himself as conflicted, as he is a proponent for JTRACK (Proposal 835). Chair
Tatsumi said he is potentially conflicted over IBM (Proposal 698). Further potential
COIs included: Yoshi Kawamura and Yasu Yamada for LHR (Proposal 871), andGaku Kimura for NanTroSEIZE (Proposal 603).
CIB_Consensus_0317-01: Approve agenda.
The CIB approved the #5 meeting agenda as is.
4. Approval of Last Meeting Minutes(Chair - Tatsumi)(09:14 h.)
The Chair asked if there were any comments or questions about the last meeting’s
minutes. There were none.
CIB_Consensus_0317-02: Approve minutes.
The CIB approved the last meeting’s minutes without modification.
5. CIB Decisions since Last Meeting(Chair - Tatsumi)(09:16 h.)
Chair Tatsumi asked Nobu Eguchi to cover CIB activities since the last meeting inKobe. Eguchi described the video conference between CDEX and CIB members
deciding the next IODP operation to endorse for the 2017 window. The 16 Feb
2017 discussion focused on two possible projects, the 603D NanTroSEIZE
shallow riserless LTBMS, and the 835 JTRACK project. Considering the budget
and time available for IODP operations, the consensus was that the NanTroSEIZELTBMS proposal should be endorsed. Holly Givens asked if the meeting format
was conducive to a good discussion, which Benoit Iledefonse responded wasadequate, but could be improved; “still, it was much better than using email”.

6. CIB Action Item Status(Chair - Tatsumi)(09:25 h.)
Chair Tatsumi moved on to discuss the CIB action items. Eguchi showed the list,
two action items, CIB comments on ADP proposal implementation guidelines (CIB
action item 0316-01), and to inform SEP regarding alternate sites for Proposal
865; Nankai Trough T-Limits (CIB action item 0316-02) were already finished.
CDEX will also report on fund-raising efforts (CIB action item 0316-03), to be2

discussed by Kuramoto. Kuramoto began by describing CDEX’s efforts to landcommercial drilling contracts and cut costs for repair and maintenance of Chikyu.
An important national gas hydrates effort will hire Chikyu for work, so this will help.
Kuramoto will share details later during this meeting.
Eguchi noted that there are two action items (CIB action item 0316-04 and -05)
related to riser projects remaining and to be discussed under Agenda Item 13 at
this CIB meeting. Mori asked if he should speak, but it was decided to wait until
tomorrow.

7. Other FB, IODP Forum, and Agency Activities
a. IODP Forum(James Austin)(09:29 h.)Austin began by introducing the purpose of the forum, and discussed the meaningof the term, “forum”, which is a big open space for discussion and collaboration.
Austin said that this is what the IODP Forum is; there have been three meetings
so far, to discuss IODP as a program, and it seems to be working; from science,education and outreach, to future planning. Austin stressed the need to be
responsive to the community of proposal writers, otherwise, we will not be
successful. Austin said posting on websites doesn’t mean we are responding to
the community, and a look around this room shows everyone that we are notmaking a good enough effort reaching out to young scientists. Austin said if IODP
doesn’t reach out in an effective way to young generation scientists, IODP will notteach them what we are doing, they will not write proposals, and IODP will befinished. Austin stated that the forum looks at the platform providers and examines
the science they are supporting; we are lucky that the new science plan, written by
about 600 scientists several years ago is a great one, and is still very much valid.
The Forum worked on making a good appearance at the International Geological
Congress in South Africa, Austin said that Becker, Gilbert Camoin, Yoshi Tatsumi,
and himself worked on developing multiple IODP sessions (and a joint IODP-ICDP
booth) for that meeting. Austin said the geoscience meeting in South Africa wasused as a venue to find new members – no African nation has ever been an IODP
member – and were able to get a tour of the new DeBeers marine research
vessel. The hope was to connect to, and open communication with, the South
African and Namibian scientific community. Austin mentioned that he’s in touchwith Anglo-African; their only profitable unit is in diamonds, and they are not in a3

position to be intermediates between IODP and either Namibia or South Africa.
Austin predicts, however, that as JR nears the Atlantic, interest will increase. He
mentioned that DeBeers could potentially be an industry partner, looking at the 3D
structure of diamond deposits, and JR could be involved.
Austin mentioned the need for inter-PMO communication, and that Carl Brenner,of USSSP, headed a PMO meeting after the last IODP Forum meeting in Brazil.
This was very successful, and may become a regular event. Austin stressed that
outreach and education are important, but separate, activities, and each PMO andoperator have their own way of approaching these – cooperation in this isessential.
Austin discussed the SEPs’ approach to the Forum in 2015, regarding the state ofseismic data being submitted to IODP. There has always been an issue with thequality and costs of seismic data, and the Forum told the SEP that they would
examine the issue in Brazil; a follow-up meeting in November submitted a white
paper to NSF. A new group, the Marine Seismic Research Oversight Committee,
has been formed with international experts to discuss better funding, efficientscheduling, proposals, and collaboration.
Austin briefly introduced each community and their current state of activity (Brazil,
China, Japan, India). Brazil is a new member, financially supporting the current
JRSO-IODP phase with 3M USD/year for three years. China is excited aboutbecoming a new IODP platform provider, and has been talking about building a
new drilling vessel. Austin shared that there would be an associated PMO meetingat the next forum meeting, 11–13 September 2017, in Shanghai. He would likepeople from the CIB to attend. India has invited the Forum to meet in Goa in
September 2018.
Jamie Allan asked about the details under discussion for the workshop and forum
to be hosted in Japan in 2019. Austin replied that since he will not be forum chairat the time he does not have any updates. Hiroshi Kitazato suggested that a
Vancouver, Canada meeting would be a good opportunity to communicate withyoung scientists. Austin asked that the dates be shared with him, and alsomentioned the “Denver II” meeting which will focus on younger scientists and also
be held at the end of September.
The Chair called a coffee break at 09:51 hrs, and the meeting reconvened at4

10:10 hrs.
b. JR Facility board(Jamie Allan)(10:12 h.)Jamie Allan presented the JRFB update on behalf of Anthony Koppers, who wasabsent. After Allan introduced the new JR schedule for FY17–19, he mentionedthat JR was now ensured to operate on a 10-month schedule, even if the budget
gets cut a bit, because there were several CPPs, JR costs were less thanplanned, and they received a little more funding from the US Congress than what
was in the present budget. Allan mentioned that JR was required to undergocertified dock work in FY18. He also said that there is an interesting opportunity toprovide JR with some work outside of IODP during the transit between the South
Pacific and Chile. Allan said that the new science program of the JR is a success,since the ship was not only used on a regional basis much more, instead of sailingto port calls all over the place, but also doing thematic areas with coherent
approaches to problems and more facts than we had in the past.
Allan said the JRFB has tried to set the ship’s track several years in advance topromote coherent writing proposals. Allen said that one of the things that theyfound was that development of proposals in the South Atlantic seems to be taking
more time than they initially outlined. This, Allen explained, was why they had
modified the ship track a bit, rather than to shrink from the Southern Ocean to
South Atlantic. Allan mentioned that proposals for the South Atlantic and port calls
were likely to happen in a few years although there would be lots of things to be
done.
Next, Allan talked about the last SEP in terms of JR proposals. There are no
proposals forwarded to JRFB from the January 2017 SEP meeting: several
proposals are in the holding bin, three have been sent to external review, and only
three were deactivated. There are three fast-tracked proposals, and five proposals
potentially ready by May 2017, which is important for scheduling.
Allan stated that non-disclosure agreements (NDA) for some kinds of site survey
data are a challenge, and he complimented the Science Support Office for their
excellent work. He said that data need to be available during the cruise for safetyissues, and legal discussions had been made that would meet with lawyer andcompany requirements to create a statement covering their use. He told the group
to be aware that there were a lot of difficulties in overwriter policies without having

5

all sources in one office. Allan said that the JRFB was focusing on the ship track
for the next few years of FY 22–23, and said it’s all working well.
Austin supported this by saying that it was important to motivate proponents tosubmit proposals not just internally, because it takes 2–3 years to get a proposal
in the system. He also said that Koppers would prepare an article in Eos shortly
for scientists outside the IODP community.
Allan ended with JRFB updates. New members are: Sean Gullick (Univ. of Texas),
new SEP co-chairs for site characterization, Wolfgang Bach (Germany) and Liping
Zhou (China), new JRFB science members, Beth Christensen (U.S.) and Dick
Arculus (ANZIC), new curatorial advisory board (CAB) member, and Mike Lovell(ECORD) as a new chair of CAB. He also noted that 897-APL Southern Ocean
Cretaceous Anoxia was added to Expedition 369. The next EPSP meeting would
be held 2–3 May 2017 to deal with proposal 877-CPP2’s (Flemings) site review.
He mentioned that the 877-CPP2 safety review was not yet finished.
Austin mentioned that one of the main reasons JR would go through the Panama
Canal into the Gulf of Mexico was DOE’s (US Department of Energy) funds for
877-CPP2 (Flemings). He said it’s a large amount of money (20 M USD) andtagged for FY19 in Gulf of Mexico.
The Chair asked if there were any comments, but no questions arose.
c. ECORD FB(Gilbert Camoin)d. ECORD(Gilbert Camoin)

Gilbert Camoin merged the 2 agenda items into one presentation. He introduced
some of the new names in ECORD: Mike Webb as the new chair of ECORD
Council, Magnus Friberg as vice chair. There are also 3 new members in ECORD
Facility Board: Gretchen Frueh-Green, Gabriele Uenzelmann-Neben, and EllenThomas.
ECORD now has 15 member countries, with 3 dropping out: Poland, Israel, andBelgium. These nations had no real drive to build a community and national effort
to be an ECORD member. Turkey is interested, but ECORD has suggested thatthey first build a national consortium and then join. In talks last week, Turkey said

6

they are well on the way. Belgium is also working to do this, and hopes to return to
ECORD. Camoin was happy that Spain has returned to ECORD. However,
ECORD still has some concerns with the Canadian IODP organization, which next
week plans to discuss funding with their national government. All of thesecommitted to 2018. Next 2019-2023 is the focus. Camoin said that they areorganizing a review of ECORD activities in preparation for renewal.
Camoin spoke about past and future MSP plans. The ECORD external review
panel will be reporting to EMA and ECORD funding agencies for renewal.
Mandated to review ECORD within IODP and the impact of science results, andeffectiveness. The MARUM meeting will have 2 closed sessions. IODP sciencetalks will highlight ECORD science within IODP.
Camoin said this review will continue until late June. Next year, work on MoU andfunding agency agreements will begin, with a target for signing the MoUs,
including with the US, in 2019.
Camoin showed the MSP expedition schedule to 2020. The next 3 are Corinth(Exp. 381), and ESO is now working to announce the expedition dates in 2018;
the Artic (Exp. 377), and ESO is working with Russia for in-kind contributions
including an icebreaker; and Antarctic (Exp. 373) in 2020. Past expeditions
included Atlantis Massif (Exp. 357, very positive external reviews), and Chicxulub(Exp. 364) to be reviewed in Lisbon, prior to the SEP meeting on 20 June 2017.
Ben van der Pluijm mentioned how tremendously successful the Chicxulub
outreach program was, and this should be included in the review.
ECORD still has 4 slots for low cost (x3) and medium cost (x1) expeditions for the
next few years. Camoin said they plan to tackle many science themes, not justclimate change, and they are planning to do this with a diversity of drillingsystems.
van der Plujim commented that he’d like to see fewer climate-related MSP
expeditions; Allen reminded everyone that the MoU specifies that the MSP focus
on shallow water, implying climate work. Austin said that the Corinth andChicxulub were NOT climate expeditions. Givens wanted to confirm that IODP
would be included in this call for new MSP expeditions, which Camoin did.
Camoin listed proposals now at the ECORD FB, including New England Shelf,

7

Hawaiian Drowned Reefs, and Sabine Bank Sea Level; there are not many MSP
proposals at SEP. There are 3 that have been inactive for quite some time, andthey need to be addressed at the next meeting. Do the proponents want to keepthese in the system? Camoin said this is still not too bad, considering the numberof slots ECORD needs filled. ECORD FB needs a diversity of proposals and thepressure to move.
Camoin discussed the Magellan Plus Workshop series, with one call yearly, for all
IODP platforms and ICDP (ADP) welcome. There have been 14 workshops since2014, with 15K Euro support per workshop. Some travel funds are also provided
for EU scientists. Camoin discussed the upcoming workshop.
Camoin then gave an update on sea drills. A combined community ECORD
infrastructure exists to support drilling, with 25 institutes and 16 countries working
on this. Distributed European Drilling Infrastructure (DEDI) will help support
multiple organizations to supply the best equipment and techniques to achieve
their science goals.
Camoin spoke on ECORD educational activities. ECORD works to maintain andadd to yearly activities. Some of the key focus points are early career scientists
training, and scholarships and grants. This money can be used on all current andlegacy IODP samples and data. ECORD supports educators on the JR and now
the MSP. ECORD has now started its’ own school of rock series; these efforts
trained 150 students and early career students in 2016. Camoin also talked aboutsome of the 39 Distinguished Lecturer Program talks given during 2016. ECORD
also launched a new website last September, so Camoin encouraged everyone totake a look and give feedback. ECORD will have a booth at this year’s EGU as
usual. As part of this, ECORD is working with IODP on the 25 April IODP Town
Hall, and with ICDP on the 27 April ICDP town hall. Camoin talked about the joint
IODP-ICDP session, which is also being planned. Around 50% of the participants
will be young, early career scientists.
Upcoming outreach plans include the 13-18 August Goldschmidt 2017 in Parisand a Scientific Drilling booth at the 2017 AGU in New Orleans. ECORD is
working to prepare for the 2019 AGU 100 yr anniversary.
Austin talked about how the AGU program committee for the Fall meeting came to
the IODP Forum for session support, since they realized how many of the8transcendent science themes the AGU promotes are deeply embedded inscientific ocean drilling. This is a good motion that should be followed through.
Austin finished by remarking that the goal is to deliver taped union sessions
highlighting these connections, and that these will eventually reach out into
fundraising, outreach, etc.; even more important in the current challenging politicalclimate. This effort will be gradually implemented as AGU prepares for the 2019
centennial. Becker asked why these are ranked the way they are? Austin
responded that no “ranking” is implied here – these are just the way the program
brought these themes.
Camoin ended with a review of the next upcoming meetings: in 2017, the ECORD
council meeting in UK and in 2018, the ECORD FB in 6-7 March, in Italy.
ECORD’s 2016 annual report is due out soon.
(10:26 h.)e. MEXT(Eisho Sato)(11:09 h.)
Eisho Sato briefly introduced the MEXT CIB report, including the planned MEXT
personnel change (New director of Ocean and Earth Division, Takahiro Hayashi),renewal of JAMSTEC’s 5-year plan, the MEXT JAMSTEC budget allocation plan,
activities and structure/sub-divisions of MEXT, and plans for the next G7 meetingin Torino, Italy. Sato introduced the current JAMSTEC 5-year plan (reviewed in2018 and ended at the end March, 2019) followed. Sato said that the JAMSTEC
budget had been steadily decreasing, but the JFY17 budget would be larger than
JFY16. Even so, decreasing budget trends would continue.
van der Pluijm asked if the new 5-year plan would be different from the current
plan, and to what extent, since the current one already had a lot to cover. Satosaid either Kuramoto or Wataru Azuma would be better to answer this. Azuma
said what is important is data sharing. Kuramoto added that discussion about the
new plan had just started, and he hoped that there would be no drastic changes
from the current one. The Chair commented that the CIB members would like tohear more strategic plans of supporting IODP and we should probably discussthem later. Heap asked if the new minister and government might have someinfluence to affect changes. Sato did not think there would be much influence.

9

Azuma added that the Japanese Government’s innovation projects and industry
issues might be an important strategy to effect change.
f. NSF(Jamie Allan)(11:27 h.)Allan reported that the NSF perspective for JR has never been better, not only
financially, but in how the ship is being run, how proposals are being evaluated,
how the facility is being jointly managed by the community, the operators andfunding agencies are all working together, and that many here have been a big
part of this. These changes really prove that they are acting as a group.
Allan began talking about the budget, and said there’s now a transition year since
Donald Trump became president, and NSF is waiting to see what will happen, as
no budget has yet been released. Allan reminded the group that the US budget isdecided by Congress, and not by the president. He again mentioned that JR is
now in a positive financial situation. The budget for JRSO is nearly 62.7M USD ayear for 10.5 months operation over five expeditions in FY17. He explained thatthey are expecting 14.8M USD in base contributions from their partners, andadditional contribution 12M USD was from CPP. Allen said that the facility andscience are well balanced. He mentioned that the NSF goal was for 10
months/year through FY19, and one way they can achieve this is by spending lessof their budget than expected in 2016, so this means a larger budget for FY17.
Benoit Ildefonse asked how JR managed to spend less, and asked if this was
mostly because of drops in fuel costs. Allan answered “no”; fuel costs for the JR
are only part of the story, with 35 tons/day to drive the ship, 20–25 tons/day onsite
and 10 ton/day to tie up. So, fuel efficiency is met by not burning fuel for transit,
but by focusing it on doing science regionally.
Allan said that during ODP JR used to operate for 12 months a year, and there
were a few downsides to this: lab upgrades and improvements and maintenancewere put off. Allen reminded everyone that the JR is an NSF facility and can beused for non-IODP projects as well, especially during IODP-off periods of time.
With the retirement by the US Navy of the Knorr, the US lost its’ long-core facility.
As announced in the NSF Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on 24 August 2016, JR
would be available to perform this piston coring in 2019 during the transit between
the western Pacific, southwest Pacific, and Chile. Allen said the 100-m limit was
set following advice from the general counsel’s office at NSF. They would like to
avoid environmental impact statements for drilling, by instead following the10environmental procedures associated with the long-core facility, which significantly
reduces the regulatory overhead. This coring capability would be scheduled after
the facility board set the new schedule. Allan said the extra cost to use the ship
would be 25 K USD/day, and funding would come from the facility section at NSF
and from the geology and geophysics program. Allen also said that sciencestaffing would be handled just as for other research cruises, and would be funded
depending on the science project.
Allan explained the designated sequence of events for the JR NSF non-IODP
coring program with a timeline slide. Azuma asked how many days are available
for this non-IODP project. Allan answered that there would be 18 additional days
during the transit in this case, for which the ship would otherwise be tied up andwaiting at port.
Allan spoke about expedition data, which was discussed at the last IODP Forum.
He said expedition data are very important for the FBs to consider, and istraditionally described as “data acquired during actual expeditions”, but extra data
after the cruise would sometimes achieve expedition goals more effectively. Allen
listed examples: whole-core XRF scanning for splicing, whole-core CT-scanning(for example Chicxulub), and isotopes. He said what was unaddressed is whopays for it. He introduced the JRFB approval to purchase an XRF scanner and
now two scanners were available for JR expeditions at TAMU.
Allan discussed the next phase of IODP from 2019–2023. He said NSF goals
remain at 10 months a year for JR operations. He said the original subcontract
TAMU signed for IODP is until 2023, but NSF decided to make a cooperateagreement with TAMU and JRSO to have a new 5-year contract through 2024
instead of the typical 4-year contract. He mentioned next that partner contributions
would increase to 1/3 of JR operation expenses, which used to be 50% in the
beginning of ODP. Allan also said NSF decided to increase CPP costs to 8M USD
after the survey.
Allan next said that NSF instructed the JRSO to increase U.S. science party
members from 8 to 10 on JR expeditions in response to the “Sea Change” report
recommendations. He mentioned that those staffed under the onboard outreachprogram were considered members of expedition science party with publishing
responsibilities. He explained that all onboard outreach program participants andco-chiefs will be included in berth counts, post 2019.

11

Allan showed the timeline for the next three years and said that a facility review
was ongoing. The U.S. Community Workshop would evaluate the effectiveness of
JR as a facility toward achieving the Science Plan Challenges. He said FY18
would be the year to focus on preparing partner memoranda and National Science
Board (NSB) action items for the smooth shift into the next phase of IODP (2019–2023).
van der Pluijm commented that the US regional planning is a budget-driven
scenario, and emphasized that we should follow thematic driven planning, not justregions. Allan replied that NSF would consider both budgetary and science issues.
Allen said it’s important to look at things from a facility viewpoint, in terms ofefficiency and costs, but thematic science targets need to be followed. van derPluijm agreed.
Allan reported on how the first JR facility review was made. A 5-year cooperative
agreement for JR operation required annual and mid-award (3rd-year) reviews.
Allan also said that while reviews are confidential and cannot be posted, the NSF
response is public. The NSF panel met at JRSO from 24–26 February 2016 forthe FY15 review after receiving the report from FY15 co-chief review, which washeld just two days before that. Allan said the first facility review was stunning andpositive, and NSF accepted all panel recommendations, asking the JRSO chair to
implement or consider them. Allan said the second JR facility review had just been
produced on 1–3 March in College Station. Allan emphasized that not just U.S.
members were invited to join the meeting as a panel, one important example wasa Canadian member, who is an astronomer with experience working with large
international observatories. The report that they received was powerful and it
would be good enough to get U.S. community approval.
Lastly, Allan mentioned that IODP proposals at NSF have done very well, so
funding wouldn’t (shouldn’t) be changed. Allan also pointed out the DCL publishedon 9 August 2016 regarding seismic capabilities. Allan confirmed that NSF iscommitted to providing future seismic capability to the U.S. community, andcurrently NSF is trying to evaluate several responses to this DCL.
Azuma asked who accepts these reviews. Allan answered that would go to him
because it was his panel.

12Given commented that the revision of berth allocations might be good for otherfacility boards to discuss and maybe adopt if it simplifies things from a
programmatic point of view. Allan mentioned that the “Sea Change” Report was aguide as to how these should be done/sorted out. He additionally mentioned thatthe recommendations were not going to be negotiated, because the memorandum
wouldn’t be approved above the division of sciences. Ildefonse commented thatsome small countries might react negatively to these changes. Allan said there
had been problems regarding education/outreach people aboard JR, and what
their exact role aboard ship was. Allan felt there should be a programmatic
workshop clearly explaining what the expedition goals were. However, someeducation/outreach staff released inaccurate reports, showing that they had notworked closely with the co-chiefs, and this causes friction. On the other hand,
Allan mentioned both the South China Sea and Chicxulub expeditions went very
well. Allen stressed that this is not a new program, and that they worked well when
they were properly mentored and involved; therefore, mentoring these people wasvery important. Allan also mentioned that some of these people had not been
willing to collaborate. Brad Clements commented that a clear education plan might
help guide and improve cooperation with the expedition and co-chiefs, and that
this might be extended to IODP, program-wide. Camoin commented that thiswould have implications in staffing, since on MSPs there’ve been problems withoutreach plans as well. Clements commented that sooner is better to address
such a workshop.
The Chair concluded the discussion and confirmed there were no more questions
or comments, and moved on.
g. ANZIC(Andrew Heap)(12:04 h.)Andrew Heap gave the ANZIC update. The lead agency is the Australian National
University, and the partnership is made up of Australia and New Zealand. Heapsaid that since 2008 51 Australians and 11 New Zealanders have sailed on IODP
expeditions. Heap mentioned that ANZIC is very happy with IODP membership.
The current funding levels are good, but Heap hopes to see these raised by theAustralian government. This takes money out of the Australian Research Council
budget, but other methods are looking good. Heap said that there are movements
to examine using the IODP model to fund all Australian research funding.
Heap mentioned how more ANZIC proposals have been coming through the13system. However, one worry is the costs of collecting site survey data; it’s very
expensive, and they’ve been working to resolve this.
Heap shared some details on the regional IODP proposals. One item hementioned was an APL for Cretaceous climate, which has been resurrected. This
will be added to Exp. 369 in 2017. ANZIC is very happy with this.
Heap shared some details on the IODP 2017-2020 drilling plans around Australia
and New Zealand.
Heap then discussed the Chikyu Lord Howe Rise project; the Australian
government contribution will be immense, and details are now being worked out.
More details will be shared tomorrow. One site survey has been completed, withanother planned for later this year. Funding negotiations with the national
government are now underway with Geoscience Australia.
Given asked what legacy funding was, and Heap responded that this is for looking
at legacy data & samples. van der Pluijm suggested that ANZIC needs to tell theirfunding agencies to provide more support to IODP, since ANZIC is getting somuch out of the program.
Allen mentioned that the NSF director is headed to Australia soon, to brief GA on
how to approach this, as well as looking at port call plans, etc. NSF feels that the
program is getting a lot back from ANZIC.
Austin noted that the ANZIC community “punches above their weight” regarding
the number of excellent proposal submissions, etc.
Heap acknowledged this, saying that they are busy supporting the development of
new proposals and strengthening new ones. Heap invited participation in theAustralasian IODP Regional Planning Workshop on 13-16 June WS at Sydney
University, Australia. Heap ended by confirming that ANZIC has great support for
IODP and sees much value in the program. ANZIC provides post cruise andlegacy funding for scientists, and ANZIC always needs new proposals.
h. PMOJ-DESC(12:19 h.)(Hiroshi Nishi)

14

Hiroshi Nishi presented J-DESCs’ activities. He first listed seven international
meetings (e.g., SEP, EPSP, CIB, ECORDFB, and JRFB), and the numbers foreach (seven for SEP, one for EPSP, three for CIB, none for JRFB, and one for
ECORD), in which Japanese members participated. Nishi mentioned that 29
Japanese scientists in total, and three to four in average, contributed onboard
each IODP expedition. Nishii also added that while many applications were
accepted, not so many were selected to board. Next, Nishi introduced thesuccessful Expedition 370 (T-Limit of the Deep Biosphere off Muroto) thanks to
the hard work of its’ three co-chiefs, Heuer, Inagaki, and Morono. Nishi talked
about J-DESC IODP cruise support, mentioning two sampling parties (Exp. 359
and Exp. 361), three 2nd post-cruise meetings (Exp. 350, Exp. 351, and Exp. 352),
pre-cruise training (Exp. 362, Exp. 363, Exp. 364, Exp. 367, and Exp. 368), nine
young scientists supported by JAMSTEC for post-cruise activity, and three IODP
feasibility support activities (proposal support).
Nishi talked about last years’ symposiums/workshops (three in English, two inJapanese, and one in both languages). He mentioned that the JpGU (Japan
Geoscience Union) 2017 would be held on 21–25 May 2017. Nishi said that the JDESC core school was very important, and a good opportunity to train young
scientists, with five core schools held last year. Nishi then talked about J-DESC
outreach activity, mentioning two special onboard-Chikyu tours held at Ishinomaki
port in Miyagi and Kochi port in Kochi. Nishi also talked about the International
short course held last year. Nishi showed several pictures from the the coreschool. Nishi mentioned a speech given at the Short Course on Core & Logging
Data Interpretation Exercises at the Taiwan-Japan Deep Drilling Science
Symposium on 1–4 February 2016 in Taiwan. Nishi spoke about the international
Chikyu Onboard School, funded by JAMSTEC and J-DESC, and held onboard
Chikyu from 3–6 July 2016. Six different countries were represented by 13
students, but there were actually 35 applications for this event. Nishi said J-DESC
supported 10 participants for the Chikyu ship-tour in Yokohama, and 15
participants for the one in Miyagi. Nishi mentioned exhibitions in which J-DESC
participated, JpGU (22–26 May 2016), Goldschmidt (26 June–1 July 2016), and
the Geological Society of Japan (10–12 September 2016). Nishi introduced two
Japanese publications: J-DESC news, and Newton, which featured Kuramoto (ofCDEX) in an article explaining Chikyu operations and science services for thecommunity. Nishi introduced the J-DESC website and its Facebook page.

15

Nishi announced two important things in closing: one is the JpGU IODP session,
which will be held on 22 May 2017 with speakers; Kiyoshi Suyehiro, James Austin,
Keir Becker, and Masafumi Murayama. Nishi encouraged the group to participate
in this session which is very important for the future of IODP. Nishi then spoke
about the ICDP Oman Drilling Project. The target of this project is drilling andcoring the crust-mantle boundary to investigate the nature of the Moho transitionzone. This project is being conducted in two different phases through 2016–2018.
Phase I (2016–2017) has completed drilling at sites (GT2, GT1, GT2, and BT1),
and full core characterization and description will be conducted on Chikyu in
Summer 2017. There are three more target sites (MD1, MD, and BA1) during
Phase II (2017–2018), and laboratory work will be conducted on Chikyu. This is
the first time ICDP-IODP jointly cooperates on off-site core examination andcuration. The proposed core flow for the work onboard Chikyu has beententatively proposed and the team is waiting for the cores to be shipped.
The Chair closed the morning session, and broke for lunch at 12:30 hrs.
8.

JR Advisory Panels Report / Proposal Overview
a. Science Support Office(Holly Given)(13:29 h.)
Holly Given gave a brief update on the Science Support Office (SSO). For the new
CIB members, Given explained that SSO has a 5-year cooperate agreement with
NSF, and staffs this office with eight people, only three of whom are full-time
equivalent workers. A marine seismic imaging specialist was newly hired becauseof a SEP requirement. Given mentioned the SSOs’ main tasks: task one is JRFB,SEP, and EPSP support, and liaison with the ECORD FB and CIB. The second
task is to oversee the proposal review process; the whole process from calling for
proposals, submission software, getting them to SEP and maintaining a proposalarchive. Given said SSO also maintains the iodp.org website, and asked the groupto provide feedback on the website. Given mentioned that SSO is the guardian of
IODP policy and documents, and also maintains and hosts the site-survey
database, inherited from IODP-MI and which has been completely rewritten.
Given explained the history of proposal submissions: there were 82 newproposals, 48% de-activated, 36% still under active review, and 16% forwarded to
FBs (half of those (6) scheduled/drilled) since the new IODP started on 1 October
2013. Given mentioned it would take 3.5 or 4 years to have a proposal get throughall these processes in the new program.

16

Given next mentioned proposal outcomes from the last two SEP meetings; five
sent to FB (incl. 835 JTRACK and 871 LHR for CIB), another five sent to external
review (four for JR, one for Chikyu), one in the holding bin, seven full proposals
have been invited, including 898 Fore Arc M2M proposal (Michibayashi) with
Chikyu, and 10 proposals are de-activated but with no Chikyu-related ones
included.
Given showed a page from the iodp.org website and explained how Chikyu
proposals “in the system” can be sorted by platform, and also show the stage ofeach proposal in the process. Given showed that active proposals are also
accessible at iodp.org. Right now, 87 proposals are active, and the distribution
among science themes has not changed by much. Given also showed the leadproponents, by member affiliation, among other members, and then showed
participation in the pool.
Given showed the latest call for proposals published in Eos as of 3 April 2017, andasked the group if there was any necessary amendment about the wording
regarding Chikyu operations. van der Pluijm didn’t like it, saying “it sounded as if
Chikyu was almost dead”. van der Pluijm also commented that the current wording
might mislead proponents to think that riser proposals were no longer being
solicited, and that Chikyu should be “alive” for the community. van der Pluijm
suggested that the CIB statement about riser drilling should be strongly mentioned
no matter how it is funded or not. The Chair said that would be a key long-termview discussion later on Day 2. Mori agreed and supported van der Pluijm’scomments. Given asked for more comments about improving the wording andIldefonse commented that it should reflect the consensus from last year. Ildefonsesaid the time limit is missing in the statement, to which Eguchi said that this wasfor the Chikyu mid-term, until 2019.
(Details in the agenda book.)b. Science Evaluation Panel(Holly Given)(13:43 h.)Given presented the SEP’s outcomes on behalf of Ken Miller and Sean Gulick,
Co-chairs of SEP. Given briefly reviewed the status of two proposals that weresent to CIB with “Excellent” evaluations at the SEP meetings in June 2016 and17

January 2017: 835-Full2 (JTRACK) and 871-CPP2 (Lord Howe Rise Ribbon).
Given also showed a list of other proposals currently at the CIB.
(Details in the agenda book.)
There were no comments or questions.

9. Chikyu Operation/status updatea. Overall Chikyu Operation(Shin’ichi Kuramoto)(13:57 h.)
Shin’ichi Kuramoto presented the Chikyu schedule since 2005; Chikyu IODP
operations started in 2007, two years after delivery. In JFY16 saw two expeditions,Exps. 365 and 370. In Exp. 365, an older, previously installed observatory was
replaced with an advanced Long-Term Borehole Measurement System (LTBMS).
This has already been connected to the Dense Oceanfloor Network system for
Earthquakes and Tsunamis (DONET) and is producing real-time monitoring data.
One significant event was monitoring a M6 plate boundary earthquake justbeneath the observatory on April 2016; a full report is soon-to-be published.
Followed by a maintenance period and open ship tours, IODP expedition Exp. 370(T-Limit) was launched. For the coming JFY17, new commercial work for a
Japanese company will begin on 1 April, focusing on methane-hydrates. During
the following maintenance period (mid-July to mid-September), the ICDP Oman
drilling project cores will be loaded aboard Chikyu for core description. Kuramoto
said there will be an open ship in Hachinohe in September, then back to Shimizu
for maintenance and open ship. In October, IODP Exp. 380 will start. Kuramoto
discussed the plan to invite early-career scientists onboard for a workshop during
IODP Exp. 380. In January 2018, some Japanese commercial work is being
negotiated (not contracted yet). Expeditions have been well received by TAT andgarnered good media coverage. Kuramoto said that CDEX/JAMSTEC was looking
to maximize funds from MEXT, combined with commercial work and cost-cutting
efforts. Kuramoto said this meant some maintenance might be postponed until thenext 5-year term. Kuramoto emphasized that JAMSTEC/CDEX would always
welcome CPPs and new Chikyu memberships.
Camoin asked if Exp. 380 would be a regular expedition. Eguchi answered yes,that with about 10–12 people planned for the science party, there would be stillavailable berths for the workshop participants. Eguchi continued to briefly explain18

that young scientists would be welcome; they would sail the whole expedition andbe able to use previously collected cores and LWD data to conduct original
research and write papers. Ildefonse wanted confirmation that the workshop would
be a training-oriented or research-oriented and related to this expedition. Eguchi
confirmed that both were meant, and added that this was Kimura’s idea–revisit thepreviously taken cores (data) since we have not used them all (item #13, details
available in Toczko’s talk).
Takehiko Yano took over to give a financial update. Yano commented that theJFY15 Indian commercial operation was thought to have lost money, but actuallyended up making a good profit. Yano said this enabled CDEX to create a Chikyu
independent account, which wouldn’t be used by JAMSTEC for other purposes. In
addition, Yano explained things needed to improve the current financial situation:e.g., making strong efforts to sell the Chikyu NanTroSEIZE project to thegovernment, but so far has no response.
van der Pluijm asked what Chikyu maintained with all these large “maintenance”
windows, which must cause a lot of lost costs. Eguchi answered that Chikyu wasstanding-by during those terms and always needed to be well prepared.
Yano continued to explain the overall budget situation of JAMSTEC, notspecifically CDEX. Yano said that an average cut of three percent occurred every
year as Sato (MEXT) mentioned. Yano explained that 30% of the budget was
officially allocated for Chikyu operations, ca. 80–90M USD; however, reality wasdifferent and in fact only about 58M USD was actually allocated to CDEX. Yano
showed the Chikyu funding structure (Chikyu Account) to explain several sourcesof funds: Government funds, Chikyu membership fees, Commercial operations,
CPP, and Donations. Control of the basic cost is the key to manage Chikyu
budgets, and all savings from cost cutting would be forwarded to the Deep Riser
drilling.
van der Pluijm wanted to confirm that when the new program starts in 2019, there
would basically be no money for drilling for the first two to three years. Yano said
this was right, but added that a CPP is expected. Clements wanted to make surethat Chikyu expected to begin the Lord Howe Rise (LHR) project in 2020. Eguchi
said that the LHR topic would be discussed in detail later. Allan commented thatdeferred maintenance would be good for the short-term, but has the potential tocreate issues in the long-term. Yano agreed. Allan asked if he was correct in19

thinking that deferred maintenance would not risk impacting the operation.
Kuramoto replied that Chikyu still needed to be inspected, even with deferred
maintenance. van der Pluijm commented that last year’s maintenance seemed
relatively intense. Kuramoto commented that many requirements needed to besatisfied after the Macondo disaster in 2010. van der Pluijm said that to keep up
with industry levels, it sounded like this was costing more. Eguchi said this reallymeant basic cost cutting. Clements asked if the Chikyu account diagram wasvertically scaled, and Eguchi answered that this had no relative scale at all, it isjust an illustration. The Chair commented that Chikyu might produce some money,
and CIB would discuss this later. Austin commented that there would be one
riserless option, JTRACK in 2018 or more riser with NanTroSEIZE. van der Pluijm
agreed to discuss this later.
b. NanTroSEIZE, IODP Exp. 365, PCT report
IODP Exp. 365(Sean Toczko)(14:38 h.)
Sean Toczko presented the Chikyu operations updates for Exp. 365 and Exp. 370.
Toczko introduced the Expedition 365 science party, including the videographersfrom Science Media, the site and objectives, operations, schedule (nextmilestones), and evaluation results. Toczko explained the GeniusPlug (microbio)
and the LTBMS, are two different kinds of observatories. Toczko mentioned that
Mie-ken Nanto Oki quake (M6) occurred on 1 April when GeniusPlug was
retrieved. Toczko said a shore-based sampling party was held quay-side at thePort of Shimizu 25 July– 5 August 2016. The 1st post cruise meeting was on 5
December 2016, with the Proceedings due to be published in Spring 2017. Toczko
also said the C0002 LTBMS paper will be published soon. The science party was
happy about GeniusPlug recovery, LTBMS deployment, coring, laboratory support(MWJ), and flexibility (CDEX, MQJ, MWJ). Toczko also noted some comments:
the curator was great, but Internet access, core laboratory layout, and themicrobiology laboratory missing some standards were noted as unsatisfactory.
Austin said he liked the LTBMS video, showing Laura Wallace explaining acomplicated tool very well, and said that CDEX released a great example of video,
which can be used for outreach. Toczko agreed and commented that Science
Media was very professional and did a great job. Allan also commented that theExp. 365 YouTube videos were great and well evaluated in NSF as it raised theawareness of the IODP program. Eguchi suggested showing the video in thecoffee break. Toczko mentioned that CDEX was trying to provide the videos to20

high school teachers as PR and hoped that it works.
The Chair suggested moving on to the PCT meeting report, and the NanTroSEIZE
PCT meeting updates followed.
PCT report(Sean Toczko)(14:53 h.)
Toczko reported on the meeting held at the last AGU and discussed the details ofExp. 380, Exp. 365, and the C0002 deep riser extension. He added that another
PCT meeting would be held in May (just before JpGU) to further discuss these
items. The Chair suggested sending a CIB liaison to the PCT for the next meeting,and asked Becker to do so since he will attend JpGU. Becker accepted.
The Chair confirmed the CIB members’ agreement on this suggestion.
CIB_Consensus_0317-03: CIB selected Keir Becker to participate in the May
2017 NanTroSEIZE PCT meeting as a CIB liaison
No questions or comments arose.
The Chair confirmed that the next Agenda item was Exp. 370.
c. IODP Exp. 370(Sean Toczko)(14:56 h.)
Toczko continued to introduce the expedition’s objectives, sites, operations, itsmajor issues, operational achievements, scientific achievements, and evaluation
results.
Clements asked about the VIV ropes around the drill pipe. Toczko replied thatthey were attached to it to break up water flow around the pipe. Austin said that it
was like a fairing. Toczko continued describing the drilling sequence andoperational achievements of Exp. 370. Toczko mentioned that the observatory
thermometer string was cut and lost. Toczko said shipboard and shore-based cochiefs worked well together during Exp. 370, and the science party was mostly
happy with conditions, except for the Internet.
At the end of presentation, Austin commented that it reminded him of Fumio
Inagaki saying a punch line that there is no limit of life, while the notion here was21

“T-Limit” implying that you know something you do not know. Austin continued,
saying that the results were really exciting and big, much like Chicxulub. Toczko
agreed that this was something NASA should be interested in. Becker added thatthe results showed temperatures a little higher than previously found, but that
there has to be a T-Limit somewhere.
Austin emphasized that the result of this experiment was surprising. Ildefonseasked if that current research was a high profile for publications. Toczko repliedthat he was not sure, so Ildefonse rephrased his question because he was asking
about when it would be published in Science or Nature. Toczko agreed it would besignificant when it was published.
The Chair said the CIB would be very keen to hear about the results.
The Chair called a coffee break at 15:00 hrs.

10. TAT Report(Keir Becker)(15:28 h.)
Becker gave a brief report on the TAT. Becker presented the TATs’ purpose andmembership. Becker mentioned that TAT was really impressed with CDEX
operations and developments. Becker talked about some of these technicaldevelopments, starting with the Okinawa project. Becker said that the SIP
wellhead designs for HOT programs are really amazing and well-engineered.
Becker said that speaking as a developer of the original CORKS, these are really
impressive.
Becker showed a long and detailed list of Lord Howe Rise TAT recommendations,summarized in his presentation (see Agenda Book). Becker said an effort should
be made to convince industry to help invest in LHR.
Becker ended with a long and detailed description of the drill well on paper(DWOP) activity recommended by TAT to CDEX in preparation for the deep
C0002 riser well. These points are all summarized in Beckers’ presentation (seeAgenda Book).
Ildefonse asked about the details of DWOP, which Becker said means getting theteam into a room to simulate drilling the well. Given asked if this was like a22

tabletop exercise. Becker agreed, saying this is standard in industry. Nishii
appreciated this, and encouraged more efforts like these. Becker pointed out that
the TAT is like the forum, with everyone in the room being an active participant.

11. Chikyu Outreach Activities(Nobuhisa Eguchi)(15:53 h.)Nobu Eguchi summarized CDEX education and outreach activities. These
included open ship events at Ishinomaki port (August 2016), which had been
seriously damaged by the Tohoku earthquake, Kochi’s new port (November2016), lectures/seminars for (junior) high school students, joint IODP/ICDP boothwith USSSP and ECORD at AGU for the first time, YouTube videos created forExp. 365 with more than 10,000 viewers, one YouTube video created for Exp.
370, filming by NHK crew, onboard school with 15 attendees from different
countries (July 2016 and February 2017), and other media efforts andpublications. Eguchi ended his presentation with the comment that outreachactivity were okay more or less inside Japan, but emphasized that the necessity ofreaching out internationally. Eguchi also added that education should also be
more seriously considered domestically. Eguchi said that CDEX needs somewebsite renewal, and also needs a revamp for smart phone users and bettersocial media use. Eguchi mentioned the planned workshop onboard during Exp.
380, and said Toczko would share more details on Day 2.
Given said that there used to be a videographer team working at Scripps, but
stopped since they were too expensive. Videos made on JR were getting betterand better edited. That made Given wonder if videos could be a very effective
outreach tool; CDEX agreed. Ildefonse also commented that professional
videographers are needed to make good and effective videos. Given said some
JR science parties had made good videos. Ildefonse disagreed, saying there’s a
lot of garbage out there. Eguchi agreed with Ildefonse and said that while Science
Media was not cheap, they did really a professional job. In addition, CDEX got all
the footage, incl. final products, which contractually could be used as desired by
JAMSTEC. Camoin commented that this was a discussion held at the last meeting
where there was talk about hiring a team. Camoin said that it helps when you
have some “sexy” expeditions like Chicxulub, and you can try to sign up TV
companies. Eguchi replied that with commercial contracts, copyright is always an
issue to worry about.

23

Austin commented that this goes beyond label sharing. Some of these aredesigned for advertising outlets to make money. Austin wanted to know when we
will start to make this a focus, now or later? Austin said the borehole instrument
video was incredibly interesting to the community, and this should be especially soin a country where earthquake prediction has been a mainstream discussion, thepublic is interested in it for a very good reason. Here in Japan, there should be
partnerships involved to make dollars. Austin asked why CDEX wasn’t moreinterested in this – to which Eguchi responded they are. However, all video groups
to date have been Japanese organizations, and focused exclusively on the local
market. Given asked who knew about these observatories? Austin answered that
he knew but he didn’t hear anything otherwise about it.
Given asked if the borehole instruments were connected to DONET and did thescience community know this? Toczko replied that some borehole data are
available from a website run by Demian Saffer (Penn State Univ.); the link is in the
Scientific Prospectus and Proceedings. This website shares pressure data from
Site C0002 data. Toczko also said the DONET website also provides boreholeobservatory data; raw data are available. Given said discussions on getting
subseafloor real time data have been going in for the past ten years, and now weseem to have achieved this. Given understood that part of the problem lies withwebsite design and layout. Toczko agreed and added that Saffer’s group webpage
is quite nice with search capabilities, but the problem is that there is not enoughinfrastructure support to manage all the data coming out. Toczko said it would
take money to hire a professional to design such a website. Given commented it
would be exciting if we could get access to the real-time data, but people can’t findthrough the CDEX website.
Eguchi added that use of the Science Media was the first time to use foreigncompany. Eguchi understood that these videos were targeted at people outside ofJapan while Chikyu TV, created by Japanese companies, had limited appeal, andonly really within Japan. Ildefonse said he feels CDEX needs to better manage
languages, Japanese and English when advertising Chikyu, providing the exampleof the Chikyu twitter account: the last six tweets were all in Japanese. Given
mentioned that it is not in the SSO mandate to support IODP outreach on the
webpage. Ildefonse added there wasn’t as much news about T-Limit as Chicxulub,
and that we didn’t know about the limits to life on this planet, and there were agreat number of interesting stories that needed to get out.

24

The Chair closed the discussion and asked for the KCC report.

12. KCC Report(Tsuyoshi Ishikawa)

Note: Presentation order was changed from the original 14 on Day 2 to 12 on Day 1.

(16:26 h.)
Tsuyoshi Ishikawa presented KCC tasks (core storage management, sample
requests evaluation, sampling plans for Chikyu IODP expeditions, organizing
sampling parties, sample data management, and education & outreach). The
curation of core materials in KCC includes legacy core from DSDP/ODP, and from
non-IODP expeditions as well. Based on the geographical model, KCC is incharge of cores taken from the western Pacific and Indian Ocean, with just over
121 km of cores stored in KCC as of February 2017. He said core material was
divided into three types: 1.5 m long core sections, 10 cm long microbiologicalwhole round (WR) samples for deep biosphere study, which are saved at -80ºC,
and cuttings samples from Chikyu riser drilling operations, which are saved at+4ºC at ~80% humidity. KCC follows the IODP sample data & obligation policy
implementation plan.
Ishikawa mentioned they received many more sample requests than the previous
year especially because of Exp. 370. Ishikawa said the number of shippedsamples in 2016 was the most in KCC history, related to the Exp. 353 sampling
party at KCC. There were about 75 IODP-related visitors to KCC.
Ishikawa showed some photos of the Exp. 370 onshore party; the cores taken
onboard Chikyu were delivered by helicopter and shipped to KCC immediately sothat onshore science party could begin detailed observation. Ishikawa also
introduced the KCC symposium held on 15 October, which featured Fumio Inagakiin an internet broadcast from Chikyu. There were 1,055 viewers, including young
students, and there was very good interaction with the audience.
Ishikawa said that KCC has cores from JR (Exp. 356, 359, 362, and 362T) andChikyu (Exp. 365 and 370) in 2016, and they expect to receive cores from JR(Exp. 361, 356, 366, 363, 367, 368, and 371) during this year (2017).

25

Ishikawa introduced a new database for IODP core samples, and said it was mucheasier to find core samples than before, since now image data comparison isavailable.
Ishikawa said they regularly hold education and training for Japanese IODP
expedition participants and also support the J-DESC yearly core school. For
young Asian scientists, another science program was created, and four
participants came from Myanmar. Ishikawa also said that some logging
equipment, such as XCT scanner, have been opened to the IODP community
outside Japan.
Regarding further actions, Ishikawa said that KCC had some budget problems for
curatorial activities, so KCC needs to streamline or simplify activities, transfer
some legacy cores from the old to the new reefer, promote the utilization of
DeepBIOS cores with the science community, and discuss how to deal with the
Nagoya Protocol.
Ishikawa gave a quick brief of the Nagoya Protocol, and then talked about how to
implement access and benefit-sharing (ABS) measures for future IODP
expeditions on Chikyu. Ishikawa talked about two documents being prepared; oneis the Prior Informed Consent (PIC). This is not required when providing Japanesegenetic resources outside Japan, but CDEX/JAMSTEC will seek PICs from othercountries when required. The other is the Material Transfer Agreement (MTA),
which CDEX first implemented for Exp. 370, and was also used for KCC sample
requests. Lastly, Ishikawa explained KCC preparations for the coming year.
Given asked if outsiders can use the analytical facility. Lallan Gupta explained thatafter receiving requests through SDR, as this is a national facility, using it is free ofcharge; however, schedule of use and period needed have to be negotiated.
Ildefonse asked if this facility is free when used for activities outside IODP. Gupta
answered these are free as well.
The Chair confirmed there were no comments and closed the meeting for Day 1.
18:30- Reception

Day-2

Thursday, 16 March 201726

13. Chikyu Proposals (update and discussion)(Chair - Tatsumi)

Note: The order was changed from the original 12 on Day 1 to 13 on Day 2.

a. Potential Chikyu Proposals at CIB and SEP
b. Recommendation for Future Chikyu IODP Window(08:53 h.)
The Chair began with the section of potential Chikyu proposals. There are many
proposals listed and the chair asked Eguchi to explain them to the members.
Eguchi began explaining the list of Chikyu proposals currently at CIB and SEP.
There are 10 Chikyu proposals at CIB: two CRISP (537-CDP7 and 537-Full4),
three NanTroSEIZE (603-CDP3, 603C-Full, and 603D-Full2), one IBM (698-Full3),
two Hikurangi (781-MDP and 781B-Full), one Japan Trench Tsunamigenesis(835-Full), and one Lord Howe Rise Continental Ribbon (871-CPP2/Add). Eguchi
said JR would conduct the first Hikurangi project in May 2018. Eguchi explainedthat CDEX has established project coordination teams (PCTs) for CRISP,
NanTroSEIZE, and IBM. Eguchi would share more details when they discuss the
LHR later during the meeting.
Eguchi introduced the other Chikyu proposals at SEP as follows: KAP (707-CDP3)
which is a combination Chikyu and JR proposal (only the umbrella proposal stays
at SEP), the Indian Ridge Moho (800 MDP), which was partially completed by JR
two years ago, but still remains at SEP, the umbrella proposals of MoHole to the
Mantle (805-MDP) stays at SEP, DREAM riser operation (857-MDP2) was
deactivated two years ago at SEP, two Bend-Fault proposals (876-Pre and 886Pre), which will be explained a little bit more later, and the Fore Arc Mohole-toMantle (898-Pre) which is at SEP. These are all the proposals on the table for CIB
from SEP.
The Chair asked the members to consider which project should be recommended
for the IODP window over the next four years. First, the Chair mentioned that CIB
would like to recommend Exp. 380 for the 2017 IODP window as was discussed
during the previous video meeting. The Chair asked for confirmation that the CIB
members have consensus on this. The Chair then asked Toczko to give a briefpresentation on Exp. 380.
CIB_Consensus_0317-04: IODP Exp. 380.
The CIB endorsed IODP Proposal 603D, NanTroSEIZE shallow riserless LTBMS,
for Chikyu IODP Exp. 380 that will be scheduled in October - December 2017.

27

Toczko described the concept of Exp. 380. Toczko said that Chikyu IODP Exp.
380, proposal 603D, NanTroSEIZE shallow riserless LTBMS, scheduled from 23
October to 5 December 2017. Toczko said the call for application had alreadybeen sent to PMOs on 24 February 2017. Toczko explained that the main purposeof this expedition is to deploy an LTBMS at the accretionary toe, originally withSite C0007 as the primary site and Site C0006 as the secondary site. Toczko
showed 314 LWD/Logging unit data depicting sandy formation, correlated withcore sampling results from C0006 from Exp. 316. Toczko showed the planned
drilling sequence for Site C0006.
Eguchi asked Toczko to explain the TAT discussion/suggestions and explain why
screened casing would not be used. Toczko said that the target area wascompletely fractured and it just needed to be isolated from the seafloor, but there
was a formation “sweet spot” for the sensors to aim for. Toczko discussed theresults from the December PCT meeting where the consensus was that logging
would be nice, but is not actually required. Eguchi asked Becker to confirm that
there are no major differences found from the previous data as Toczko said thatsweet spot was about 100 m. Becker agreed with the target zone, and again
talked about the TAT recommendation to include LWD, if possible. Becker (andthe TAT) agreed with the PCT’s decision, however.
Toczko talked about DONET and its’ relation to Sites C0006 and C0007. The
DONET cabled network has a cable and “Node C” close to the drilling site.
Because of the close proximity of the cables to the proposed sites, CDEX wascurrently negotiating with DONET to drill at Site C0006, considering the worst
case would be that one of the secondary cables could get severed; a seafloor
survey would help pinpoint the cable locations. These considerations made Site
C0006 superior to Site C0007, especially that no LWD data were collected at thelatter site. Additionally, Site C0007 was far too close to the cables, in any case.
Toczko discussed the plans for the concurrent workshop, details and outline(workshop and fieldwork at sea). Toczko basically said that the workshop was a
weeklong activity, with the benefit of having the “fieldwork” in the Chikyu labs forthree weeks, examining and sampling Site C0006 & C0007 cores, and C0006
LWD data. Toczko said that this program is aimed at early-career and young
scientists. Toczko mentioned that important factors to consider are the
JAMSTEC/CDEX HSE regulations for helicopter transfer to/from Chikyu. Thisrequires helicopter underwater escape training (HUET) certification for 2 to fewer

28

flights per year, and this means OPITO certification. Some of the PMOs, Toczko
said, are supportive of this, and negotiations are underway to determine the levelof support available.
Becker liked the idea of the workshop, but asked who would be in charge. Toczko
answered that Kimura would be onboard as leader. The Co-chiefs, Harold Tobin
and Masataka Kinoshita could assist, and Eiichiro Araki would be on board as
well. van der Pluijm also liked this idea, and wondered if it would be practical totarget post-doc or junior faculty, because they probably would have the schedulingfreedom, and van der Pluijm also felt it was important to engage students
aggressively by giving them a chance and to get them involved in the system forthe future.
Camoin thought he would approve this proposal and asked how many slots wereavailable and how would participants be selected. Eguchi answered there wasroom for 10–12 in addition to the Exp. 380 scientists. Camoin asked again about
how selection would be handled. Eguchi answered that they might ask applicants
to submit research plans based on what kind of materials and data available
onboard, and the NanTroSEIZE PCT could review them for selection.
Ildefonse said he was not sure if he would agree or not, because he thought itwould be probably fair enough to have NanTroSEIZE post-cruise activity.
However, it might be difficult to get such an opportunity and participants would
help with evolving science.
Jin-Oh Park asked about the recruiting target for this challenging activity, and who
would help narrow it down? Toczko answered that CDEX were working with the
NanTroSEIZE PCT, and CDEX was still refining whom to invite. Given said that
there is a restriction on senior graduate students in the academic year for someplaces. Given also asked what the goal of the workshop was; focused on trainingor publications. Toczko answered that publications are the chief goal. Given also
asked if applicants should already have been involved in related research. Toczko
said this was not necessary: Eguchi also said that this is really a challenge andeven they (CDEX) were wondering who would apply. Given said that this was a
way to do more marketing. Ildefonse suggested that while some students might beworking on this course, the rest of them might be going to work on the core few
years later inspired by this adventure at sea, of which he suspected there might be29

a few. Camoin additionally suggested that we should announce this and have it
done very quickly.
Gaku Kimura briefed the CIB with more details of this project. The expedition itself
would only comprise 40 days of mainly engineering operations. The real/actual
engineering operation results would be the observatory sharing data through
DONET, and the current status of DONET includes borehole observatories at
C0010 and C0002. Kimura said the new observatory would be a great advance,and data would be accessible to the public. Kimura mentioned the huge amount ofdata produced so far, and spoke about the impressive paper published about thefault zone. Kimura mentioned that there have been few papers describing thegeology and geophysics for these sites even though basic descriptions werecompleted. After the Tohoku earthquake, concerns about large tsunami in Nankai
were revived, so all the integrated data produced from this proposed workshop
would be helpful. Kimura was confident that getting many young scientists to lookat borehole observatory data, combined with logging data and core samples would
help produce exciting new science, so this program is very exciting. Kimura said
that basic discussion on the programs’ structure is already finished and data
integration is what he expects students, young career scientists, and specialty
staff to be working on together for 40 days. Kimura admitted that there are stillsome difficult issues, such as logistics, choosing applicants, and balancing
applicants and disciplines. However, Kimura emphasized this would be a new kindof collaboration and activity, and expected that during the next PCT meeting inMay, the program will be fully refined.
The Chair said probably all CIB members understand the importance of thisworkshop. Kuramoto said that they needed to consult with the PCT about thisworkshop to discuss using DONET data in real-time, experiencing work at sea
aboard Chikyu, and better defining the program goals before the expedition.
These are some of the things CDEX will be asking the PCT about.
The Chair asked the CIB members if they would like to encourage this challenging
program. Ildefonse asked if the CIB should officially support the workshop
proposal. The Chair said yes. Camoin asked about the timing for application. The
Chair said timing was very tight. Eguchi said it would be announced in one weekor two.

30

The Chair asked CIB members once again to confirm if CIB would like toencourage this workshop proposal.
All agreed.

CIB_Consensus_0317-05: WS/Field work at Sea.
CIB encourages the presented ambitious plan of workshop/field work at sea
during Exp. 380; the call for application should not solicit only graduate students
but should also be open to post-doc, young, and early career scientists.

The Chair then talked about some items for 2018. The last CIB consensus
endorsed riser operations at Hole C0002F in 2018. Chair Tatsumi reminded
everyone that the day before, CDEX showed its’ efforts in getting funds toimplement this project. Funds were still not fully sufficient but funding was beingsought, so the Chair asked the members to discuss if the 2018 IODP window
should be opened for the C0002F riser hole project.
Mori asked if there were any other options than the riser operation. The Chairanswered that there were three other riser proposals and one non-riser proposal.
Mori asked if there was space for JTRACK to come up or not. van der Pluijm
suggested focusing on riser options first, and then if they didn’t work, go to the
JTRACK discussion. Ildefonse asked if there was enough time to do C0002F, arethe resources available, would this complete the NanTroSEIZE project, or would
there be another step to go? Mori said that we should be clear on the target, andsaid NanTroSEIZE needs to deepen the hole by at least 1,000 m. Becker said that
TAT members saw the reprocessed 3D data, which seemed to show the newtargets. Eguchi said a presentation on this subject was ready. The Chair asked
Kimura, who Eguchi identified as one of the PCT chief project scientists, to givehis presentation.
Kimura began his Site C0002 overview. Kimura said Chikyu had 10 years drilling
NanTroSEIZE, a project of high social relevance, which became extremely more
so after the Tohoku Earthquake. Kimura said from the beginning, an early warning
system was wanted. Kimura acknowledged that the budgetary realities are quitedifficult, which help make this project seem to be a never-ending one. Kimura’ssuggestion is that one possible solution is to complete Hole C0002F to as deep as
possible, with complete logging, coring, and install an LTBMS. Kimura said we31

could declare victory after this operation, and we could preserve the plateboundary target for a possible future Japanese CPP, which would allow
requesting more funds from the Japanese government. Kimura showed theoriginal targets, then the reprocessed 3D seismic data, comparing the 2016 vs.
2006 processing. Kimura described the reprocessed 3D seismic data as being
much clearer, with a greatly improved 3D profile. Even so, Kimura said we are stilla few kilometers away from the primary target, and this being too expensive toaccomplish, so the target was modified to target the high velocity zone (more than
5 km/s) within the hanging wall. Kimura said we could learn the current status of
this hanging wall portion, measure in-situ stress, pore pressure, and material
process here, if we could reach this target and get samples. Kimura ended bymentioning that this was the strategy to support NanTroSEIZE as the next riser
drilling target.
Allan asked about the error bar on the velocity model. J. Park answered that wasa new velocity model, and that the first impression is that this was more accurate.
Camoin asked, as a non-specialist, what the target was here, 1,000 m or 500 m,
and what was needed to reach the significant velocity changes. Kimura answeredthat maybe it would be important to get the high velocity portion, which probably isstoring strain. Camoin then asked if we need 1,000 m to reach it. Austin said weshould make sure that we have the science goals that you need to answer thequestions, and use that as your value to “declare victory”. Austin said that it’s clear
we need to drill deep enough to get it.
The Chair asked Kimura if drilling would stop once reaching the orange highvelocity area, to which Kimura said yes. The Chair asked Kimura again if he would
like to continue this project beyond this expedition since the final goal is the plateboundary. Kimura said theoretically “yes” because he understood it’s difficult tocontinue operations in a much narrower hole. Kimura said it would be great if we
could at least reach the target in the hanging wall, which would lead us to propose
a new project to do new science in a new hole. Ildefonse commented that part ofhis question was answered here, and in the time you think you have, can we dothis. Ildefonse said his understanding was to go as deep as possible, since there
was no clear “boundary” or target between 3–4 km or 5 km., so he asked how
much drilling could be done in the time allotted. Eguchi answered that CDEX had
started scoping this deep hole, and in the time allowed in this window, he said we
could reach 4200 mbsf, more or less. Ildefonse said this had been scoped, andyou had a plan to reach, on here, from the sea level, it’s just over six kilometers.

32van der Pluijm said he knew structural geology, and didn’t think this was the way
to end the project with no real geology to find. van der Pluijm said that you
wouldn’t learn more in the 1000 m that you didn’t already know; he commented“it’s pity that we’re saying, we got really close, but we didn’t reach it”, and that was
a downer. As devil’s advocate, van der Pluijm questioned this being the best useof our time and money, and suggested that we should decide very carefully.
Becker said that a counter point was that the ultimate goal was to place theinstrument to the hanging wall and footwall, however, this would be very difficult to
do both in one hole here. He commented that you could get the hanging wall first,
come back and get the footwall later maybe with the CPP or something like that.
van der Pluijm disagreed by saying his point that we couldn’t declare victory if we
don’t get to where we wanted to go. Ildefonse asked if it really makes sense to go
one more kilometer and install the LTBMS. Mori said that key would be getting towhere there is not a lot of structural “mess”. Mori also said one really important
thing would be going to another 1000 m deeper; it would be good enough tomeasure strain, with a good observatory, and that would be a huge difference bygetting data twice as close to the target. Austin commented that these are thearguments you need; getting closer for strain measurement was an advanceargument, and quantifiable and objective goals needed to be spelled out.
Ildefonse said that if equipment needs to be installed, how much/long is needed to
do this. Toczko asked if this just covers installation. Ildefonse rephrased to ask
how long it would take for a minimum riser operation. Eguchi answered that thiswould make things easier, but scientists want core, if we start to run out of time,
we could sacrifice coring for an extended TD. Ildefonse asked about the case justto install the LTBMS at the current depth. Sawada said this would take three tofour weeks. Eguchi added that riser pipe & BOP connection would take two weeks(after confirming with N. Kyo), and therefore it would take 2.5 months in total.
Ildefonse commented that not going 1 km deeper might be a better case to use
available time and money resources. Austin said that a case needs to be built for
coming back, so you need to be in the best possible place to do so. Austin
suggested going for the hanging wall target, then come back with a CPP in aclean new hole. Austin said that Mori ‘s argument regarding strain measurement
was a great one, but he also said that this argument was not about time andmoney, it’s about science.

33

Kimura said the primary goal here is science, but to reach the plate boundary
would take three times the budget on hand. Kimura agreed that even getting
simple pressure measurements had been converted to strain and showed very
good data by Achim Kopf and his group. Kimura said this showed a good path
towards getting important data even from a shallower target, and would allow
reopening the argument to go deeper. Kimura said that now we knew thetemperature there was quite high, around 120°C. Kimura said only pressure
measurements were possible with this shallow configuration, and it’s quite
important to know what is going on in the fault zone. Kimura again mentioned that
we could invite more money in the future to re-open the hole to reach to the final
target.
van der Pluijm asked if we do this, we would be locking Chikyu in for the next 5years, and wondered it was positive or negative for proponents. van der Pluijm
said he was not for or against this, rather he agreed we should go deeper.
However, van der Pluijm also believed that the new phase should also besomething new. Mori said if we decided not to do it, this would be on the table
regardless, and also said that not doing it now would not solve the issue as you
mentioned. Ildefonse said if he were a proponent, he would want to return to thesystem. van der Pluijm said we were like Moho people now, but we should
remember that we do have alternatives, so this discussion was a big step.
The Chair asked CIB members if they agreed about this project. Austin asked if
the money was available. Eguchi answered that the money on hand (31M USD)
would need to be spent by the end of 5-year term, 31 March 2019, as Yano
presented on Day 1. He added that CDEX needs to gather more money fromother operations including commercial options and other opportunities.
The Chair asked the group if we could endorse the C0002 riser project for the2018 IODP window, then JAMSTEC should prepare the money for it. Camoin
asked if the pink scheduled option was already decided. Eguchi explained thatthey still had not included those other options, so there should be more
opportunities. Ildefonse asked to confirm if the plan was minimum or maximum.
Eguchi said it was maximum for the long term and some more opportunities.
van der Pluijm asked if the CIB should be looking at other options, since there’s noconsensus yet. van der Pluijm then asked if we should discuss these options,34

commenting that he would be disappointed in ending NanTroSEIZE here, like this.
Ildefonse asked if this was the only riser operation proposal. The Chair said wehave a non-riser candidate to consider as well. He explained that in the last
meeting, we decided that the next riser would be NanTroSEIZE, so he suggested
getting into this after discussing riserless options.
Eguchi talked about available non-riser proposals, saying JTRACK: 835-Full is the
only thing in the hopper. van der Pluijm asked for a summary. Mori briefly
explained that there were good results from JFAST drilling the fault, but this wasjust one site, and more coverage, or transects, is needed. The project wants toconfirm frictional properties and compare them to places where there was no large
slip. Clements asked the length of the drill string. Eguchi answered that for JFAST
it was around 7,900 m.
Austin commented that SEP likes this and wondered what will put Chikyu in agood place for the new program? Austin asked which is better science; Nankai or
JTRACK? Austin asked CDEX if they could do JTRACK in the allotted time. The
Chair asked Kuramoto to comment. Kuramoto said the operation would bepossible, but even though the last great Nankai Trough earthquakes happened
nearly 80 years ago, the Tohoku earthquake had a huge impact on science andthe public. Kuramoto said that’s why public focus is back on the Nankai region.
CDEX would prefer riser drilling than riserless. Ildefonse commented that this tells
him that the Nankai riser drilling would be better for renewal, since that was what
Chikyu was designed to do.
The Chair asked if there were any other comments.
Becker commented that this was related to non-riser drilling, and he reminded
everyone that a shorter version of the T-Limit project was endorsed last year.
Becker said he hadn’t seen anything about other site of this proposal yet. Eguchi
did not have a lot to add, but said T-Limit proposal had two sites: 11-74 was done,
but the 11-73 portion remained. Becker said so this option is in never-never land.
Kuramoto explained that we needed to confirm the bottom-hole temperature, as
well as the life limit confirmation first before continuing. The Chair asked if thegroup were ready to form consensus about C0002 riser drilling in 2018.
Mori said that we should go for the riser option, which was what Chikyu wasdesigned for; therefor Mori supported the choice to go for riser drilling. Austin said

35

Chikyu was also sold to get into deeper water than JR could do; but you don’t
want to get into a corner. Austin said that JTRACK was a unique option for Chikyu
to have on the table, and it is also great science.
The Chair asked Ildefonse to prepare the consensus statement by this afternoon.
Camoin said the case for science needs to be clearly stated. Becker reminded
everyone that Mori stated that the extension would get us much better strain in the
hanging wall. Austin said measuring strain, drilling deeper, and installing the
LTBMS.
CIB_Consensus_0317_06: Deepening C0002 Riser Hole.
The CIB endorsed IODP Proposal 603, NanTroSEIZE Deep riser drilling at Site
C0002 for Chikyu IODP operations to be scheduled in the Nov. 2018 - Mar. 2019
time window. C0002 operations include logging the deep accretionary prism,
sampling the hanging wall, and installing a borehole observatory to measure strain
and stress near the plate boundary and observe fluid properties of the Nankai
plate boundary. The CIB recognized that deepening the current borehole C0002 toabout 1000 m below its current depth will significantly improve the observations in
the hanging-wall of the plate boundary. The observatory will be installed in ahigher velocity unit as indicated by recent re-processing of 3D seismic data, and amonitoring location closer to the plate boundary fault will enable more sensitive
measurements.
The Chair called for a coffee break at 10:15 hrs.
c. Lord Howe Rise CPP Project(10:45 h.)
The Chair asked Toczko present the Lord Howe Rise CPP.

(Sean Toczko)

Toczko briefly reviewed the Lord Howe Rise deep drilling project, drilling throughCretaceous formations to basement in a continental ribbon, the Lord Howe Rise.
Toczko showed the three IODP themes (Earth, Oceans/Climate, and Life) related
to the project. Toczko talked about how recent surveys have revised primary site
choices due to deep drill-site target prioritization. Toczko said that JAMSTEC andthe Australian Government (Geoscience Australia) are working on pre-drilling site
surveys; one was completed in May 2016, and another is scheduled for thisNovember and December. Toczko said this project will be a collaborative effort
funded by the Australian government and JAMSTEC.
Nishi asked if the Cretaceous sequence includes the K-T boundary or not. Heap
replied that the main goal here is reconstructing the ribbon’s history.

36

The Chair asked if there were any questions and confirmed no, and thanked
Toczko for his presentation.
(10:53 h.)
The Chair asked Eguchi to tell the history of this proposal. Eguchi provided
background information of the LHR proposal and workshop process. The original
proposal was submitted in October 2014 and was constantly updated since thiswas a riser proposal. CIB endorsed the workshop in 2015. Based on the workshop
discussion, the proponents submitted a full proposal. SEP reviewed it in 2016, andrequested revisions. As Toczko mentioned earlier, the first site survey was
conducted, and this data was included in the revised proposals. SEP reviewed it
and happily sent it to CIB rated “Excellent”.
The Chair asked Heap to excuse himself, and the group began discussion onwhether this should be designated as a Chikyu project. Becker wanted to confirm
what this meant, “designating as a Chikyu project”. Eguchi said this was a slightly
different category in CIB: riser proposals (CRISP, IBM, and NanTroSEIZE) aredesignated as “Chikyu projects” at CIB, and then a PCT is formed. Hikurangi is at
CIB but no PCT has been formed. Eguchi said the CIB needs to decide if a PCT
should be created for the Lord Howe Rise project. Becker wanted to confirm that
the CIB had not yet created any PCT for CRISP or IBM? Eguchi said there were,
but it’s a different discussion point.
Allan asked how much time is needed to set up a PCT? Eguchi answered as soon
as possible. Becker asked if CIB should discuss creating a CPP Chikyu project.
Eguchi answered that unlike JR, a Chikyu CPP basically covers operation costs,
but not basic costs as shown in Agenda Item #9 (Yano’s presentation). Ildefonsewanted to confirm that we would be allocating resources to start scoping, andEguchi agreed. The Chair asked if the CIB members were happy with designating
the Lord Howe Rise as a Chikyu project. Becker agreed, saying this would help
raise CPP funding. van der Pluijm said that what complicates things here isdesignating a new riser drilling project after we said we would not be doing so.
Camoin said yes, but there was an exception for CPPs. Austin asked if the CIB
would choose the PCT members. The Chair said that this would be the next step.
CIB_Consensus_0317_07: LHR Project.
The CIB designates IODP Proposal 871-CPP “Lord Howe Rise Continental
Ribbon” as a “Chikyu Project”.

37Eguchi briefly explained the working structure between the Australian Government(Geoscience Australia: GA) and JAMSTEC regarding LHR before going on to
discuss PCT members. There are five agreements (Four completed, and one
pending). CDEX will contribute a team and GA will do the same; Eguchi said thescience members should be decided jointly, with CIB support. Eguchi said the firstmeeting was held last month; it would be held every two months, with weekly
telecons. As Toczko mentioned, the first site survey (JAMSTEC conducted) wascompleted, and. GA would conduct a geotech survey in November–December
2017.
Eguchi continued presenting the GA/JAMSTEC consensus items. Eguchi said that
normally, the PCT does not have a budget management function, but this PCT
will, as per GA insistence; the PCT itself should include four scientists, four CDEX
representatives and two GA management personnel. Eguchi said that the Lord
Howe Rise PCT SOW (scope of work) was not circulated within the CIB yet, butwould be next week, and Eguchi showed slides for general terms of reference(each PCT has a SOW; available as downloadable pdfs) and also presented GA’ssuggested member candidates. Eguchi added CDEX proposed alternates for theJapanese members. Given and Ildefonse asked why CDEX was supporting
candidates different from GA’s suggestion. Eguchi explained that these members
were all JAMSTEC personnel, and CDEX would prefer people from outside of
JAMSTEC; therefore, ended up with flipping Marco Coolen and Fumio Inagaki,
and added Junichiro Kuroda. Given pointed out that this eliminated the sole
Australian female scientist. Becker asked what GA thought about this. Eguchi said
that he had already talked about this with Heap and that would be a discussion for
CIB. Eguchi also said that lead proponent Ron Hackney knew that the CIB had afinal call on membership. Becker mentioned TAT’s recommendation—highlighting
the value of a stratigraphic model. Eguchi replied that those people might coverthat part, and would bring this up at the next meeting with GA in April.
The Chair asked the group if there were any further comments before agreement
could be made. Eguchi reminded the group that the list of PCT member
candidates (CDEX’s suggestion) had been discussed with Heap. The Chair asked
if Eguchi expected that GA would accept the CIBs’ suggestions. Eguchi repliedthat should be fine with them, and he would speak to them about it tomorrowmorning. The Chair checked if GA would be happy if the CIB agreed onmembership. Eguchi replied if they did not agree, he would bring that back to the38

CIB. The Chair asked the group if there were any comments, and Ildefonsecommented that it might be better to replace the Japanese JAMSTEC scientist(microbiologist) with a non-JAMSTEC scientist. Eguchi said that finding someone
to replace Inagaki would be difficult.
van der Pluijm asked if the CIB couldn’t wait until tomorrow for GA’s feedback andthen make a consensus statement? Ildefonse wondered if it was important toclarify the backup people. Eguchi answered yes, because CDEX needs the CIB todesignate them as alternates. Ildefonse pointed out the gender balance would be
important as Given mentioned earlier, and suggested switching the climate people(Junichiro Kuroda and Jessica Whiteside) so the female scientist would be theprimary. Eguchi agreed, saying that there was no confirmation from Kuroda yet,and he may still decline. Austin suggested letting the two parties sort this out;
make an agreement on creating the PCT first, and then let the CIB sort this out
after the agreement is settled. Ildefonse said what about first forwarding the CIB
the approved membership and if that came back to us, the CIB would approvewith no videoconference needed. The Chair told the group that they could
communicate the details later by email. Eguchi said that the CIB could justestablish the PCT, saying: “Create the PCT”.
CIB_Consensus_0317_08: LHR Project Coordination Team.
The CIB creates a Project Coordination Team (PCT) for the LHR project.
Membership will be;
Science Representatives (italics are alternate member):Lead Proponent: Ron Hackney (GA),
Earth theme: Yasu Yamada (JAMSTEC) & Sanny Saito (JAMSTEC),
Oceans/Climate theme: Kliti Grice (Curtin Univ., Perth) & Junichiro Kuroda (Univ.
Tokyo),
Life theme: Marco Coolen (Curtin Univ., Perth) & Fumio Inagaki (JAMSTEC)
Additional GA representatives:
Andrew Heap
Jessica Gurney
CDEX representatives:
Kan Aoike
Nobu Eguchi
Tomo Saruhashi
Take Yano

The Chair said we would move to the next item at 11:23 hr.

39

d. Bend Fault Serpentanization WS report(Nobuhisa Eguchi)(11:25 h.)
Eguchi discussed this workshop, approved by the last CIB, and conducted on 19–
21 June 2016 in London. Eguchi said the currently relevant proposals are 876-Pre
Bend-Fault Serpentinization, and 886-Pre NW Pacific Bend-Fault Hydrology, andboth were still at SEP. Eguchi commented that these were in the agenda book,and added that 876 is ultra-deep drilling. Ildefonse commented that this was
before you told us no more non-CPP riser drilling. Eguchi said that this workshop
was disappointed by the CIB message that, except for CPPs, that no more riser
operations were being sought. Ildefonse added that the workshop participants
tried to figure out how to get the maximum science here with riserless drilling.
The Chair decided to adjourn to a small meeting of the CIB members for about 30
minutes in the next room.
The main gist of this breakout was to nail down the CIBs decision regarding thecurrent riser proposals: CRISP, IBM, and Hikurangi. Furthermore, what would theofficial CIB stance be on requesting new riser proposals? Ildefonse wondered
why, if this was not a confidential meeting, were we meeting in a separate room?
Eguchi replied that this was just to streamline discussion, and all items discussed
would be brought to the entire meeting’s attention.
The Chair suggested that not only CPPs, but all kinds of riser proposals be
accepted. Becker agreed that this was needed, but Camoin wanted to confirm that
this would help renewal. The discussion moved on to the messaging, and how thisshould be crafted for an Eos advertisement, that would create hope and notconfusion. Eguchi and the Chair suggested that messages be sent to the
proponents of the current riser proposals for addendums and updates be
forwarded to SEP. van der Pluijm wanted to ensure that all proposals get treatedon an equal basis, and suggested that the Hikurangi proponents might think thatthey are next in line.
All agreed that Lord Howe Rise be scheduled, but as van der Pluijm suggested,
they do not get a sliding window to fit into the drilling schedule whenever theywant. The Chair confirmed that the 2020 IODP riser window be reserved for the
Lord Howe Rise CPP.

40

(11:30–12:00 h.)
14. Long Term Strategy for Future Chikyu Implementation(All)

Note: The order was changed from the original 13 to 14 on Day 2.

(12:02 h.)
The meeting resumed after the short breakout session. Becker said that the CIB
knows that the Chair (Tatsumi) is an IBM proponent, but decided he was not in
COI. The Chair reminded everyone that for riser proposals there are a few things
to consider. Mori noted that the CIB was supposed to science rank these, butsince they’ve already been ranked, maybe this was not a great idea. Mori also
said if these get sent back for rescheduling and re-ranking, the CIB would have to
explain why, and this would not be very constructive.
The Chair asked if the science needed to be updated, if the proposals’ needs
updating. The Chair suggested asking proponents to send addendums to SEP by
1 Oct 2018 and see if the CIB can discuss these after the SEP review. Given said
that the CIB’s message to SEP is important, since otherwise, SEP may try to startfrom zero again. The Chair wanted to clarify that the CIB would be asking forscience updates from drilling results; however, what about for riser proposals?
Both Given and Ildefonse agreed that clear direction to SEP should be given,
especially how the outcomes from JR riserless drilling affects the riser proposals.
Allen suggested some direct communication with the SEP chairs Gulick and Miller,
to see the best way to approach this. Allen warned about getting too deep into
details; for example, for CRISP, the whole strategy may change. Allen suggested
that the SEP might pleasantly surprise the CIB.
Ildefonse said the CIB needs to let proponents know that there are new things that
require riser proposal revision. Given mentioned that since the SEP membershiphas changed, sending these back for revision could have different results. Becker
added that the CIB needs to identify items for the next 5-year term. Austin agreed
saying they need clear “instructions”.
Michiko Yamamoto asked if the CIB wants a Proponent Response Letter (PRL), if
there isn’t any new site info. Eguchi said if updates are needed, and a PRL isbetter, let’s do that. Given agreed, saying, that this is the new system. Ildefonsesaid even so, some of these proposals may need revision. Becker wanted toclarify who the updates should be submitted to? The CIB? Given suggested the41

CIB ask SEP to comment on the updates. Austin pointed out that in the case of
Hikurangi, there are two Hikurangi expeditions with four co-chiefs, showing that
more information is needed from just one expedition alone. Becker suggested thatmaybe this should be submitted to the CIB.
van der Pluijm said that there should be new pre-proposals, and there should be a
distinction between these. Allen suggested keeping the JRFB and the SEP chairs
included and not the whole membership; this may be a way of minimizing potential
problems. The Chair decided to ask proponents to update science, and submit
addendum to the CIB. The Chair wondered if the SEP chair would be able toassist the CIB. The deadline should be based on the SEP schedule, 1 Oct 2018.
Given wondered what would happen if the situation were overly complicated? vander Pluijm said the CIB should handle it. A brief discussion on formatting was held,with the result that the CIB would rely on SEP to create a format – if needed.
Clement was curious as to what CIB would do with this information, and the Chair
replied that this would guide planning for the next 5-year session. Becker
suggested writing a general consensus and then finish the details later. van derPluijm again said we should encourage new riser pre-proposals, which the Chair
agreed with. There was some concern that there may be confusion between preproposals and SEP-approved proposals, but Given said this should be clearly
understood. van der Pluijm and Ildefonse wanted to make clear that CIB is setting
a path to riser work beyond NanTroSEIZE.
CIB_Consensus_0317_09: Proposal update.
The CIB will ask proponents of three riser proposals (CRISP (537), IBM (698), andHikurangi (781)) to submit updates to the CIB by 1 October 2018 based on new
results and drilling operations for further assessment of those proposals at the
CIB. The CIB will contact the JRFB chair and the SEP co-chairs for potential
involvement in this process.
CIB_Consensus_0317_10: Call for new riser pre-proposals.
The CIB recommends a change in the next IODP call for proposals. Currently, only
CPP’s are being considered as new riser proposals. To encourage exciting new
riser projects for current and future IODP consideration, pre-proposals for new
projects will be solicited. At its 2018 meeting, the CIB will resume its evaluation of
any riser pre-proposals forwarded to it by the SEP.
The Chair called a break for lunch at 13:00 hrs.
LUNCH
42

(13:29)
The Chair began the afternoon session with the LHR CPP scheduling. The Chair
mentioned that CIB had designated this as a Chikyu project and that this could bea candidate for the IODP window near the end of 2020. The Chair recognized thattentatively fixing the schedule was essential to get GA funding. The Chair said thishad been discussed in the side meeting, and recognized that this LHR CPP
should be the candidate in the 2020 window if the funding was soon available. The
Chair asked for comments.
van der Pluijm said that we should go on record as identifying this for the IODP
window in 2020, but the CIB should not automatically approve other times orscheduling.
The Chair asked for any other comments. There were no comments, so Heap wascalled back to the meeting room.
CIB_Consensus_0317_11: Scheduling Lord Howe Rise Project.
The CIB applauds the efforts of the proponents of IODP Proposal 871-CPP Lord
Howe Rise to obtain CPP funding for the project. The CIB recommends this riser
operation be scheduled during the available time window in 2020, on condition
that funding is available. This window will not be automatically extended without
CIB discussion. The LHR PCT will work to ensure that the 2020 IODP window is
met.
15. Safety Review Committee Update(Shigemi Naganawa)(13:32)
Shigemi Naganawa presented the 2016 drill pipe drop incident. Naganawa told thegroup that after the fourth CIB meeting, two Chikyu safety review committee andthree drilling sub-committee meetings were held. Following CIB recommendation,
Naganawa said that they discussed a detailed technical investigation, analyses,
and simulation to specify the causes.
Naganawa explained both #12 and #13 tests and said that although the incident
occurred during #13 test, the cause was actually estimated to have occurred
during test #12. Naganawa also explained the technical causes, which CDEX
analyzed; there were three technical causes. One was a fracture propagation
process from surface observation. After some tests, they found that total numberof repeated stress was estimated as 3 x 104 from numerical simulations whichmatched well with the results of material testing and crack propagation analysis.
43

The second was the torque record, showing that micro cracks were believed tooccur during high pipe rotation. The third is heat effect, where CDEX observedchanges in composition and the strength of pipe material from the heat effect inthe surface layer of the pipe section in contact with the insert bowl.
In addition to these technical causes, Naganawa also pointed out two root
management causes. One was the evaluation test plan and procedures.
Naganawa said that CDEX should have carried out the test much more carefully
with enhanced safety measures and greater crew accident prevention awareness.
Second, was requiring safety evaluations of the equipment technical test.
Naganawa said CDEX should have included risk communication among theparticipants onboard, including the crew, and should have reminded them of theimportance of precaution.
Naganawa summarized the committee’s recommendations:•

More direct communication with crew so that they can be reminded to follow
the general safety rules.

•

Improve safety evaluation workflow to evaluate engineering development
tests and training cruises in the same manner as scientific drilling.

•

Share knowledge and findings with the public and related industry
communities.

•

Share the operating plan and risk assessment with all personnel on Chikyu inorder to have successful operation

Naganawa showed a revised Chikyu safety evaluation workflow, where the Chikyu
safety review committee can review not only the scientific drilling cruises but also
technical tests conducted on Chikyu. Naganawa said that this new process would
enhance both internal and external safety evaluation processes in CDEX.
The Chair asked the group for questions, and there were none.
16. Chikyu/IODP Performance Review(All)(13:45 h.)
The Chair began by tasking CIB members to summarize today and yesterday’s
reviews, since CDEX was very interested in feedback from an external committee.
The Chair opened the discussion with the review topic “Operation”. The Chair
asked Becker for comments. Becker said that the TAT had very positive reviews44

on operations and engineering development. The Chair asked if we could circulate
this draft by the end of the month. Kuramoto answered yes, saying CDEX needed
to report the CIB and TAT comments to an internal JAMSTEC committee. Morisaid that CDEX was well prepared for discussions, logistics, future planning, etc.
The Chair confirmed that there were no further comments on this first topic.
The Chair moved to the second topic “fund raising and savings”. The Chair
recalled that CDEX presented their best efforts to increase their budget, appealing
to “social relevance” and “disaster mitigation” as key words to push the Japanese
government. The Chair asked if there were any additional comments. Austin said
that TAT mentioned the possibility of raising money from engineeringdevelopments, such as patents and commercial returns, which should be included
here. The Chair said that to get more funding, CDEX/JAMSTEC needs proposal
pressure and interest from the younger generation. van der Pluijm said the phrase
should be “societal” not “social relevance”; additionally, “mitigation” was not anappropriate key word, because it “refers to post-disaster”, and we should be
minimizing the effects. Given pointed out that “mitigation” was OK, because it
works to help reduce the negative effects. Becker suggested that adding “deepbiosphere” seems to be helpful. Ildefonse said that we should include fundamental
research. The Chair said that we definitely need a catchy key word, to raiseawareness and interest in our mission. Ildefonse said that we should add “deepbiosphere”.
The Chair moved on to the third topic “education and outreach”. The Chair said
that one of the key issues here is how to nurture younger generations of scientists.
Camoin wanted to decouple education and outreach since they are different things.
The Chair agreed and asked the members about the effectiveness of CDEX’s
education and outreach efforts. Kitazato said we should be contributing to open
science, sharing data with other communities; for example, oceanographic datacollected by Chikyu during expeditions should be made available. Ildefonsereminded everyone that IODP was doing exactly this, sharing data openly, to all.
Kuramoto said JAMSTEC was looking for external suggestions to be forwarded to
the JAMSTEC President, and upwards to the MEXT Minister. Ildefonse asked
Kuramoto if we should highlight good things or point out improvements. Eguchi
answered both, and said that they would like to get comments of good things, badthings, or any other things. van der Pluijm said that one strength is international
collaboration, it’s one of the biggest successes of IODP. Ildefonse said thatperhaps better advertising of the data and sample availability would help, but45added that in France, there are people asking “why pay for IODP when the dataand samples are available for free?” Ildefonse added that an active community isneeded to maximize the use of these resources. The Chair said morecollaboration with IODP members needs to be considered. Becker wondered thatwith IODPs’ current decentralization, what could be done? Camoin suggested
more involvement and sharing of what each group is doing, share experience, andmaybe the IODP forum is such a place.
Austin said that communication in the forum was only a beginning; the educational
world makes formal assessments of their activities, and statistics are extremely
important here. How many people visited the website, how many people read thestatement, how many workshops, visitors, papers, etc, and they tabulate theresults. Austin reminded the group that the education community hire
professionals to make formal assessments of these impacts, since without aformal assessment, nobody would believe what you report. Austin wasn’t awarethat CDEX required this; while discussion with a professional group might help,
this would cost money. Austin said NSF budgets money for these assessments;
perhaps CDEX should do the same. Austin said we need to track publications andoutcomes. Austin said this is a “numbers game” and we have to keep that in mind,
as the same lessons can be applied to educational efforts and outreach. Camoin
repeated that this was why education and outreach need to be decoupled. Allen
said he may ask Austin to add an agenda item regarding the roles of education
officers aboard JR, and Austin said the Forum is the best place to start.
The Chair moved on to the next topic: “Long range plans”. The Chair reminded
everyone that the mornings’ discussion covered future riser & riserless projects.
Keeping in mind that riser drilling is a major and key task of Chikyu, the Chair said
we also need to recommend riserless operations. The Chair asked CDEX to show
their long-range plans. Austin wanted to know what “long range” meant: 2018 or
the 2019-2023 phase. Kuramoto said this was for 2019–2023. Ildefonse waspuzzled, since the message from last year was all negative, with budgets
constantly falling, but somehow this year everything’s positive. Ildefonsewondered if the problem here is that there is no real “vision” but everything isbased on “budget”.
Austin said that CDEX had riser and riserless proposals with good science, which
had gone through SEP. The science is there, and there have been many positive
results; Camoin mentioned the two successful riserless expeditions in 2016.

46

Austin said the main task is CDEX finding the money. Becker made the point thatthe scientific impact of these efforts is not getting out there, at least he hasn’t seen
it, and this need to be a priority. The Chair said we need to encourage CDEX.
The Chair then moved on to the importance of nurturing early career scientists.
The Chair mentioned that this is the force behind the efforts to establish theworkshop on Chikyu during Expedition 380, the core schools, and the international
efforts made by CDEX. Given said that she always checked the science membersof each expedition, and was encouraged by seeing a lot of young career scientists
in the T-Limit expedition. Given was also impressed by nationalities, age, genderbalance, and so on. Austin said that he thought IODP-wide action was been taken
to address this. Camoin asked CDEX if there was a deficit of early-career
scientists from Japan. Kuramoto said this was very true. The Chair said we would
prepare a draft and circulate it among the CIB members, and forward it to CDEX
by the end of the month.
CIB_Consensus_0317-12: Chikyu/IODP Operation.
Based on Chikyu operation/Status Update (Agenda item 9) and TAT Report(Agenda item 10), the CIB commends the great operational successes of the
Chikyu in riserless mode during IODP Expeditions 365 and 370. The CIB also
applauds the CDEX engineering and operational developments, especiallydevelopment of “high current drill pipe support system” for safe and efficientonboard work. The CIB recognized that CDEX was well prepared for each IODP
expedition and the CIB encourages CDEX to maintain the same level of effort for
future expedition planning.
CIB_Consensus_0317-13: Fund Raising/Saving.
The CIB commends the success of Chikyu IODP operations not only for basic
science but also for disaster mitigation. To conduct further high-impact IODP
expeditions, the CIB endorses CDEX for continued effort towards fund raising aswell as cost savings for Chikyu IODP operations. The CIB recommends CDEX toconsider those newly developed engineering equipment as a venue for raisingfunds from industries. Although the CIB is pleased with cost savings in creating amore flexible operation budget, the CIB expressed some concerns whether too
much cost savings in the current five-year phase might negatively affect Chikyu
maintenance and therefore readiness and preparedness of Chikyu beyond
JFY2018.
CIB_Consensus_0317-14: Education & Outreach.
The CIB praises CDEX’s education and outreach efforts, including several
expedition video products for international audiences as well as the inauguralinternational Chikyu onboard school. The CIB recommends that CDEX decouples
education and outreach activities, and endorses CDEX to consider future
education opportunities for young and early career scientists.

47

CIB_Consensus_0317-15: Long Range Plan.
The CIB was pleased to schedule one riserless expedition (Exp. 380), one riser
expedition (Exp. 358), and one potential riser CPP expedition at this meeting. The
CIB understands that the final scheduling of IODP expeditions ultimately depends
on JAMSTEC budgets; however, the CIB strongly encourages CDEX to ensure
Chikyu continues to operate for excellent science.

17. Next CIB meeting
Note: The order was changed from the original 18 to 17 on Day 2.

(14:20 h.)
The Chair moved on to selecting the dates for the next CIB meeting. Eguchi feltthat the ECORD FB and CIB meetings should be separated by at least one month,
therefore proposed 19–20 March or 22–23 March 2018 for the next CIB meeting.
However, Eguchi asked the CIB members to comments on this first. van derPluijm said that 19–20 March was better and all agreed on this.
The Chair announced the next meeting would be held on 19–20 March 2018.
CIB_Consensus_0317_16: Next meeting.
The CIB decided the next meeting will be held on 19 – 20 March 2018 in Kobe,
Japan.
18. Other BusinessNote: The order was changed from the original 19 to 18 on Day 2.

(14:25 h.)
The Chair asked if there was any other business. Becker asked to confirm that theterm of the Chair was about to end – if so, this would be a bad time to rotate thechair. Becker suggested that the Chair stay for another term. Austin agreed,saying that leadership continuity was a good idea. Eguchi said that since the
Chair’s term was two years, once accepted, this would mean two more years. vander Pluijm wanted to think positively and suggested we request the renewal. The
Chair said if the group desired, he would accept and do his best. Ildefonse asked
if we could have a meeting on Chikyu. Eguchi answered maybe, but there would
be no drinking.
CIB_Consensus_0317_17: Extension of Chair term.
The CIB recommends a 2-year term extension of the current CIB chairperson be
granted.
The Chair called for a short 30-minute coffee break at 14:30 hrs.
48

19. Review of Consensus Statements and Action Items
Note: The order was changed from the original 17 to 19 on Day 2.

(15:07 h.)
The Chair started the final item, review of consensus statements and action items.
Eguchi then reviewed the draft items one by one.
The Chair checked for final comments, and there being none, thanked all theattendees and closed the meeting at 16:00 h.

Meeting adjourned

CIB_Consensus_0317-18: Proposal 898-Pre workshop proposal.
The CIB learned that the IODP Proposal 898-Pre “Fore Arc Mohole-to-Mantle”
proponent team is planning to hold a workshop in October 2018. The CIB
reviewed 898-Pre, and decided to invite a “Full-proposal development workshop”
proposal with a submission deadline of 16 February 2018.
Background: The CIB has a process to invite a “Full proposal development workshop” proposal
for pre proposals that have been evaluated as “Develop Full Proposal” at SEP. IODP Proposal
898-Pre “Fore Arc Mohole-to-Mantle” was forwarded to CIB as a potential Chikyu proposal at the
March 2017 meeting; however, there was no discussion regarding this at the meeting. CDEX had
learned that the proponent team of this proposal was planning to hold a workshop in October 2018.
CDEX asked the CIB members to discuss, by email (29 December 2017), whether to invite aworkshop proposal or not, after consultation with the CIB chair. This was done because waiting
until the March 2018 CIB meeting to discuss this would be too late for the workshop preparation.
All the CIB members were in favor of inviting a workshop proposal and were in consensus (18January 2018).
This consensus was recorded in CIB #5 meeting minutes.

49Agenda Item 5
CIB Decisions since Last MeetingConsensus item after CIB #5 meeting
CIB_Consensus_0317-18: Proposal 898-Pre workshop proposal.
The CIB learned that the IODP Proposal 898-Pre “Fore Arc Mohole-to-Mantle”
proponent team is planning to hold a workshop in October 2018. The CIB reviewed
898-Pre, and decided to invite a “Full-proposal development workshop” proposal witha submission deadline of 16 February 2018.
Background: The CIB has a process to invite a “Full proposal development workshop”
proposal for pre proposals that have been evaluated as “Develop Full Proposal” at
SEP. IODP Proposal 898-Pre “Fore Arc Mohole-to-Mantle” was forwarded to CIB asa potential Chikyu proposal at the March 2017 meeting; however, there was no
discussion regarding this at the meeting. CDEX had learned that the proponent teamof this proposal was planning to hold a workshop in October 2018. CDEX asked the
CIB members to discuss, by email (29 December 2017), whether to invite a workshop
proposal or not, after consultation with the CIB chair. This was done because waiting
until the March 2018 CIB meeting to discuss this would be too late for the workshop
preparation.
All the CIB members were in favor of inviting a workshop proposal and were inconsensus (18 January 2018).
This consensus was recorded in CIB #5 meeting minutes.

Agenda Item 6
CIB Action Item Status

Status of CIB action items since the last meeting
Based on #5 CIB meeting discussion (Consensus 0317-09), the following
message was sent to the lead proponents of IODP Proposal 537B, 698, and 781
on 11 May 2017 from CIB secretariat.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear xxx (lead proponent name),
The latest Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) made the following consensus at its 5th
meeting.
CIB_Consensus_0317_09: Proposal update.
The CIB will ask proponents of three riser proposals (CRISP (537), IBM (698), andHikurangi (781)) to submit updates to the CIB by 1 October 2018 based on new
results and drilling operations for further assessment of those proposals at the CIB.
The CIB will contact the JRFB chair and the SEP co-chairs for potential involvement inthis process.
Your proposal IODP Proposal xxx had been designated as “Chikyu project” by CIB
at its 1st meeting and the Project Coordination Team had created. However,mainly due to CDEX/JAMSTEC financial situation, your project had not been
executed.
The CIB discussed your proposal at its 5th meeting and decided to ask update ofyour proposal based on new results from previous expeditions and/or resultsfrom workshops.
You will submit your update as Proponent Response Letter (PRL) or Addendum(if there are any change in your scientific goals and/or change your site). Detailsof those proposal format is available from (http://iodp.org/iodp-proposalsubmission-guidelines-8-2016/file).
Please let me know (cib-info@jamstec.go.jp) if you have any questions and/or
concerns.
Sincerely yours,
CIB Chair,
Yoshi Tatsumi

Agenda Item 7
Other FB, IODP Forum, and Agency Activities
a. IODP Forumb. JR Facility Board
c. ECORD Facility Board
d. ECORD
e. MEXT
f. NSFg. ANZIC
h. PMOsIODP Forum: Meeting #4(Shanghai, China)
James A. Austin, Jr. ‐ IODP Forum Chair
Senior Research Scientist
University of Texas/Austin
Jackson School of Geosciences
Institute for Geophysics

CIB
March, 201B

General Purpose
The IODP Forum is custodian of the Science Plan and a venue for exchanging ideas andviews on the scientific progress of the “program”. As occasion warrants, the Forum
Chair will also provide advice to IODP Facility Boards on Platform Provider activity:• No specified budget (but with some support from the SSO); attendance byrepresentatives of partner countries/consortia at scheduled meetings is voluntaryand supported by those members.
• This phase of scientific ocean drilling is “collaborative”; in such a form, important“program” aspects (e.g., responsiveness to submitted proposals from theinternational scientific community, seeking new partners,…) can get lost. The Forum
helps to prevent that from occurring.
• Philosophical rather than political clout; however, the Forum mechanism IS working.

CIB
March, 2018

The Forum meets once/year
Our most recent meeting (#4) took place in Shanghai, China, on 11‐12
September, 2017:• All Forum decisions are by consensus; items arising from the last
meeting can be found at www.iodp.org/iodp‐forum.
• Here, I present relevant consensus items from the last meeting andinvite brief comment/discussion.

CIB
March, 2018

Forum Consensus Item 17‐02: The Forum, after receiving the results ofreviews commissioned by both the ANZIC and ECORD consortia in service of theirrespective renewals for ongoing participation in IODP, acknowledges the continuing need
to foster the “Biosphere Frontiers” theme of the decadal Science Plan. The Forumsupports a workshop‐based approach to: 1.) identify new/broader components of theinternational scientific community to develop “Biosphere Frontier” drilling proposals and2.) build that biosphere theme more strongly into the current flow of IODP proposals.

CIB
March, 2018

Forum Consensus Item 17‐03: One of the Forum’s primary responsibilities is
to be a custodian of progress of IODP towards fulfillment of its decadal Science Plan.
Since the inception of the Forum, its Chair (in concert with the Science Support Office)has maintained a progress report on pre‐(drilling) expedition assessments (byproponents, primarily) of that progress. While results of those assessments foster
optimism that progress is being made across all of the Science Plan’s themes andcomponent challenges, post‐expedition assessments have not been systematic, but are
equally important for the health of scientific ocean drilling. That task will be undertaken
for JOIDES Resolution expeditions during the first phase (2013‐2017) of IODP by the
JRAW (“Assessment of the JOIDES Resolution in Meeting the Challenges of the IODP
Science Plan”) workshop, to be held in late September 2017. The Forum looks forward
to the JRAW report, and urges similar assessment efforts by other IODP platform
providers/component drilling communities.
• As of submission of this presentation, the JRAW report was not yet available, butshould be out “soon”.
CIB
March, 2018

Forum Consensus Item 17‐04: Taking into account the generally
acknowledged validity of IODP’s current decadal Science Plan for the next ~5‐year phaseof scientific ocean drilling, and after extensive discussion following a forward‐thinking
presentation by a representative from China, the Forum endorses a long‐term (multi‐year), workshop‐based approach to assess the technologies needed to reach the fullpotential of that Science Plan. Those workshops, to be held beginning in ~2019, shouldincorporate: 1.) the diverse challenges inherent in a multiple (drilling) platform
approach to addressing the Science Plan, 2,) the importance of inclusion of both
member and non‐member scientific communities, as well as industry, in order to build
scientific ocean drilling’s constituency, and 3.) interest expressed by China and other
IODP members and consortia to lead this effort. Ideally, this initiative should be
progressed in parallel with any and all (new and ongoing) planning efforts designed tokeep IODP as presently constituted alive and well.

CIB
March, 2018

Forum Consensus Item 17‐05: The Forum applauds the initiative expressedby the group pursuing a commemorative volume in the journal Oceanography
entitled “Scientific Ocean Drilling: Looking to the Future”. This publication will form
both a commemoration and a celebration of 50 years of scientific ocean drilling; thevolume is expected to be published in time for the anniversary, ~December 2018. The
Forum sees this activity as emblematic of a range of activities which could and shouldbe pursued, both to honor this milestone and to support the productive continuationof IODP beyond 2018.
• Anthony Koppers (Chair, JRFB) is the lead editor; more details can be gotten from
him.

CIB
March, 2018

Forum Consensus Item 17‐06: The Forum is encouraged by activities in support of its
Consensus 16‐06 over the past year in support of both publicizing and supporting the crucial relationshipbetween seismic imaging/drill‐site characterization and scientific ocean drilling, across all platforms.
However, the risk of a reduction in seismic imaging capabilities internationally remains. The Forum notesthat the efficiency of JOIDES Resolution (JR) operations within this phase of IODP has been improved bymulti‐year regional planning; recently, the primary seismic imaging asset of the U.S. has been operated
productively in a similar way. The Forum suggests and supports development of a planning effort linking
seismic imaging and drilling, through workshops, with emphasis on likely future areas of anticipated IODP
operations. The primary goal is to support seismic imaging efforts in support of and en route todevelopment of competitive proposals to drill all accessible parts of the global ocean system, during thenext phase of IODP.

CIBMarch, 2018

Forum Consensus Item 17‐07: The Forum receives multiple reports fromIODP member countries and consortia concerning “education [E] and outreach [O]”activities in support of scientific ocean drilling. Those activities are diverse and in many
instances inspiring. However, at the same time, they are generally underfunded anddispersed, which is accentuated by both inherent cultural and language differences
across the IODP membership. Education activities generally focus on development ofcurricula, whereas outreach activities broadly target the general public. A recent
ECORD program review suggests a renewed emphasis on outreach efforts. The
Forum encourages these outreach efforts, particularly those that can be generalized
across the IODP to enhance efficiencies. A long‐term objective is increased
decoupling of “E” vs. “O” activities, with emphasis on those IODP efforts that lead tomeasurable impacts.
CIB
March, 2018

Forum Consensus Item 17‐09: The Forum enthusiastically accepts theinvitation from our Indian colleague Brijesh Bansal to hold the next meeting of the Forum (#5) in
Goa in September 2018 (exact dates to be determined). Japan has offered to host the Forum #6
meeting in Osaka in September 2019. The Forum greets that invitation with equal enthusiasm.
•

The search for the next Forum Chair is underway (application deadline 1 March). The review
committee has been named, and an acceptable candidate should be in place in time toattend the Forum meeting in Goa.

CIB
March, 2018

Questions? Comments?
Shanghai, China

JRFB – Arlington, VA
CIB
May, 2016
March, 2018

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board

19 March, 2018

CIB 1803 MEETING
19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 1 of 22

JRSO

NSF
EPSP

JRFB

SSO

19 March 2018, EFB1803

SEP

The New IODP
Structure is
working likeclockwork …

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 2 of 22

Outline
1

On the Facility Board Approach

1A
1B

Advantages of a Highly Streamlined Panel Structure
Mandate and the Role of the JRFB

2

Scheduling and Long-term JR Track

2A
2B
2C
2D
2E

The State of JOIDES Resolution Regional Planning
At Least One Single JOIDES Resolution Circumnavigation
Scheduling up to mid-2021 for the JOIDES Resolution
Proposal Pressure for the JOIDES Resolution
IODP-wide Mission Antarctica

3

Improvements in the JR Facility

4Special Oceanography Volume:
Celebrating 50 Years Scientific Ocean Drilling
JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

19 March 2018, EFB1803

Scientists
3x US
3x Inter‐national

Support Office
and Site Survey
Data Bank

JRSO

FORUM
USAC

Chair is US
Scientist

NSF

Slide 3 of 22

JRFB ADVISORY PANELSJRFacility
Board

Environmental Protectionand Safety Panel (EPSP)
Science Evaluation
Panel (SEP)

JR partners
ECORD
Australia
Brazil
China
India
Korea

19 March 2018, EFB1803

ECORD
Facility
Board

JOIDES
Resolution

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

ChikyuIODP
Board

Oversight
AdviseOutside Input
Slide 4 of 22

1B. JRFB Mandate and Role
JRFB 1705 Consensus Statement 16
The JRFB reaffirms its primary goal of implementing
all proposals that are thoroughly reviewed, scientificallyevaluated, and forwarded by SEP and that have been
recommended for approval by EPSP.
Decisions on scheduling are principally dependent on theplanned regional track of the JOIDES Resolution; maximizing
the fit and balance of proposals to the IODP 2013-2023
science plan; funding and ship time availability; and safety,
permitting and other logistical constraints.

19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 5 of 22

1B. JRFB Mandate and Role
█ █ Terms of References JRFB, SEP, EPSP
█ █ Policies and Guidelines
 SEP and EPSP-related Guidelines
 IODP Environmental Principles
 IODP Sample and Data Obligation Policy
 JR 3rd Party Tool Policy
 JR Facility Conflict of Interest Policy
 JR Staffing Procedures
 JR Standard Measurements█ █ Approving Panel Membership and Leadership JRFB, SEP, EPSP, CAB
19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 6 of 22

1B. JRFB Mandate and Role
█ █ Single Guidelines

19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 7 of 22

2A. Long-Term JR Cruise Track
UPDATED MAP (CALENDAR YEARS) FOLLOWING JRFB MEETING OF MAY 201719 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 8 of 22

2B. Single Global Circumnavigation
JRFB 1705 Consensus Statement 8
The JRFB reaffirms that the JOIDES Resolution will fulfill at
least a single global circumnavigation … by 2023.
JRFB 1705 Consensus Statement 9
The JRFB expects that the JOIDES Resolution will complete its
global circumnavigation in the Indo-Pacific in FY’23█ █ PROPOSAL CALL
• Requires immediate proposal pressure for high latitude
expeditions in the Arctic and North Pacific in 2022-23• Early proposal call for Indo-Pacific expeditions in 2023-24
19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 9 of 22

2C. Scheduling of the JR█ █ Scheduling happens during May JRFB Meeting█ █ Always scheduling 2-3 years into future, thusin May 2018 we will schedule for FY20-21█ █ Staying true to the outlined regional track█ █ Since 2017 the JR is at full utilization as we areoperating 10-11 months/year█ █ Since 2014 we have sailed 4 CPP expeditions(with China/India) and 1 CPP is planned in the
Gulf of Mexico for 2020 (with DOE)
█ █ Implementing engineering-only expeditions█ █ Also scheduling short and/or hybrid expeditions
19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 10 of 22

2C. New JR Schedule FY’19-20 *Fiscal Year

Proposal
Expedition

Title

FY’19

Expedition 378

South Pacific Paleogene

FY’19

Expedition 379

Amundsen Sea Ice Sheet History

FY’19

P902 + P846-APL

Combined Expedition Iceberg Alley Paleoceanography and Falkland
Water Depth Record

FY’19

P912

Drake Passage Paleoceanography

FY’19

Transit /Engineering /P769-APL

Transit to the Gulf of California during which various engineering
tests and the Costa Rica Crustal Architecture 769-APL will be carriedout (no full science party required)

FY’20

P833

Guaymas Basin Activity

FY’20

Transit / Tie-Up /Preparation Time

Transit to the Gulf of Mexico, one-month tie-up period for JOIDES
Resolution maintenance and repairs, followed by a two-week
preparation time window for P887 Gulf of Mexico operations

FY’20

P887-CPP

Gulf of Mexico Methane Hydrates

FY’20

TBD

Scheduling of at least one expedition in the western tropical Atlantic

1 Oct - 30 Sept

* Subject to funding being available for ship operations in FY’19-20
19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 11 of 22

2D. Proposal Pressure
UPDATED MAP (CALENDAR YEARS) FOLLOWING SEP MEETING OF JAN 201819 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 12 of 22

2E. IODP-wide Mission Antarctica
PROPOSAL PRESSURE IN THE SOUTHERN OCEANS

19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 13 of 22

3. Improvements in the JR Facility
JRFB 1705 Consensus Statement 11
The JRFB affirms its long-term goal to maintain the JOIDES
Resolution facility and the Gulf Coast Repository as a stateof-the-art “floating Earth science laboratory” that is up-todate with current analytical equipment, software anddatabases, while adding new standard shipboard andonshore analytical capabilities,
if required by a demonstrable need of the larger

IODP science community

19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 14 of 22

3. Improvements in the JR Facility
JRFB 1705 Consensus Statement 7
The JRFB recommends the immediate formation of a “DeepCrustal Drilling Engineering” workgroup at the JRSO withrepresentatives of the JRFB and JRSO, Siem Offshore drillingengineers, and the principal proponents, in order to review
the results of Expedition 360 “SW Indian Ridge Lower Crustand Moho, Leg 1” and Expedition 355 “Superfast Spreading
Rate Crust, Leg 4” and make recommendations on how tosuccessfully achieve drilling, coring and logging deeper than
1.5 km into ocean crust hard rock environments.

19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 15 of 22

4. Special Oceanography Volume

Scientific Ocean Drilling:
Looking to the Future
Guest Editors
Anthony A.P. Koppers, Carlota Escutia
Fumio Inagaki, Heiko Pälike
DSDP
Demian Saffer, Debbie Thomas
50
ODP
YEARS
Oceanography Editor
IODP
Ellen S. Kappel
The Oceanography Society will publish this Special Issue before theAGU Fall Meeting in December 2018 in Washington, DC
Sponsored by NSF, ECORD Council, J-DESC and ANZIC19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 16 of 22

4. Special Oceanography Volume█ █ The overall goal of the special issue is to provide
the scientific basis for continuation of scientificocean drilling into the future and post-2023:
 It is a valuable community tool that has contributed
significantly to addressing global geoscience questions
 There remain many geoscience problems to solve that
require data collected by a scientific drilling platform Anticipated future enhancements in drilling, coring andlogging technologies will allow new approaches
 Keep fostering strong collaborations among scientists fromdifferent disciplines, institutions and countries
 Provide platform for students to gain valuable seagoingexperience and network with international scientists

19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 17 of 22

4. Special Oceanography Volume█ █ Main Chapters (up to 10) Keeping an Eye on Ice Shelf Stability
 The Impact of Meteorite Impacts
 A Historic Measure on Sea Level Rise The Limits and Functionality of Deep Life
 Earth’s Largest Earthquakes and Tsunamis
 Slow Motion Earthquakes: Taking the Pulse of Slow Slip
 What Lies Beneath (the Oceanic Crust) How to Create Virgin Subduction Zones
 Channeling Water Through Ocean Crust Blowing in the Monsoon Wind
 Large Amplitude Paleoclimatic Perturbations
19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 18 of 22

4. Special Oceanography Volume█ █ Short Stories (up to 10)
 Fifty Years of Scientific Ocean Drilling Reading All the Pages in the Book on Climate History
 Listening Down the Pipe (using Observatories) Rewriting Textbooks on Mantle Plume Fixity
 Finding Dry Spells in Ocean Sediments
 Starting a New Ocean and Stopping It
 Short-Term Thermal Memory and Paleo-Seismology
 Riser Drilling: Access to the Deep Subsurface
 The Orbital Pacemaker of the Earth System The Source of Deep Frozen Gas Hydrates
 The Habitability of Life in the Earth’s Interior
 Large Submarine Eruptions and Environmental Disturbances
19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 19 of 22

4. Special Oceanography Volume█ █ Info Boxes (up to 10) Three Descriptions of the IODP Platforms
 Five Researcher Impact Stories/Interviews
 The New IODP Research Program (on IODP#2)
 Scientific Ocean Drilling in the Earth Sciences Reaching Out with IODP Activities Crossing the Ocean-Continent Divide█ █ Special Features (up to 4)
 Cover and Back page illustrations
 Paper fold Drill Site Map
 Paper fold Seismic Profile
19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 20 of 22

4. IODP Autobiographies█ █ Similar to Women in Oceanography 200+ autobiographies “People in Scientific Ocean Drilling”
 Live PDF document on the TOS website (and IODP.org)
 Funding is unclear at this moment, as we give preference to
TOS Special Volume first; could be pursued in 2019 (?)

19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 21 of 22

Thank You !

19 March, 2018

CIB 1803 MEETING
19 March 2018, EFB1803

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board
Update by Anthony Koppers

Slide 22 of 22

7 c & d ECORD News and ECORD Facility Board (G. Camoin)
ECORD is a unique European distributed research infrastructure that connects researchfacilities at multiple sites across Europe. The ECORD research facilities are engaged in themultidisciplinary aspects of the subsurface scientific research and have a longstanding cultureof cooperation on Science, Technology and Education.
ECORD combines research, education and innovation and offers a unique portfolio of scienceand educational activities, world-class capabilities, state-of-the-art technology andremarkable knowledge-based resources to the European Earth and Environmental science
community.
In 2017, the ECORD research infrastructure has developed all its capabilities, especially withthe successful completion of the offshore phase of the mission-specific platform Expedition
381 « Corinth Corinth Active Rift Development », the organization of five MagellanPlus
workshops and the training of more than 150 students and early career scientists in ECORD
Summer Schools and Training Course. The outstanding intellectual contribution of the ECORD
scientists to IODP is reflected by the involvement of 428 scientists in active IODP proposals, theparticipation of 53 ECORD scientists on six IODP expeditions and the publication of more than
180 papers related to ocean drilling programmes. In parallel, ECORD has ensured all the tasks
related to its status of IODP Platform Provider, including the maintenance of sustainablesample and data curation facilities at the Bremen Core Repository and the promotion of
ECORD and IODP activities and accomplishments to large audiences.
ECORD has started in 2017 to prepare the second phase (2019-2023) of IODP through its
external evaluation, the revision of its Memorandum of Understanding and the reevaluationof its partnership with the US National Science Foundation (NSF). Based on the wellestablished operation of the ECORD infrastructure, its successful implementation, itscompetitiveness in the international research landscape and maximum return from theinvestment, ECORD sees its future with confidence, 50 years after the first scientific ocean
drilling operations by the « Glomar Challenger » in the Gulf of Mexico (DSDP Leg 1).
ECORD membership and ECORD post 2018 renewal
In 2017, ECORD has entered a three-step process that should lead the current fifteen ECORD
member countries to commit to the second phase (2019-2023) of IODP before the end of 2018.
The first step of this process consisted in an evaluation of the ECORD activities that was
conducted from January to June 2017 by an ECORD External Evaluation Committee (EEC)
composed of Helmut Weissert (Chair, Switzerland), Maria Ask (Sweden), Adrian Immenhauser(Germany), Eystein Jansen (Norway), Ralf Littke (Germany), Patrick Pinet (France), Katherine
Richardson (Denmark) and Johan Robertson (Switzerland). The report that was delivered soonafter the general meeting that was held on June 6-8, 2017 at the MARUM, Bremen, Germany,

covers all aspects of ECORD activities (science, technology, management, education andoutreach). The EEC’s conclusions especially highlight the ECORD’s scientific and operational
excellence in the international research landscape during the first phase of IODP (2013-2018),
the need to sustain this unique and global research structure, and the need for ECORD tomaintain its strengths in being able to finance and implement high-profile MSP expeditions.
This evaluation report also includes a series of recommendations concerning various fields(science, education, outreach) that the ECORD Council has considered at its spring meetingthat was held on June 29, 2017 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Among theserecommendations, the ECORD Council has decided that EMA and ESO will be administered by
the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and the British Geological Survey(BGS) respectively, until the end of IODP.
The second step of this process has included a revision of the ECORD Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MoU) managed by EMA and based on an internal reappraisal of ECORD
functioning during the first phase of IODP, as well as recommendations made by the EEC. The
different ECORD entities have revised their Terms of Reference and EMA has worked in close
collaboration with the ECORD Council to produce the 2019-2023 ECORD MoU that will be
distributed to the ECORD funding agencies for approval and signature in 2018.
The third step of the ECORD post 2018 renewal consisted of a revision of the MoU between
ECORD and the NSF defining the financial and operational agreement regarding the ECORD’s
membership in the JOIDES Resolution (JR) Consortium and, in reciprocity, the access of ourpartners’ scientists to MSP expeditions during the second phase of IODP. The discussions
between EMA and the NSF led to a formal agreement that was approved by the ECORD Council
at its 2017 spring meeting. Overall, there will be no significant change in ECORD scientists’participation to the JR expeditions during the second phase of the current programme since
the agreed slight reduction in ECORD berths (7 vs 8 on each expedition) and incorporation of
co-chief scientists in quota calculations will be compensated by the 10 months of JR operations
that are planned annually until of the end of IODP.
The MoU linking ECORD and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology(JAMSTEC) and concerning the ECORD’s participation to the Chikyu Program will not berevised as this MoU was signed in 2013 for the whole duration of IODP. The scheduling of anengineering riserless expedition (380 « NanTroSEIZE Frontal Thrust Borehole Monitoring
System ») in early 2018 and of a riser drilling expedition (359 «NanTroSEIZE: Riser Hole at
C0002») in late 2018-early 2019 respectively, will materialize a continuity in Chikyu operations
throughout the renewal time window.
In parallel to the implementation of its renewal processes, ECORD has continued to develop
significant efforts towards former ECORD member countries (e.g. Belgium, Israel) and othercountries (e.g. currently Turkey and Greece) to extend the current size of the Consortium.

ECORD FY18 budget
ECORD is currently funded exclusively by its 15 member countries.
The expected total contributions for FY18 from the 15 ECORD member countries is about$17.667M (see table below).
The ECORD annual budget must be seen as a minimum budget as there are opportunities for
IODP member and non-member countries to provide external co-funding and/or in-kind
contributions (IKC) for MSP expeditions (i.e. direct operational facilities and services that ESO
would normally pay for) in exchange of extra science party positions. ECORD intends togeneralize in-kind and external co-funding to implement future MSP expeditions on an ad-hoc/ expedition by expedition basis.
The contributions to the ECORD budget are unevenly distributed between the member
countries, ranging from $5.6M to $28.5K (below). Based on their contributions, each ECORD
member country receives a participation quota for all IODP expeditions. However, theparticipation of ECORD member countries to the ECORD educational programme is standard
and not based on levels of financial contribution.
Austria
CanadaDenmark *FinlandFrance *Germany
Ireland *Italy
Netherlands
NorwayPortugalSpain *
SwedenSwitzerland
UK *
TOTAL

100,000
28,500152,000
80,0004,600,000
5,600,000
111,000
500,000
500,000
1,100,000
90,000177,000
528,000
600,000
3,500,000
17,667,000

ECORD member country contributions for FY18 (USD)
The amount in US dollars will be based on exchange rates (when applicable)at the time of the payment by the relevant partner (1 € = 1.19 $ in this table).
(* = countries paying their contribution in their own currency)

The table below summarises the expected ECORD budget for FY18.

FY 17 balance
FY 18 contributions
ECORD-NSF MoUECORD-JAMSTEC MoU
ESO
EMA
MagellanPlus
ECORD Outreach
ESSAC
BCR
TOTAL
FY 18 balance

FY18 Income(USD)
9,093,240
17,667,000

FY18 Expenses(USD)

26,760,240
16,667,489

7,000,000
0*2,000,000 **300,600
100,000
65,900294,158
332,093
10,092,751

Exchange rate: 1 € = 1.19 $The amounts in USD are subject to exchange rate fluctuations.
* Payment deferred to 2019** Fixed operational costs

ECORD FY18 Budget (in USD)
Mission-specific platform expeditions
Mission-specific platform expeditions are an ECORD’s landmark since 2004 and ECORD is oneof the three IODP Platform Providers since 2013.
From 22 October to 18 December 2017, ESO has successfully implemented the offshore phaseof Expedition 381 Corinth Corinth Active Rift Development with Lisa McNeil (ECORD-UK) andDonna Shillington (USA) as Co-chief scientists and 14 ECORD scientists ; four Greek scientists
were involved in the Science Party in compensation of the IKC provided by their country and as
an incentive for a potential future Greek ECORD membership. Expedition 381 Corinth Corinth
Active Rift Development was the fourth MSP expedition implemented by ECORD for IODP,
after Expedition 347 Baltic Sea Paleoenvironment (2013-2014), Expedition 357 Atlantis Massif
Serpentinization and Life (2015) and Expedition 364 Chicxulub Impact Crater (2016). The
operational review of Expedition 364 Chicxulub Impact Crater was held on 20 June 2017 in
Lisbon, Portugal. The operational review committee has congratulated the co-chief scientists
and all the Science Party Members for this very successful MSP expedition, which was thefirst IODP expedition to drill the only intact crater peak ring.
In September 2017, ESO had regrettably announced the cancellation of Expedition 377 Arctic

Ocean Paleoceanography, which was scheduled for August to October 2018 as the expected
Russian IKC related to additional ice breaking capability that was essential for the
implementation of this expedition has not materialised. With this cancellation and the
postponement to 2020 of Expedition 373 Antarctic Cenozoic Paleoclimate, the EFB will have toadjust the previously defined long-term MSP scheduling strategy (i.e. until the end of IODP) at
its 2018 meeting (Venice, Italy on 6-7 March 2018). Such a long-term scheduling strategy will
be largely based on the scientific excellence of drilling/coring proposals, the required drilling
technology, and, importantly, the available annual budget for expeditions including
opportunities for IKCs. ECORD anticipates that the implementation of future MSP expeditions
will require a mix of in-kind and external co-funding, especially for complex and costly multiplatform expeditions, such as Expedition 377. ECORD will actively seek IKCs and also encourage
the community to help ECORD in seeking these opportunities.
ECORD partnership : 2017 JOIDES Resolution expeditions
IODP expeditions (http://www.iodp.org/expeditions) provide ECORD scientists with anexcellent opportunity to participate in international multidisciplinary ocean drilling projects
and to have priority access to unique samples and data.
ECORD, as a contributing member of the JR consortium, is entitled to an average of eightscientists on every JR expedition with the exception of expeditions based on Complementary
Drilling Proposal (CDP), such as the two South China Sea 2017 expeditions for which a
reduced contingent of berths is available for scientists from ECORD member countries.
Thirty nine ECORD scientists, including two co-chief scientists and 51% of early career
scientists, were invited to participate in five expeditions that were implemented in 2017 by
the JOIDES Resolution:- Expeditions 367 and 368 South China Sea Rifted Margin (7 February - 9 April 2017 and
9 April - 11 June 2017) aimed at understanding the mechanisms of lithosphere extension duringcontinental breakup at a non-volcanic rifted margin;- Expedition 371 Tasman Frontier Subduction Initiation and Paleogene Climate (27 July
- 26 September 2017) to evaluate the potential link between a period of high-amplitude longwavelength compression and the initiation of the Tonga-Kermadec subduction, or to identify
alternative geodynamic processes;- Expedition 369 Australia Cretaceous Climate and Tectonics (26 September - 26
November 2017) to understand the paleoceanography and tectonics of the Naturaliste
Plateau and Mentelle Basin off SW Australia;- Expedition 372 Creeping Gas Hydrate Slides (26 November 2017 - 4 January 2018)
which aimed at investigating the relationship between gas hydrate and underwaterlandslides and at characterizing sediment and fault zone structures and physical properties
associated with recurring shallow slow slip events along the Hikurangi subduction interface.

Anticipating next IODP expeditions
The distribution of the 89 active IODP proposals across the various IODP platforms is rather
constant compared to 2016 despite a slight decrease in MSP proposals. There are 61 JR
proposals (68.5%), 11 Chikyu proposals (12.4%), 11 MSP proposals (12.4%), and six multiple
proposals (6.7%) involving the JR and the Chikyu (see figure below). Forty of these proposals
are residing at the appropriate Facility Boards ready to be selected for drilling (26 for the JRFB,
nine at the Chikyu IODP Board and five at the EFB).

Fig - Distribution of IODP proposals by platforms (n = 89). Multiple proposals consist of
combined Chikyu and JR drilling (Data provided by the IODP Science Support Office as of February 2018).

The eleven active MSP proposals that are residing at the EFB and the Science Evaluation Panel(SEP) may form partly the basis of the operational plan that will be defined for the second
phase of the current programme. The objectives of the MSP proposals are quite diverse interms of science topics (climate and sea-level change, geohazards, hydrogeology, deep
biosphere), drilling systems (drill ships, jack-up rigs, seafloor drills, long piston coring) andgeographical areas (Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic and Southern oceans, Mediterranean Sea, JapanSea), thus demonstrating the great opportunities provided by the MSP concept to IODP.
These proposals include an Amphibious Drilling Proposal (796-ADP NADIR: Nice Amphibious
Drilling) whose scientific objectives can only be accomplished by combining land and shallowwater drilling, this exemplifies the necessary closer collaboration between ICDP and IODP,
especially through ECORD given that most ADPs will likely involve MSP operations.

Proposal

Short_Title

PI /Count. – Cons.

Ocean

Drill platform

At EFB637 Full2 New England Shelf Hydrogeology Person (USA)Atlantic

Liftboat /jack-up rig

708 FullStein (ECORD)

ArcticDrillship

716 Full2 Hawaiian Drowned Reefs

Webster (ANZIC)

Pacific

Geotech. rig /MeBo200

730 Full2 Sabine Bank Sea Level

Taylor (USA)

Pacific

MeBo200

813 Full

Antarctic Cenozoic Paleoclimate

Williams (USA)Southern Ocean RD2

796 ADP NADIR: Nice Amphibious Drilling

Kopf (ECORD)

Mediterranean Geotech. rig / MeBo

812 PreRoss Sea Glacial History

Wilson (USA)Southern Ocean Seafloor drill

863 MDPISOLAT Southern Ocean
PaleoclimatePeterson (USA)Southern Ocean Long-piston coring

Strasser (ECORD)

Pacific

Long-piston coring

915 PreN Atlantic Fjord Sediment Archives Giraudeau (ECORD) Atlantic

Long-piston coring(or JR ?)931 PreEast Antarctic Ice Sheet Evolution Shevenell (USA)Central Arctic Paleoceanography

At SEP866 Full2 Japan Trench Paleoseismology

Southern Ocean MSP tbd (or JR ?)Four of the six proposals residing at SEP, including a Multi-phase Drilling Proposal (863-MDP“ISOLAT Southern Ocean Paleoclimate”) involving long piston-coring technology, did not get
any action from their proponents since several years and could be deactivated soon. A higher
MSP proposal pressure including different science themes and involving various potential
drilling/coring systems in diverse environments would be desirable to provide additional
scientific, operational and funding opportunities in the near future.
ECORD is providing a huge contribution to the scientific efforts within IODP, as ECORD has aleading role in proposal submission in IODP since 2014 with fairly constant percentage of
unique proponents (37 to 40%). Currently, 428 ECORD scientists out of 1078 unique proponents(i.e. 40%), including 32 lead proponents, are proponents of active IODP proposals (see figures
below). The wealth of ECORD-led active IODP proposals partly relies on the success of the
ECORD-ICDP MagellanPlus Workshop Series Programme, which provides a substantial
support to ECORD scientists to develop inovative drilling proposals concerning diverse
scientific topics addressed by the three IODP platforms and the ICDP infrastructure.

Fig. – Distribution of active proposals by proponents’ member affiliation

Fig. – Distribution of active proposals by lead proponents’ member affiliation

Valorizing IODP science
The outstanding intellectual contribution of the ECORD scientists to IODP is also reflected by
the valorization of cutting-edge results. With almost 8000 serial publications reported in the
Scientific Ocean Drilling Bibliographic Database and related to the successive ocean drilling
programmes from 1969 through June 2017 (Deep Sea Drilling Project, the Ocean Drilling
Program, the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, and the International Ocean Discovery
Program), the ECORD science community demonstrates its leading role in the international
geoscience landscape (see table below).

Table - Serial publication authorship by first author, contributing country,
contributing authors, and total contributions (1969–2017)

The Program (Expedition Reports, post-expedition research data reports, and Scientific
Drilling papers) and non-Program serial publications for all completed Integrated Ocean
Drilling Program and IODP expeditions at the end of June 2017 (Expeditions 301–368 ; seefigure below) demonstrate that the MSP expeditions, which represent by number less than
10% of all IODP expeditions, have generated a significant proportion of the peer-reviewed
scientific publications arising from the programme. Furthermore, the list of the most-cited
IODP expedition–related papers as of July 2017 illustrates the high-impact and high-quality
science achieved by MSP expeditions (see table below). However, the figure and the tablebelow do not yet include the high scientific return expected from the most recent MSP
Expeditions 357, 364 and 381, which will further enhance the combined scientific output of
MSP expeditions.

Figure 3. Publication records for Expeditions 301–368 (2003–2017) as of June 2017.
MSP expeditions are Expeditions 302, 310, 313, 325, 347, 357, 364

Table 3. Top cited IODP expedition–related papers as of July 2017.
Most of them are in the top journals by impact factor. MSP expeditions are Expeditions 302 and 310.

Managing knowledge-based resources
IODP and ECORD implement a sustainable sample and data curation management plan ofdata conservation and provision to the science community. Hundreds of kilometres of core,other types of samples (fluids, biota) and data have been acquired and stored in three core
repositories (Gulf Coast Repository, College Station, USA; Kochi Core Center, Kochi, Japan;
Bremen Core Repository – BCR -, Bremen, Germany) where they are made accessible to theinternational community. The BCR currently contains 156,18 km of deep-sea cores from 90
expeditions. All BCR samples (over 1.66 million samples/more than 6816 sample requests/over4484 individual scientists, incl. samples taken earlier at the ECR for legacy cores that are now
at BCR) are entered into a database that is accessible to the general public for postmoratorium samples. In 2017, a total of 32,706 samples were taken at the BCR for 249 requests
including 131 requests submitted by ECORD-country scientists from ECORD country

members. ECORD has developed several databases in order to make available to the science
community all the necessary information to the development of drilling proposals and to allow
the scientists to get access to the data collected during the drilling expeditions and keep trackof ECORD activities in IODP.
Engaging the community
The portfolio of science and educational activities that ECORD has developed over the lastyears has been very effective in 2017 with high demand from scientists, students, early career
scientists and members from education.
The continuous funding of the ECORD-ICDP MagellanPlus Workshop Series Programme
expresses the strong ECORD’s support to its scientists to develop innovative drilling proposals
concerning diverse scientific topics for any of the three IODP platforms and the ICDP
infrastructure (http://www.ecord.org/science/magellanplus/)
Five workshops have been funded or co-funded by ECORD in 2017: ‘Caldera Drilling – Campi Flegrei’ (25-28 February 2017, Naples, Italy); ‘Tyrrhenian Magmatism & Mantle Exhumation (TIME)’ (5-7 June 2017, Bologna,
Italy); ‘Australasian Regional Workshop for building new IODP proposals’ (13-16 June 2017,
Sydney, Australia); ‘Carbon cycling at the ultra-slow Arctic spreading ridge system’ (6-8 September
2017, Bergen, Norway); ‘Volcanic, tectonic and hydrothermal processes in an island-arc caldera
environment: history, mechanisms, feedbacks and impacts: Initiation of a proposal
to drill at the Santorini-Kolumbo marine volcanic system in Greece’ (21-23
November 2017, Athens, Greece).
Two workshops have been already scheduled for 2018 :‘Fjord sediment archives in the northeastern North Atlantic’ (April 7-8, 2018, Vienna,
Austria)‘The North Atlantic Igneous Province continental break-up magmatism and impacts
on global warming during the Paleogene’ (May 29-30, 2018, Kiel, Germany)

Up to four additional workshops could be potentially also scheduled in 2018 or early 2019
depending on final decision of the MagellanPlus Scientific Committee:‘Understanding Greenland Ice Sheet evolution: Present and new drilling initiatives on
the East and West Greenland margins’ (dates to be determined, Copenhagen,Denmark);‘Temporal evolution of Arctic gas hydrate and methane seepage systems’ (dates to be
determined, Tromso, Norway);‘New Caledonia Peridotite Amphibious Drilling Project’ (dates to be determined,
Montpellier, France);‘Haiti active fault drilling’ (dates and location to be determined).

The promotion of IODP scientific achievements to a large audience within universities andinstitutes has been actively conducted by four ‘ECORD Distinguished
Lecturers ‘ (http://www.ecord.org/education/dlp/) : Bridget Wade (UK), Mark Alexander Lever(Switzerland), Gretche, Früh-Green (Switzerland) and Marianne Conin (France) who gave 26
lectures in 8 ECORD countries in 2017.
A major goal of ECORD is to train the next generation of scientists from ECORD member
countries. The portfolio of educational activities that ECORD has built over the last years andthat was already developed in 2016 has been reconducted in 2017 and included funding or cofunding of 3 Summer Schools and a Training Course. Like in 2016, more than 150 students andearly career scientists have participated to the ECORD Schools and Grants, and 14 of themreceived a Scholarship to attend one of these schools.
Three
ECORD
Summerschools
weresponsored
by
ECORD
in
th
2017 (http://www.ecord.org/education/summer-schools/) : the « 14 Urbino Summer School in
Paleoclimatology on Past Global Change Reconstruction and Modelling Techniques” (July 1328, 2017; Urbino, Italy), the “11th ECORD Bremen Summer School » (21 August-16 September
2017 ; Bremen, Germany) focused on “ Current-Controlled Sea-Floor Archives: Coral Mounds
and Contourites” and the 2nd ECORD Petrophysics Summer School (27 June -1 July, 2017 ;Leicester, UK).
The third ECORD Training Course (http://www.ecord.org/education/summer-schools/) has been heldat the IODP Bremen Core Repository at MARUM, Bremen, on March 6-10, 2017. This oneweek course aimed at providing a "Virtual Drillship Experience" for scientists from academia
and industry through a basic training in IODP expedition and core-flow procedures. The highnumber of applications (61) demonstrates a high demand from accross both academia andindustry.
Seven ECORD Research Grants (http://www.ecord.org/education/research-grant/) were awarded to
PhD students and early career scientists to conduct research on core materials and/or data
related to successive scientific ocean drilling programmes (DSDP/ODP/IODP).
Since 2015 ECORD has deployed significant efforts towards teachers through theparticipation of ECORD Education Officers to JOIDES Resolution IODP expeditions as part ofthe“Teachers
atSea”
programme
initiatedby
Ocean
Leadership(http://www.ecord.org/education/teachers-at-sea/) and the funding of the ECORD School of Rocks tosupports educational activities of teachers interested in IODP science. In 2017, three teachers

from ECORD countries sailed onboard the JOIDES Resolution and the ECORD School of Rocks
was held in Brussels, Belgium, from 29 November to 1 December 2017.
Communicating
Promoting activities and accomplishments of IODP to various audiences, including scientists,
classrooms and the general public, is a major goal of ECORD. ECORD constantly update andcreate communication and educational material that are distributed across the ECORD
member countries.
In 2017, the ECORD outreach staff has promoted the IODP and ICDP programmes under theumbrella of ‘Scientific Drilling’ at major international (EGU, AGU) and national science
conferences with the organization of joint ECORD-ICDP booths and a Townhall meeting at
the EGU in Vienna.
The ECORD outreach staff has responded to the very significant media impact of Expedition
364 Chicxulub Impact Crater with interest from large and small outlets worldwide (Canada,
USA, UK, Japan, the Netherlands, Austria, Spain and Mexico). Hundreds of items haveappeared on radio, in print and online, including features by Science, Nature and the BBC. In
parallel, outreach events regarding Expedition 381 Corinth Active Rift Development havebeen organized before the expedition set sail from the port of Corinth and received global
interest.
Gilbert Camoin, ECORD Managing Agency Director
Related websites:
http://www.ecord.org
http://www.iodp.org

Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) #6 Meeting
18th – 20th March, 2018
Takigawa Memorial Hall, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan

Item 7: Other FB, IODP Forum, and Agency Activities

Item 7e: ‘MEXT’‐Japan
Tatsuya WATANABE, Mr
Director for Deep Sea‐Earth Scientific Research
MEXT, Japan(Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology – Japan)

Contents
1. Personnel Change in J‐DESC and MEXT
2. Update from MEXT as a funding agency,
MEXT of Japan– Budget allocation to JAMSTEC

3. Review Processes in Japan

JAMSTEC: The Japan Agency for Marine‐Earth Science and TEChnology

1. Personnel Change
J‐DESC:The IODP Committee Chair of J‐DESC (Japan
Drilling Earth Science Consortium):
Prof. Hiroshi NISHI ‐> Prof. Harue MASUDA as on
24th May 2017.
MEXT:
The Director for Deep Sea‐Earth Scientific
Research (in charge of IODP & ICDP), Eisho SATO
was replaced by Tatsuya WATANABE as on 1st
April 2017.

2. Budget Allocation to JAMSTEC(Unit: billion Yen ≒USD 10.6 million)

40

Status:Standing in the Diet30

Supplementary
Budget, others
Supplementary
Budget, drilling

20

Subsidy
Original budget

10

0
2011

2012

2013

2014

Japan Fiscal Year (Apr‐Mar)

2015

2016

2017 (2018Req.)

3. ‘Review’ Processes in Japan• J‐DESC (Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium, a‘community’ of scientists) is in streamlining
process during 2017 and early 2018.
• The Basic Plan on Ocean Policy of Japan (2013) isunder review and will be renewed as 3rd Plan
(2018‐) in early 2018.
• JAMSTEC 3rd Mid‐term Targets and Activities Plan
(FY 2014‐2018) will be assessed and renewed in FY
2018. The 4th term commences at FY 2019‐.

Guidance, direction, and activities for 2019‐2023 will emerge.

Thank you!

Tatsuya WATANABE
Director for Deep Sea‐Earth Scientific Research
Ocean and Earth Division
Research and Development Bureau
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(MEXT)
Japan
tat‐wat@mext.go.jp

NSF/OCE/ODP Report to Chikyu
IODP Board
March, 2018 Meeting
Kobe

NSF Budget• President’s proposed FY2019 NSF budget same as actual
FY2017 ($7.5B)– Congress sets actual appropriation– Proposed FY2019 OCE/ODP funding same as actual FY2017– 2018 budget not yet set but likely flat

• Financial situation for JR appears stable– FY2018 APP JRSO budget is $66.8M• 10 months planned operations for both FY2018 and FY2019• Icebreaker support for JR operations is $1M additional (NSF/ODP pays)• Expensive year…

– International Contributions to support FY2018 JR operations• $14.7M base contribution• South China Sea CPP Funds are a big help!

JR Facility Review• 5‐year Cooperative Agreement for JR operation
requires annual and mid‐award (3rd‐year) reviews• Reviews used in determination for renewal or re‐competition of Cooperative Agreement, and for “mid‐course” corrections– Are confidential and cannot be posted– NSF response is public• NSF Panel met at JRSO February 28 – March 2, 2018 for
FY2017 Review– U.S., European panel members– Received report from FY2017 co‐chief review, held
February 26‐27

JR Facility Review Panel•

NSF selected Panel, in consultation with JRFB Chair and JOIDES Resolution
Science Operation– 9 panelists, including Chair– 2 JR FB members– Facility experts within and outside scientific drilling– NSF pays panelist costs; panelists subject to NSF COI rules•

Panel Review and Scope follows NSF Large Facilities Office (LFO)
Guidelines for Review of Large Facilities and the NSF JR CA InternalManagement Plan
– Report is to NSF– NSF ODP and IPS Management attended all proceedings– Operates under Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA)• Part‐ Closed Meeting (Executive Sessions)• Open sessions included input from JR FB Chair (Koppers) and IODP Forum Chair (Austin)• Report is Confidential; will be shared with NSF Financial Partners and JRFBPanel Report and NSF Response•

NSF was pleased to receive the Executive Summary that states– The JOIDES Resolution (JR) is a unique scientific research facility that permits Earthexploration and hypothesis‐testing globally to tackle large‐scale problems at thefrontiers of our knowledge. No other platform offers its range of capabilities. The
JOIDES Resolution Science Operator (JRSO) continues to perform the tasks of technicaland scientific support to the world‐wide research community in outstanding ways. The
JR is an exceptional platform for research collaboration, with an outstanding trackrecord of safety and operational efficiency that forges the development ofinternational teams with diverse expertise that creates an enduring legacy. The JRSO
Site Visit Panel concludes that the facility is being managed superbly well by the JRSO,
with effective support from the JOIDES Resolution Facility Board and NSF, to meet theinternational scientific communities’ Science Plan.

•

Panel Report gave both 3 challenges and 10 recommendations– No significant shortcomings identified•

NSF impressed with the Panel report and will write a response soon

JR Staffing• 10 U.S. Party members on JR Expeditions– includes Onboard Outreach Program members– Will increase in FY2020• Those sailing under Onboard Outreach Program aremembers of the Expedition Party– In shipboard party chain of command with Co‐chiefs, EPM’s• Future Memoranda– Increase from $3M to $4M for full membership in JR Consortia• NSF would prefer minimal changes in language, Facility Board andpanel membership numbers• NSF and ECORD agree on financial, staffing details– Co‐chief scientists and Onboard Outreach members will be
included in total quota rights‐ will treat all JR berths equally

JOIDES Resolution Facility Renewal• NSF GEO Directorate will make decision soon
as to whether to pursue facility renewal– 5‐year is standard renewal (FY2020‐FY2024)– National Science Board approves authorization for
expenditure of funds for facility renewal, does not
approve IODP Program• Too early for NSF to speculate on post‐
International Ocean Discovery Program,including platforms or program(s)Facility
Review
ReportU.S.
Community
Workshop
Report

NSB
Info
Item

Renewal/End
of
Cooperative
Agreement

Notice
to JR
Owner
NSB
Action
Item

2017

Feb

May

Facility
Review

FY2017

Aug

Nov

U.S.
Community
Workshop

2018

May

Aug

Prepare Partner Memoranda

FY2018

Nov

May

2019

FormalMemoranda
Review by
Agencies

Aug
Sign
MOUs

FY20192019

NSF Seismic Solicitation• Provision of Marine Seismic Capabilities to the
U.S. Research Community (NSF17‐563)– Up to $50M for 5 years or $10M/year, due Aug 21,
2017– One or more Proposals were received for a
Cooperative Agreement to provide OCE with marine
seismic support with or without R/V Marcus Langseth– Could allow commercial entity to work with academic
or non‐profit institution– Panel met November, 2017
– NSF is determining a path forward, which will beannounced shortly

Other NSF News
• William Easterling is the new Geosciences
Assistant Director to NSF– Rotator from Penn State University; geographer andexpert on climate change and food supply• Larry Petersen new MGG rotator• OCE has moved to the new Alexandria location• More secure building– Public access limited to meeting room floors– Need escort to visit NSF staff‐only spaces• More panel meeting rooms

Agenda Item 8
JR Advisory Panels Report/Proposal Overview
a. Science Support Officeb. Science Evaluation PanelIODP Science Support Office
Chikyu IODP Board
19‐20 March 2018
Kobe, Japan
Holly Given, Executive Director
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California San Diego

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

SSO Cooperative Agreement Renewal• Current award runs through 9/2018• Accomplishment‐based renewal proposal
submitted 5/17; 7 reviews• NSF states intent to award 1/2018• Task work is essentially the same;anticipate SSDB refreshment• New PI team includes Donna Blackman
IODP Science Support Office • Scripps Institution of Oceanography • www.iodp.org

Proposal Submission History
30

New program
25

20

10

5

0

16 17 195

10 11 9 8

6 12 7 6 14

7 7 9

5 6

Oct‐07Apr‐…
Oct‐08Apr‐…
Oct‐09Apr‐…
Oct‐10Apr‐…
Oct‐11
Apr‐…
Oct‐12Apr‐…
Oct‐13Apr‐…
Oct‐14Apr‐…
Oct‐15Apr‐…
Oct‐16Apr‐…
Oct‐17

15

New
Revised

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

Since International Discovery(October 2013):• 101 NEW proposals• 45% de‐activated• 37% still under active review• 18% forwarded to FBs–Of these, 12 scheduled or drilled

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

Proposal Outcomes, 2 SEPs
• 2 sent to Facility Boards (JRFB; one is APL)
• 6 sent to External Review (5 JR, 1 MSP)
• 4 sent to Holding Bin (all JR)• 4 revision requests (3 JR, 1 MSP)
• 12 invited to develop Full proposals (8 JR, 1
Chikyu, 2 MSP)
• 7 de‐activations (All JR)
IODP Science Support Office • Scripps Institution of Oceanography • www.iodp.org

Active proposals: 89
by science plan themes
Earth in Motion
19

Climate and Ocean

Earth Connections

40

20

Biosphere10

As of February 1, 2018
IODP Science Support Office • Scripps Institution of Oceanography • www.iodp.org

Active proposal status: 89
by target ocean
Mediterranean:
Arctic: 6
Indian: 10

3
Pacific: 34

Southern:
10Atlantic: 26

As of February 1, 2018
IODP Science Support Office • Scripps Institution of Oceanography • www.iodp.org

How many proposals address which challenges?

50

1 : CO2
2 : Ice sheets and sea level
3 : Precipitation
4 : Chemical perturbations

45

40

8 : Upper mantle
9 : Crustal architecture
10 : Chemical exchanges
11 : Subduction zones
12 : Earthquakes, landslides, tsunami
13 : Carbon storage
14 : Tectonic‐Thermal‐biogeochemical link

5 : Subseafloor communities
6 : Life limit
7 : Ecosystems

35

30

25

FB
SEP

20

15

10

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 13 14
As of February 1, 2018

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

Active proposal status:89
by review stage
Holding Bin:
7

CIB: 7

EFB: 5

JR-Chikyu Umbrella: 2

SEP: 42

FB: 40
JRFB: 26

As of February 1, 2018
IODP Science Support Office • Scripps Institution of Oceanography • www.iodp.org

Active proposals: 89
by lead proponent’s member affiliation
Korea: 2

Brazil: 1 India: 1

Japan:
11
ANZIC: 4

US
38
ECORD
32

As of February 1, 2018
IODP Science Support Office • Scripps Institution of Oceanography • www.iodp.org

Active proponent distribution
1078 unique proponents

Brazil:17 China:10 India:8
Korea:15
Others:ANZIC: 56
47

Japan: 128

US: 369

ECORD: 428

As of February 1, 2018
IODP Science Support Office • Scripps Institution of Oceanography • www.iodp.org

Drilling Platforms for 89 Active Proposals

MSP
11

JR

0
0
0

67
6

Chikyu17

Multiple:
6

MSP: 11

Chikyu: 11

JR: 61

As of February 1, 2018
IODP Science Support Office • Scripps Institution of Oceanography • www.iodp.org

Active proposals: 89
by proposal category

APL: 10

Umbrella:8Pre: 27

Full: 44 (incl. 2 CPPs, 2 ADP)As of February 1, 2018
IODP Science Support Office • Scripps Institution of Oceanography • www.iodp.org

Agenda Item 9
a. Overall Chikyu Operationb. NanTroSEIZE
PCT report
IODP Exp. 380 Results
Core-Log-Seismic-Integration(CLSI)@Sea Program Results
IODP Exp. 358 Planningc. Lord Howe Rise ProjectCurrent Status
PCT ReportChikyu IODP Board #6 meeting
March 18-19, 2018
Kobe, Japan

9. Chikyu Operation/Status Updatea. Overall Chikyu Operation

1

Chikyu Operation (2005～2016)
JFY

April

May

June

July

=Commercial Operation
AugustSeptember

October

2005
2006

R&M

2007

AnnualSurveyAustralia

Production of Azimuth Thruster Gear
Outreach Activity

2009

IODP Exp319/322
NanTro SEIZE

2011
2012

Regular Inspection

IODP Exp.343(JFAST）

IODP Exp.326
Shakedown
CruiseNanTro SEIZE C2

R&M

March

Japan

Exp343JFAST2

IODP Exp.337
Shimokita

Japan
IODP Exp.338
NanTro SEIZE C2Regular Inspection

MaintenanceTohokuEarthquake

Japan

Japan

MaintenanceOpen Ship
Ishinomaki

India

Open Ship
Yokohama

IODP Exp.370
SIP
Ship Okinawa III
T‐Limit Open
Kochi

Shakedown
CruiseSIP
Okinawa II

365

Japan

IODP Exp.332
NamTro SEIZE

MaintenanceOkinawa

India
IODP
Exp.365

MaintenanceOperation Training

IODP Exp.348
NanTro SEIZE C2

SIPShakedown
CruiseConstruction of Azimuth Thruster Gear

IODP Exp.331
Deep Hot BiosphereJapan

Maintenance

AnnualSurveySri Lanka

Japan

2015
2016

February

IODP Exp.314/315/316
NanTro SEIZE

Shakedown
CruiseConstruction of repairing ship’s bottom

2013
2014

January

Overseas Drilling Shakedown
Kenya

Shimokita Shakedown Cruise 2

2008

2010

November December

Shakedown Cruise 1

Maintenance

SIP: Cross‐ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion Program2

Summary of Chikyu Operation
JPFY2017
4

5

6

7

8

9

Japan
R&M

11

Shipyard
Maintenance

12

R&M

2018/1

2018/2

2018/3

Exp. 380
NanTro C6

Japan

2017

SCORE

ICDP Oman

10

Workshop★

★

Open Ship at
Hachinohe

Open Ship at
Shimizu• Japan (Commercial operation)• ICDP Oman drilling project, core analysis onboard Chikyu(15 July – 15 September, 2017)• SCORE Exp. 910 (19 September – 23 September, 2017)• IODP Exp. 380 (12 January – 7 February, 2017)“NanTroSEIZE Frontal Thrust Borehole Monitoring System ”• A Core‐Log‐Seismic Integration Investigation at Sea (Workshop)(12 January – 7 February, 2017)3

Outlook of Chikyu Operation
JPFY2018
4

5

6

7

8

9

ICDP Oman 2

2018

Japan
Regulatory Maintenance, R&M

10

11

12

2019/1

2019/2

2019/3

Exp. 358
NanTro C2• Japan (Commercial operation)• ICDP Oman drilling project Phase 2, core analysis onboard Chikyu（Early July – Early September, 2018）• IODP Exp. 358 (7 October, 2018 – 21 March, 2019)“NanTroSEIZE Deep Riser Drilling: Nankai Seismogenic/
Slow Slip Megathrust”
4Chikyu Shallow Core Program (SCORE)• A new program for shallow (about 100m below seafloor) and shortperiod scientific drilling = increase scientific drilling opportunities• Proposal format similar to IODP = train early carrier scientists• Evaluation procedure similar to SEP = train potential members

1) Proposal application(through the year)

2) Scientific evaluation by
J‐DESC (two times a year)3) Decision of implementationand scheduling by CDEX

Cape Erimo West off Drilling (Exp. 910)
• 19 September – 23 September, 2017
• 3 holes, 206.5m of cores in total• To explore the impact of submarine landslides
on the deep biosphere‐evolution4) Shallow core drillingusing HPCS

5

ICDP Oman drilling project, core analysis
onboard Chikyu• ICDP “Oman drilling project” is aimed to drill
the whole ophiolite sequence (crust andmantle) of the oceanic lithosphere<Phase 1>• Described and measured 1500m cores
onboard Chikiyu using 20 methods• 15 July – 15 September, 2017
• 71 Onboard Scientists from 14 countries• CDEX gained experience for future Chikyu
hard rock expeditions<Phase 2>• Description and measurement of cores
including Crust–Mantle boundary onboard
Chikyu is under consideration• Early July – Early September, 2018?

6

Summary of CDEX/JAMSTEC activities• CDEX/JAMSTEC successfully carried out IODP Exp. 380 (Agenda 9b)
and the Expedition received high valuation from TAT (Agenda 10).
• IODP Exp. 358 is expected to be the culmination of the NanTroSEIZE.
CDEX/JAMSTEC is steadily preparing for this ambitious andtechnically challenging operation (Agenda 9b, 10).
• CDEX/JAMSTEC is making efforts in collaboration with Geoscience
Australia to secure budget for the Lord Howe Rise Project and is also
preparing for the operation（Agenda 9c, 10）.
• Complementary Project Proposals (CPP) and new Chikyu members
are always more than welcome to accelerate the execution of future
IODP expeditions.
• In Agenda 16, please review IODP related activities (IODP Exp. 380
and other activities such as CLSI@Sea, technology development,outreach) carried out in JFY2017（Agenda 9b, 10, 13, 16).
7

Chikyu/IODP Performance Review
Points of Review:To what extent have the following goals been achieved?
• Efficiently operate and share both facilities and equipment• Improve and maintain research environment to attract outstanding
researchers from domestically and internationally of Japan• Contribute as a hub for international human resource exchanges• Contribute to the promotion of advanced science and technology• To widely disseminate news to the public about the marine
scientific technology developments and contributions to society
carried out by CDEX
• Contribute to improving the international recognition of “Chikyu”
8Chikyu IODP Board #6
19-20 March 2018
Kobe, Japan

NanTroSEIZE: Project
Coordination Team Update
CDEX Science Services Dept.
Sean Toczko

PCT #8: 10-11 Oct 2017
• Geomechanics Team (David, Demian, Harold, Sugihara)• 358 Science leaders discussed, proposed• 358 Staffing plan reviewed, numbers & specialties discussed• Items for real-time mug-gas monitoring (He, CH4, etc.)• Prioritize LWD/wireline items• Coring protocols• Evaluate and choose CLSI@Sea Researchers• Need to share list of ‘important dates’

IODP 380 Discussion• Planned 12 Jan - 24 Feb 2018 (40 days)• Limited to installation of LTBMS (ONLY – no logging, nosamples collected)• Site C0006; Hole C0006G coordinates fixed.
• Complete 3-LTBMS transect:• Kumano Basin (C2) – Megathrust (C10) – Frontal Thrust (C6)

• 6 scientists• Preparation status

IODP 358 Discussion• Updated Operation plan
• Staffing outline/schedule• Call for applications reviewed• PMO support• Logging & coring needs

PCT #8 Consensus Items - 358• Rough dates for expedition science windows set. This needs to be
included in call for application. Detailed table in prospectus. Applicants will
be asked to identify windows they CAN’T sail. Detailed sailing dates &notification process to sail will be shared with successful applicants.
Applicants need to submit “what they expect to contribute/learn fromexperience” letter.
• Science Leaders need to be selected. Dream team and then work fromthere. Max 9 members. Science coordinators can fill in science team slots
as needed.
• Science Team members (rough numbers): Logging: 6, PP: 7, Struct: 7,
Lith: 7, Mud Gas: 4.
• PMOs support HUET
• Call deadline: after AGU

PCT #8 Consensus Items – 380 &CLSI@Sea• 14 applicants identified for selection. One (Gael Lymer) will be asked torevise/focus science targets. One (Hsiung) will be asked to extend to fullprogram.
• Detailed program schedule needs to be developed by 31 October 2017.
Therefore, shore-based science mentors can agree on a schedule for theirpresentations and support activities.
• Site C0012 logs and cores from upper section could be made available, if
rationale is strong enough.
• A NanTroSEIZE bibliography (pdfs & references) should be assembled forthe on board researchers.
• The 3D seismic data needs to be aboard.

PCT #8 Consensus Items – 380 &CLSI@Sea• 14 applicants identified for selection. One (Gael Lymer) will be asked torevise/focus science targets. One (Hsiung) will be asked to extend to fullprogram.
• Detailed program schedule needs to be developed by 31 October 2017.
Therefore, shore-based science mentors can agree on a schedule for theirpresentations and support activities.
• Site C0012 logs and cores from upper section could be made available, if
rationale is strong enough.
• A NanTroSEIZE bibliography (pdfs & references) should be assembled forthe on board researchers.
• The 3D seismic data needs to be aboard.

Chikyu IODP Board #6
19-20 March 2018
Kobe, Japan

IODP Exp 380: Frontal ThrustLong-Term
Borehole Monitoring System
CDEX Science Services Dept.
Sean Toczko

Co-Chiefs, EPM, and SP members

Masa Kinoshita (CC)Burhan Senyener

Alex Roesner

Kier Becker (CC)Yuya Machida

Tian Sun

Sean Toczko (EPM)

Toshinori Kimura

Josh Edgington

380 Science Objectives:• Fundamental NanTroSEIZE science objectives include:
characterizing fault slip & strain accumulation, fault & wall rockcomposition, fault architecture, & state variables throughout theactive plate boundary system.
• Deploy long-term borehole monitoring system (LTBMS) in new cased
hole at Site C0006 above the frontal thrust (previous location of
logging-while-drilling and coring operations). The 3rd NanTroSEIZELTBMS, & will extend existing LTBMS network seaward to the frontal
thrust of the Nankai accretionary prism.

LTBMS at
Hole C0006G
1. Pressure sensing unit
2. Strainmeter
3. Broadband seismometer
4. Tilt-combo






Tilt logger
Geophone
Accelerometer
Tilt meter
Thermistor string

5. Acoustic modem

Summary• Planned 12 Jan - 24 Feb 2018 (40 days)• Limited to installation of LTBMS (ONLY – no logging, nosamples collected)• Site C0006; Hole C0006G• Complete 3-LTBMS transect:• Kumano Basin (C2) – Megathrust (C10) – Frontal Thrust (C6)

• Completed in 27 days (!)• No Kuroshio Current (!)

Evaluation:
Expedition Success

Overall Support

2

2

1.5

1.5

1

1

0.5

0.5

0

0

‐0.5

‐0.5

Internet
2
1.5
1
0.5

‐0.5

314
315
316
319
322
331
332
333
343
337
338
348
365
370
380

‐1
314
315
316
319
322
331
332
333
343
337
338
348
365
370
380

314
315
316
319
322
331
332
333
343
337
338
348
365
370
380

0

• Overall success high & improving with every operation.
• Internet services becoming worse.

Some examples:• Intranet & wifi unstable; “…keep being kicked off shared server...”• Wifi network: of three ”available” networks, only one at a time
worked, & one NEVER worked.
• Intranet printers: “...printer drivers old...”, “...could NEVER print toany network printer...”• Internet & IP phone: “...connectivity at best, very poor...”• NO onboard IT support

Solutions?
• Full/On-board IT support needed• Network Admin Specialist• Desktop support specialist• Hardware guru

• Expand current MWJ contract to specify these needs• CDEX Science Services Support / Data Specialist/Manager

10.

Chikyu Operation/Status Updateb. NanTroSEIZE
Core-Log-Seismic Integration at Sea Program

CLSI at Sea: Purpose– Further investigation of the role of the Nankai Frontal
Prism in past tsunamigenic earthquakes and slow slips– Focus on cores and logging data in the frontal ramp thrust
portion of the prism (Site C0006 & C0007) and input site
(Site C0012)– Find and publish original researches– Promote studies of subduction zone by young career
scientists and students

CLSI at Sea: TimelineTime

StatusFeb 2017• Started reviewing data to make planMar 2017• Presented the concept and got recommendationof CIB at CIB#5 meeting

May 2017• Each PMO agreed on payment of travel and HUET
for the participants• Presented the concept to NanTroSEIZE PCT

Jul 2017• Released call by PMOs

Sep 2017• Selected applicants by NanTroSEIZE PCT

Oct 2017• Started making lecture plan and schedule
adjustment with each science mentor

Jan 2018• Start program

CLSI at Sea Workshop: Participants

Short course

Full course

CLSI at Sea: Schedule
Date

Contents

Jan 12

Embarkation

Jan 13

Lectures and VCD lecture

Jan 14 – Jan 19

Lectures, discussions for research plan and sample
request, logging data instruction, lab instrument training

Jan 19 – Jan 22

Sampling and data analysis

Jan 23 – Jan 25

Measurements, data analysis, discussion

Jan 26Disembarkation of short course participants

Jan 27 – Jan 28

Sampling and data analysis

Jan 29Measurements and data analysis

Jan 30Results overview and discussion

Jan 31 – Feb 6

Data analysis, meeting for report writing, writing report

Feb 7

Disembarkation

CLSI at Sea: Lectures
Date

Lecturer

Title

Jan 13 Gaku Kimura•

History of NTS project

Michi Strasser••

Short briefing for core flow and sedimentology
VCD
Sedimentology VCD at Core Lab••

Short briefing for lithology and structure VCD
Lithology and structure VCD at Core Lab

Jan 14 Greg Moore(remote lecture)•

Regional tectonics and evolution of the Nankai
TroughMike Underwood(by Michi)••

Nankai‐Shikoku lithostratigraphy
Sediment provenance, routing and depositionalmodelsKyu Kanagawa

CLSI at Sea: Lectures
Date

Lecturer

Jan 14 Michi Strasser
Kiyoshi Suyehiro

Title
•

Nankai sediment mass‐transport, submarine
landslides and paleoseismology• Earthquakes to a seismologist: how theirseismological characterizations are madeJan 17 Kiyoshi Suyehiro•

Jan 19 Demian Saffer(remote lecture)• Physical properties and hydrology overview

Gaku Kimura

Earthquake modeling and observations: how todeal with probability of occurrence• Tectonics framework

Jan 20 Keir Becker• History and overview of CORKs

Jan 22 Masa Kinoshita• Thermal structure in the Nankai accretionary
prism off Kumano, inferred from in‐situ
temperature

CLSI at Sea: Lab Work
• Preparation

Site

Hole

Number of sampledcore section

C

11

D

11

E

321

F

74

A

5

B

11

C

76

D

103

A

281

C

22

D

18

– All shipboard data and IODP reports
C0006
of NanTroSEIZE expeditions– Total ~2400 archive and working coresections and all sample residues of
shipboard measurements collected at
Site C0006/C0007/C0012
C0007– Techlog software license x 2• Core– Sample request: 9– Collected samples: 519

C0012

Total

933

CLSI at Sea: Lab Work• Sample Preparation– For vitrinite reflectance and volcanic glass
analysis– For micro‐structure analysis• Measurements– XRD: 437– Particle size analysis: 24– SEM‐EDS on C0007D‐29R‐2• Data analysis– Density vs XCT value– Physical properties vs Vp– Fractures from logging data and VCD/XCT images– Seismic data Now preparing workshop report to submit
EOS and Scientific Drilling

CLSI at Sea: Evaluation
Average

CLSI

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Rate: Excellent (2), Good (1), Adequate (0), Poor (‐1), Unacceptable (‐2)
15 votes from 18 scientists

CLSI at Sea: Evaluation
Rated more than “GOOD” except IT service.
In particular,
Shipboard curation was rated high
The workshop participants appreciated lab curator and lab tech support for
personal sampling.

IT service was rated low
In addition to internet connection issue, Wi‐Fi to connect shipboard server
was quite unstable. The participants faced difficulty to access/share files
stored in the shipboard server.

CLSI at Sea: Evaluation
Recommendations for the future workshop at sea•

To be distributed prior to the workshop
 General outline of schedule/plan Pre‐cruise meeting (via web conference) Bibliography of the target sites
 Scanned images of working halves•

To be improved or solved Wi‐Fi and internet connection
 Book collection for subduction zone
 Low‐priced software (instead of very expensive Petrel) for
scientists to do seismic interpretation

Chikyu IODP Board #6
19-20 March 2018
Kobe, Japan

IODP Exp 358: NanTroSEIZE
Deep Riser – “Megathrust or
Bust!”CDEX Science Services Dept.
Sean Toczko

358 Science & Operational Objectives• Extend riser Hole C0002P to & across main plate boundaryfault• Determined as high amplitude seismic reflector ca. 5000 mbsf
• Collect continuous:• LWD• cuttings• mud gas logging• limited coring (ca. 100 m)• Leave hole cased and capped• 7 Oct 2018 to 21 March 2019 (164 days)• Final ship-board quay-side sampling science meeting

IODP 358 Operation Plan
Operation
Portcall in Shimizu
Transit, Deploy Transponders, Recover corrosion cap, Preparation
Run & set BOP and Riser
CBL/USIT, Sidetracking from original well
Drill to 3500 mbsf with LWD, Set 9-5/8-inch x 11-3/4-inch Expandable Liner
Drill to 4100 mbsf with LWD, Set 9-3/8-inch Liner
Drill to 4700 mbsf with LWD, Set 7-5/8-inch x 9-3/8-inch Expandable Liner
Drill to 5200 mbsf with LWD (TD), Including Coring (50 m x 2 times)
Suspend hole
Set corrosion cap, Recover Transponders, Transit

Date Start Operation Days
7-Oct-18
10-Oct-18
13-Oct-18
24-Oct-18
23-Nov-18
8-Dec-18
24-Dec-18
12-Jan-19
6-Feb-19
13-Feb-19

3
3.5
11
29.5
15
16
19
25
7
2

Contingency
End Date
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33

Date End
10-Oct-18
13-Oct-18
24-Oct-18
23-Nov-18
8-Dec-18
26-Jan-19
14-Feb-19
11-Mar-19
18-Mar-19
20-Mar-19

358 Science Leaders

Harold Tobin

Hiroko Kitajima

Demian Saffer

Asuka Yamaguchi

Matt Ikari

Takehiro Hirose

358 Staffing Plan
• Science Leaders (not ‘co-Chiefs”)• Science Party arranged in Teams by specialty (& Team Leaders)• Make self AVAILABLE for time windows (2-3 months)• Likely SAIL for 1 or more “2-4 week shifts”• Participate in Final analysis and sampling meeting at expeditionend (start ca. 21 Mar 2019)• Helicopter Underwater Escape Training (HUET) requiredScience Operation Windows
Table 2. Updated staffing concept for IODP Expedition 358.
Estimated
Duration
Science Operations
Start(days)
LWD from kick-off (ca. 2900) to 3500 mbsf
19-Nov-18
7
LWD from 3500 - 4100 mbsf
6-Dec-18
7
LWD from 4100 - 4700 mbsf
22-Dec-18
9Coring from 4750 - 4800 mbsf
8-Jan-19
5
LWD from 4800 to 5150 mbsf
15-Jan-19
10Coring - from 5150 to 5200 mbsf
25-Jan-19
6Potential
end date*
29-Dec-18
15-Jan-19
2-Feb-19
15-Feb-19
27-Feb-19
5-Mar-19*Potential end dates includes 30 days contingency time.

Gantt Chart - Operations
358 Operations & Staffing Planning Gantt Chart (7 Oct 2018 - 21 March 2019)
Operations

7 Oct 2018

27 Oct 201816 Nov 2018

6 Dec 201826 Dec 201815 Jan 20194 Feb 201924 Feb 201916 Mar 2019

Transit, Deploy Transponders, Recover corrosion cap, Preparation
Run & set BOP and Riser
CBL/USIT, Sidetracking
ELOT, Drill LWD to 3500 mbsf, Set 9-5/8-inch x 11-3/4-inch Expandable Liner
ELOT, Drill LWD to 4100 mbsf, Set 9-3/8-inch Liner
ELOT Drill LWD to 4700 mbsf, Set 7-5/8-inch x 9-3/8-inch Expandable Liner
DOC, ELOT, core 100 m, drill 7-3/8-inch x 8-1/2-inch hole with LWD and UR to 5200 mbsf (TD)FIT

ELOT #1, LWD #1, Cuttings
ELOT #2, LWD #2, Cuttings
ELOT #3, LWD #3, Cuttings
LWD #4, Coring

Suspend hole
Set corrosion cap, Recover Transponders, Transit

Planned operation phase duration
33 day Contingency Period

Lord Howe Rise Project History:
Proposal 871 “Lord Howe Rise Continental Ribbon

 Pre Proposal Submission, October 2014
 SEP review, January 2015, “develop Full proposal”
 CIB preview, March 2015, “endorse workshop”
 CIB workshop proposal submission, April 2015
 Full proposal development workshop, August 2015
 Full proposal submission, October 2015
 SEP review, January 2016, “revise proposal”
 Revised full proposal submission, April 2016
 SEP review, June 2016, “send for external reviews”
 PRL & Addendum submission, October 2016
 SEP review, January 2017, “forward to CIB with
EXCELLENT”
 TAT review, February 2017, this is basically “Logistic”
project
 CIB review, March 2017, designate as “Chikyu Project”
and create PCT.

Lord Howe Project; update• GA‐CDEX meeting (Feb., April, June, Aug., Sep.) to help GA tocreate “Business Case”.
• First PCT meeting held in June 2018.
• GA‐JAMSTEC Friday morning Zoom Conference.
• Executing under 5 Collaborative Project Agreement between
GA and JAMSTEC.
• 2nd Site Survey Cruise finished Jan. 2017.
• GA held a workshop with Department of Industry, Innovationin January 2018.
• If everything goes as planned, the expedition takes place in2020.

Lord Howe Rise Project#1 Project Coordination Team Meeting@ Geoscience Australia, Canberra
8 – 9 June 2017
Draft Note v.1
Meeting Participants:
Kan Aoike (CDEX/JAMSTEC)
Marco Coolen (Life theme, Curtin Univ.)
Nobu Eguchi (CDEX/JAMSTEC)
Kliti Grice (Oceans/Climate theme, Curtin Univ.)
Jessica Gurney (GA)Ron Hackney (PI, GA)
Andrew Heap (GA)
Fumio Inagaki (Life theme, ODS/JAMSTEC; alternate)
Junichiro Kuroda (Oceans/Climate theme, Univ. Tokyo; alternate)
Lena Maeda (CDEX/JAMSTEC)
Sanny Saito (Earth Theme, ODS/JAMSTEC; alternate)
Tomo Saruhashi (CDEX/JAMSTEC)
Jessica Whiteside (Oceans/Climate theme, Univ. Southampton; observer)
Yasu Yamada (Earth Theme, ODS/JAMSTEC)
Takehiko Yano (CDEX/JAMSTEC)

Day-1
1. Introduction
a. Meeting Logistics
b. Self-introduction around Tablec. Current Project Status and Management Plan
d. Goal of this Meeting
Heap made welcome remarks and he emphasized the importance of drill site selection at
this meeting for making a drilling plan for the business case and funding proposal.
Eguchi introduced the draft agenda for this meeting and asked for any addition and/or
modification, but no revision proposed.
LHR-PCT Consensus 1706-01: Approve meeting agenda.
LHR PCT approved #1 meeting agenda as is.
Meeting participants introduced themselves around the table.
Eguchi briefly introduced the current project status, including IODP proposal history,
Technical Advisory Team (TAT) consensus, Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) consensus (seepresentation slide p. 5 – 11 for details).
Yamada asked about why the TAT were interested in stratigraphic modeling, as he thinksthat this should be a scientific issue, not an engineering concern. Eguchi answered thatthe TAT recommended this stratigraphic modeling because it could help to sell the project
to industry stakeholders and that the TAT will not carry out stratigraphic modelingthemselves. Yamada asked the PCT if there was any problem with ODS carrying out thismodeling, to which there was no objection. Currently GA is investigating options forundertaking stratigraphic modelling.
Eguchi briefly explained the terms of reference and the scope of work of this PCT (seepresentation slide p. 12 – 18 for details). He emphasized that this project is a scientificcollaboration project between GA and JAMSTEC and that CDEX/GA are considered the
Implementing Organization for this expedition.
Then Eguchi explained the current project management scheme that includes GA-CDEX
meetings (every two months) and Skype conference (every Friday). He also explained that
this project is being executed under five collaborative project agreements between GA
and JAMSTEC (see presentation slide p. 20 for details).
At the end of this agenda item, Eguchi introduced the goals of this meeting as below.
 Basic understanding of operation and science of this project.
 Share concerns and future timeline and action items of this project.
 Finalize riser/riserless sites selection.
2. Summary of GA-CDEX Meetings
Eguchi briefly explained the previous two GA-CDEX meetings. Meeting notes and list ofaction items were provided to the PCT members prior to the meeting via Basecamp.
Hackney explained the “business case” being prepared for the Australian Government(see presentation slide p. 23 for details).
3. Introduction of Scientific Riser Drilling
Saruhashi introduced the differences between “riserless drilling” and “riser drilling”. The
big advantage of riser drilling is that it allows us to drill a deeper hole, although it is more
expensive than riserless drilling (see presentation slide p. 2-3 for details).
4. Site Survey Update
Hackney introduced the first site survey cruise that was conducted April – May 2016 using
JAMSTEC vessel RV Kairei. This cruise was operated for acquiring high-resolution data fordrill planning and geotechnical work at potential drill sites and acquiring a deep-crustal
seismic profile to constrain the crustal framework of the region to be drilled.
Aoike introduced the second site survey cruise that is scheduled for November –December 2017, also using the JAMSTEC vessel Kairei. This cruise aims to collectgeotechnical data in support of the drilling operation as well as collecting data to support
environmental permitting for the drilling operation.
Yamada asked about the likelihood of encountering shallow drilling hazards. Aoike
responded that there is no real evidence of hazards in the ooze, but some indication of

high pressure at slightly greater depth. Despite this, shallow hazards are not expected toaffect the drilling.
5. Scientific Background of the Projecta. Overall Scientific Scope of the Projectb. Specific Items for each Themei. Earth Themeii. Oceans/Climate Themeiii. Life Theme
Hackney summarized the proposed scientific objectives of the project before outlines ofthe specific scientific targets for each of the three themes: Earth Theme (Yamada),
Oceans/Climate Theme (Grice), and Life Theme (Coolen).
Kuroda, Grice, and Whiteside are keen to recover the K/Pg boundary and OAE1 samples.
This would need ~30–40 m of coring. One action item was made.
LHR-PCT ActionItem 1706-01: K/Pg boundary.
LHR PCT Oceans/Climate theme scientists examine K/Pg boundary horizon depth atselected drilling sites.
6. Tentative Operation Plana. Current Riser Hole Drilling Planb. Current Logistical Plan
Saruhashi explained the current operation plan for this project. He also raised several
operational/logistical concerns for the project (see presentation slide p. 5-6 for details).
Then Saruhashi introduced the current CDEX riser operation plan for DLHR-5A, 4A, 3A,
and 8A with full coring and wireline logging. He also explained the estimated cost for eachsite (see presentation slide p. 11 for details and summarized in the table below).
DLHR-5A

DLHR-4A

DLHR-3A

DLHR-8A

Water Depth

1671 mMSL

1691 mMSL

1535 mMSL

1561 mMSL

Target Depth

2700 mbsf

3600 mbsf

2300 mbsf

2000 mbsf

Operation Days

161

204

125

113

Estimated Cost

121.1 MUS$146.3 MUS$99.4 MUS$91.1 MUS$He emphasized that 2/3 of estimated cost is for logistical items. He also introduced thedrilling sequence for each site (see presentation slide p. 12-21 for details).
Saruhashi then proposed an alternate solution to reduce project cost. His proposal was touse logging while drilling (LWD) with a short interval of coring instead of complete coringwith wireline logging strategy. He presented one example for the 9-5/8” casing section of
DHLR-4A. The original operation duration of this section was 46 days, and it will reduce
to 20 days with this new proposal, although the coring interval of this section would be
reduced to 50 m (see presentation slide p. 22 for details). He summarized the potentialeffect of this LWD solution on budget size at each site. For example, the original cost for
DLHR-5A operation (121.1MUS$) became 93.8MUS$ (LWD with 50 m coring) and DLHR4A (146.3MUS$) became 100.9MUS$ (see presentation slide p. 25 for details).
Although it can obviously reduce the cost of the operation, the PCT science team
expressed concern about this new solution. The issues raised included LWD data
resolution is worse than wireline logging, and only 50 m of coring could easily missimportant target horizons. However, all the PCT members understood that decisions on
coring and logging strategy will be made later based on the actual budget size. Heap said
that GA might make a budget request based on the current cost estimate of DLHR-5A(121.1 MUS$).
LHR-PCT ActionItem 1706-02: coring strategy.
Science team to consider a spot coring strategy that will allow coring of key horizons.

LHR-PCT ActionItem 1706-03: coring strategy.
CDEX to examine in more detail the costs associated with wireline logging versus LWD.
Yamada questioned if it would help cost cutting by undertaking crew changes by boat
instead of by helicopter, with helicopter operations restricted to emergency situations.
Saruhashi answered that there are no cost advantages in transferring crew by boat whilst
maintaining helicopter operations for emergencies. This is because for an emergency
situation, we still need to prepare an offshore helicopter base (e.g., a large supply boat)
for helicopter refueling since no helicopter can fly 800 km without stopping to refuel. Also
helicopter landing at sea requires a rescue boat on standby around the helicopter base.
Therefore at least two boats need to be on stand-by at all times. Arrangement andmobilization of those boats would take at least a couple of days, meaning that it is
impossible to quickly arrange these ships in time of emergency. Therefore, if emergency
helicopter operations are to be maintained, there is no advantage to using boattransportation for crew change as a cost reduction.

Day-2
Based on Heap’s request, the second day of the PCT meeting started from Saruhashi’s
explanation of Project cost comparison with industry. There has been a significant dropof average day rates for Chikyu-class drilling vessels (5th generation and above) since
2014: 500,000US$/day (2014) vs. 200,000US$/day (2017). Also if the project used anindustry drilling vessel, we need to secure a science support vessel, and its cost is roughly
100,000US$/day at least. Saruhashi examined those day rates with mobilization cost for
DHLR-3A case (125.5 days) and concluded that using a commercial drilling vessel insteadof Chikyu would add 99.5 MUS$ (2014 day rate) or 56.1 MUS$ (2017 day rate) to theproject cost. This means that in comparison to using an industry drilling vessel, using
Chikyu is an inexpensive option for Australia.
Heap stressed that it is very important for CDEX to quantify equivalent commercial costs
as a way to demonstrate JAMSTEC’s significant in-kind contribution to the Project.

7. Site Selection
a. Riser Site Selection
b. Riserless Site Selection
Eguchi clarified that the purpose of this site selection discussion is mainly for determining
the plan for site survey 2 and the cost estimate in the business plan for funding to theAustralian government.
Hackney explained each of the riser and riserless sites and showed an overview table forprioritization discussion. His recommendation based on the following conditions was
DLHR-5A as the primary riser drilling site: Deep riser sites will probably intersect “layered” basemento but possibly bland basement in south (DLHR-3A, 6A, 7A, 8A)?
 DLHR-4A/5A have the highest certainty that the complete Cretaceous and older
stratigraphic section will be intersectedo syn-rift sedimentso layered pre-rift/early syn-rift sediments/volcanics
 (Quick) OBS modelling does not resolve ambiguity in basement depth at DLHR-3A
o gravity data also suggest the possibility of deeper basement
Yamada pointed out that the pre-rift formation is very important for the Earth theme,
therefore DLHR-5A and 4A are preferable, but not DLHR-3A nor 8A. Grice and Kuroda
were concerned that the K/Pg boundary or OAE1 may not found in DLHR-3A or 8A.
Inagaki expressed that the older formation is required for the Life theme due to theincreased likelihood that coals are present. Whiteside explained how OAE1 was important
for the Ocean/Climate theme. Coolen agreed with the importance of K/Pg boundary and
OAE1 formation. Kuroda asked whether there were any issues for drilling related to thepresence of structure (faults) in the north, but not in the south. Aoike said that there is noreal concern about this structure and pointed out the clearer stratigraphic layering in thenorth.
Hackney asked everyone which site is preferable for an alternate (compromise) site.
Yamada repeated that sites in the south area are unattractive for the Earth theme.
Whiteside and Coolen commented that the southeast riserless sites which possibly
include volcanic formations might be interesting for their research. Yamada proposed a
new solution for DLHR-4A as an alternate site. His idea was to reduce the target depth of
this site to slightly deeper than the boundary between syn-rift sediment and layered prerift strata (e.g., 2100 mbsf) and visit nearby BLHRB-N2 (riserless contingency site) for thebasement sampling. Gurney summarized the site prioritization idea on a white board.
Riserless sites BLHRB-1B and BLHRV-1B were selected as primary riserless sites. DLHR3A and riserless sites in the southern area were selected as the second alternative site.
The summary was agreed by all the PCT members.
LHR-PCT Consensus 1706-02: LHR project site prioritization.
The PCT agreed the following site prioritization for drilling operation.
Riser primary site; DLHR-5A

Riser alternate site -1; Shallower penetration (e.g., 2100 mbsf) at DLHR-4A plus riserlessbasement coring at BLHRB-N2
Bland basement riserless site BLHRB-1B; volcanic basement riserless site BLHRV-1B
Riser alternate site -2; DLHR-3A plus BLHRB-S2
Kuroda explained that the Ocean/Climate theme needs cores from shallow depth and
CDEX proposed to core the shallower section while Chikyu drilled the “pilot hole” prior to
the riser operation.
8. Any Other Business
Addendum submission and EPSP review
The Science team of the project will submit an Addendum to IODP that explains newly
proposed riser contingency sites, BLHRB-N2 and BLHRB-S2 (to be renamed to meet
IODP requirements). All the riserless sites need to be reviewed by IODP’s Environmental
Protection and Safety Panel (EPSP), so the timing of Addendum (1 Oct. 2017 or 1 Apr.
2018) is linked to timing of the next EPSP meeting.
LHR-PCT ActionItem 1706-04: EPSP meeting.
Check the timing of next EPSP meeting (Eguchi at SEP meeting).
Industrial collaboration
Industrial collaboration such as stratigraphic modeling and petroleum systems
modelling etc. was encouraged to help generate interest in extra funding support,though currently no clear policy or rules for industrial collaboration are in place. Eguchi
asked the PCT members to let GA/CDEX know if any opportunity was found.
Review paper
Hackney will submit a review paper on the project to JpGU journal Progress in Earth andPlanetary Science (by November). He requested support from PCT members and the
proponent team in preparing this paper.
Next PCT meeting schedule
The next PCT meeting will be held around late February or early March 2018 when datafrom Site Survey 2 are available and the funding situation should become clearer. A
detailed schedule will be announced in August or September. Either representative fromeach theme can be a representative at PCT meetings if one is not available.
Meeting adjourned around 12:30 on 9th June 2017.

Agenda Item 10
TAT ReportCDEX Technical Advisory Team Meeting #4 Agenda
February 26‐27, 2018, JAMSTEC‐Yokohama

09:00‐09:10
09:10‐09:20
09:20‐09:25
09:25‐10:00

10:00‐10:15

10:15‐10:45
10:45‐12:30

12:30‐13:30
13:30‐15:00

15:00‐15:30
15:30‐17:30

17:30

26th February
Safety Instruction and Logistics
1. Greetings, Introduction and Declaration of Conflict of Interests
2. Approval of Agenda and Confirmation of Last Meeting Minutes
3. CDEX Chikyu Updatesa. Summary of Chikyu Operation in JPFY2017
b. Outlook for the Future Chikyu Operationc. Technology Topics
d. JAMSTEC Advisory Board
4. Report from CIB #5 and Other Communities
a. CIB Reportb. Chikyu IODP Proposal Summary

T.Nawate
S. Kuramoto
Chair
N. Eguchi
N. KyoS. Kuramoto
N. Eguchi
N. Eguchi

Break
5.Operational Review 1, IODP Expedition 380, (Prompt Report)
a. Scientific Objectives, Science Party Evaluation
b. Operation Summaryc. Related Technology Development
New Developed Running Tool
Under Water TV
Long Term Borehole Monitoring System (LTBMS)
d. Core‐Log‐Seismic Integration at Sea (CLSI)

S. Toczko
T. Nakamura
T. Yokoyama
J. Ishiwata
K. Akiyama
R. Maeda

Lunch Break6. Future Project Review 1‐1, IODP Expedition 358,
NanTroSEIZE Deep Risera. Scientific Proposal
b. Draft Drilling Plan
c. Related Technology Development
Non Stop Driller
Coring Tool

S. Toczko
T. Saruhashi
N. Sakurai
Y. Shinmoto

Break
7. Future Project Review 1‐2, IODP Expedition 358,
NanTroSEIZE Deep Riser
d. Real‐Time Geomechanics Analysis outline
Adjourn

D. Castillo

9:00‐9:15
9:15‐10:00

10:15‐10:45
10:45‐12:30

12:30‐13:30
13:30‐14:00

14:00‐14:30

14:30‐15:00

27th February
8. Dry Docking Report and Maintenance Plan

J. Ishiwata

9. Future Project Review 2, IODP proposal 871, Lord Howe Risea. Project Update

N. Eguchi

Break
10. Hard Rock Drillinga. Report from Deep Crustal Drilling Engineering Work Groupb. Related Technology Development
Turbine Driven Coring System (TDCS)
c. J‐DESC Report
ICDP Oman Ophiolite Drilling
Lab Improvement Request

C. NealY. Shinmoto
S. Saito

Lunch Break
11. Mantle Projecta. Project Updateb. Related Technology Development
CFRP Riser
12. Any Other Businessa. TAT Membershipb. Next TAT ScheduleBreak

15:00‐17:30

13. Final Thoughts and Review of Consensus Recommendations

17:30

Adjourn

Y. Namba
E. Miyazaki

List of #4 CDEX Technical Advisory Team (TAT) meeting Consensus

TAT Consensus 0218-01: TAT approves the agenda for its 4th meeting to beheld 26-27 February, 2018, at JAMSTEC Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences.
TAT Consensus 0218-02: TAT approves the revised minutes of its 3rd meeting
held 20-21 February, 2017, at JAMSTEC Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences.
TAT Consensus 0218-03: CDEX Technological Developments. TAT was very
pleased about the progress in ongoing CDEX technology developments:•

Newly developed Running Tool (patent pending), consisting of a Drill
Ahead Tool + Activation Kit for deep water (>3,000 m) operations;• Underwater TV system that was successfully used during Expedition 380
and is related to the operation of the new running tool;• Long Term Borehole Monitoring System, which was successfully deployedduring Expedition 380;
• Non-Stop Driller that allows borehole pressure to be maintained during
addition of pipe sections etc., which will be critical for the implementationof Expedition 358 through maintaining the integrity of the C0002 hole;• Turbine-Driven Coring System, which will be deployed during Expedition
376 to Brother’s Arc to improve core recovery in relatively hightemperature hard rock drilling;• Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) Riser development, which has
undergone tensile strength testing of a 1/5 scale model 6 times, and now
has funding for similar testing of an actual size riser model.
TAT was impressed that several of these new technologies have been or will be
implemented and may have applications in industry, and applauds thecooperation with the JOIDES Resolution Science Operator in the upcoming
Expedition 376.
TAT Consensus 0218-04: TAT commends the success of the recently completedExpedition 380 that installed the Long-Term Borehole Monitoring System at Site
C0006. Despite issues with releasing the Drill Ahead Tool and the LTBMS, the
LTBMS testing system, and the failure of the bi-center bit for drilling out cement,
the expedition finished 17 days ahead of schedule. Based upon the experience
gained, TAT urges the update and implementation of a best practices documentfor 3rd party tools used on the Chikyu.
TAT Consensus 0218-05: NanTroSEIZE Expedition 358 (riser drilling to deepen
C0002 to the megasplay fault at ~5200 mbsf) represents one of the mostambitious and technically challenging projects ever attempted in either
industrial or scientific drilling. TAT strongly endorses the concepts presented at
this meeting for (1) activating a real-time geomechanics (RTG) team before andthroughout Exp. 358 primarily to advise the CDEX drilling team, and (2)conducting a carefully focused drilling the well on paper (so-called DWOP’)
exercise in summer of 2018. The rationale for these two concepts is summarized
in the attached statement from insight GeoMechanics (iGM). Forming, training,
and implementing the RTG and defining the scope of the DWOP’ by themselvesrepresent a significant new approach that should be of major benefit to futureriser drilling projects (science or industry). Therefore TAT recommends that
CDEX identify as soon as possible an experienced project manager to focus solely
on defining and implementing the RTG and DWOP’ from the present through theaftermath of Exp 358. TAT members stand ready to assist in helping to define
the type of expertise required for both the RTG and DWOP’ and potential
nominees to serve on each.
TAT Consensus 0218-06: TAT was pleased to note the extensive work carriedout by CDEX in collaboration with Geoscience Australia to mature the businesscase for the Lord Howe Rise Project. In particular, CDEX having acted on theadvice to treat the proposed expedition primarily as a logistics project, TAT
commended the quality of the work done so far on options for logistical support,
including crew change arrangements and identifying available choices for
medical evacuation. TAT advises caution in basing the proposed mud weightprogram on seismic data alone. CDEX could consider reviewing the data from
Site U1506 with a view to constraining the regional stress environment to reacha preliminary determination of mud weight. Attention is drawn to the active
intra-plate seismic activity in the area, which implies a high differential stressenvironment.
TAT Consensus 0218-07: TAT endorses the recent formation of the CDEX M2M
Task Force Team (M2M-TFT) to focus technical and engineering planning for an
eventual full penetration to mantle. This is consistent with previous TAT
consensus statements suggesting formation of a mantle project working group,
for a staged approach to achieving eventual full crustal penetration, and for
exploring all technical options to the drilling challenges. TAT encourages CDEX
to involve representatives of the JRSO in the M2M-TFT as appropriate, and to
consult with the scientific community associated with deep ocean crustal drillingto date.
TAT Consensus 0218-08: The main focus of the next TAT meeting should be an
operational review of Expedition 358; additional agenda items should include
planning for Lord Howe Rise, the Mantle Project, and TDCS progress. This
meeting is tentatively scheduled for the week of June 3-7, 2019. TAT asks CDEX
to consider whether TAT members should be involved shortly before Expedition
358 in review of the output of the DWOP’ recommended in TAT Consensus 021805.

Insight GeoMechanics Pty. Ltd. ABN 98 158 420 869

8 Joffre Road  Trigg, Western Australia 6029  phone: +61 (0) 408 82 6824  email: castillo@insightgeomechanics.com

Date:

February 27, 2018To:

Keir Becker, John Thorogood and Clive Neal

From:

David Castillo, Insight GeoMechanics, Pty. Ltd.

Subject: Consensus Summary of Real-Time Geomechanics Planning Concepts

Insight GeoMechanics Pty Ltd (Insight) presented an overview summary of a Real-Time Geomechanics (RTG)
concept that has been proposed to JAMSTEC/CDEX to successfully drill and complete the side-track in the
NanTroSEIZE C0002P well during Expedition 358 (Exp 358). The objective of the RTG during Exp 358 would
be to provide real-time information to the CDEX Drilling Group regarding the impact that mud weight and mudrheology would have on hole stability while drilling the accretionary prism. The RTG Team during Exp 358 will
be solely committed to supporting drilling operations, by performing real-time analyses, interpretations, andmodeling of subsurface stresses and structure. These analyses will be performed using LWD data (e.g., image,drilling mechanics, petrophysics), cavings/cuttings data, and drilling experiences information. Results may
include confirmation of mud performance specific to hole stability or recommendations to modify the mudweight program to ensure hole stability if the need arises for each of the four (4) hole sections.
There are many uncertainties associated with the C0002 well approaching the mega-splay in the accretionary
prism that are difficult to remove based on data from Exp 348 and the 3D seismic data. These uncertainties
include stress magnitudes, pore pressure, stress azimuth, rock properties and structure. It is because of thesecircumstances and challenges while drilling to the mega-splay in four-section that mandates a robust RTG
workflow. The process of systematically creating this RTG workflow includes;
1) Designing a real-time workflow to provide ongoing support to the CDEX Drilling Team. Given the urgency
to confirm and verify new mud weight information for the Drilling Team, based on real-time geomechanicalinterpretations, there would be value in having a strong interacting relationship with the Exp 358 Science
Leaders. Designing efficient communication protocols will be very important in this task.
2) Training RTG Team to become confident in advanced geomechanical concepts and analyses processes.
Training would include revisiting Exp 348 experiences, analyzing case studies in other complex geologic
settings, and practicing various aspects of geomechanical modeling to gain confidence and develop expertise.
It would be important to occasionally include various members of the Science Team, and perhaps, DrillingGroup to ensure all parties are aware of the RTG process. Several training sessions are envisioned.
3) Executing and implementing a RTG analysis during Exp 358. This final and most important step will
systematically focus on each of the planned hole sections at various real-time time-scales. Time scales ofhours includes analysis of real-time LWD data (e.g., image, drilling mechanics, petrophysics), cavings/cuttings
analysis, and drilling experiences. Time-scale of a few days would include a rapid turnaround postmortem ofNear-Real Time Geomechanics Designs, Training and Execution for Exp 358 NanTroSEIZE Site C0002

each hole section performed during the 2-4-day casing operations to document the geomechanical model forthe previous hole section and forecast a mud weight program for the next hole section.
Drilling-Well-On-Paper
A conventional Drilling-Well-On-Paper exercise is typically a pre-drill exercise that may or may not havegeologic-related contributions. For Exp 358, a Drilling-Well-On-Paper-Prime (DWOP’) should be performed
with contributions from the RTG Team and the Science Leaders Team to 1) better acquaint themselves withdetails of the drilling plan and 2) highlight to the CDEX Drilling Team the possible geologic scenarios that could
be encountered during Exp 358. These geologic scenarios include rapid changes in stress magnitudes, rapidchanges in pore pressure, pore pressure kicks, stress azimuth rotations, dynamic losses through faults andnatural fracture systems, and changes in bedding plane/fracture orientations.

2Agenda Item 11
Chikyu Proposals（update and discussion）
a. Potential Chikyu Proposals at CIB and SEP
b. Workshop Proposal
IODP Proposal 898-Pre “Fore Arc Mohole-to-Mantle”
Full-proposal Development Workshop

Chikyu IODP Proposal Summary as of March 2018
At CIB:
Number Type
537 CDP7537 Full4
603 CDP3
603C Full
603D Full2
698 Full3781 MDP
781B Full
835 Full
871 CPP2/Add

At SEP:
707 CDP3800 MDP805 MDP857 MDP2866 Full2
876 Pre886 Pre898 Pre925 PreShort Title
Lead Proponent Affiliation
Platform
Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project
Overview
von Huene
USA
Chikyu+JR
Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project Phase B Ranero
ECORD-Germany
ChikyuNanTroSEIZE Overview
KimuraJapan
ChikyuNanTroSEIZE Phase 3: Plate Interface
Tobin
USA
ChikyuNanTroSEIZE Observatories
Screaton
USA
NR-Chikyu
Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc Middle Crust
TatsumiJapan
ChikyuHikurangi Subduction Margin
Wallace
ANZIC: New Zealand Chikyu+JR
Hikurangi: Riser
Wallace
ANZIC: New Zealand Chikyu
Japan Trench Tsunamigenesis
KodairaJapan
NR-Chikyu
Lord Howe Rise Continental Ribbon
Hackney
ANZIC: Australia
ChikyuKanto Asperity Project Overview
Indian Ridge Moho
MoHole to the Mantle
DREAM: Mediterranean Salt GiantJapan Trench Paleoseismology
Bend-Fault Serpentinization
NW Pacific Bend-Fault Hydrology
Fore Arc Mohole-to-Mantle
Blanco FZ Earthquake Triggering

Kobayashi
Japan
Dick
USA
Umino
Japan
Camerlenghi
ECORD: UK
StrasserECORD: Austria
Phipps Morgan ECORD:UK
Morishita
Japan
Michibayashi Japan
Mori
Japan

Status

PCT
PCT
PCT
PCT

PCT

Chikyu+JR
Chikyu+JR
ChikyuChikyu+JR
MSP/Chikyu?
Chikyu+JR
ChikyuChikyuChikyuReceived 7 Feb 2006

IODP Proposal Cover SheetNewX Revised537-CDP7

Addendum

Above For Official Use Only

Please fill out information in all gray boxes

Title: CRISP- Costa Rica seismogenesis project: investigating convergent margin seismogenesis
Proponent(s): Baumgartner, Peter, Bilek, Susan, Brueckmann, Warner, Castillo, Pat, Clift, Peter, Deyhle,
Annette, Dixon, Tim, Fehn, Udo, Fisher, Donald, Fulthorpe, Craig, Harris, Robert, Kastner,
Miriam, Kinoshita, Masa, Lewis, Jonathan, Matsumoto, Takeshi, McIntosh, Kirk, Morgan, Jason,
Morris, Julie, Patino, Lina, Schwartz, Susan, Snyder, Glen, Ranero, Cesar, Scholl, David,
Vannucchi, Paola, von Huene, Roland
Keywords: Seismogenic zone, Subduction factory, subduction erosion
Costa Rica
Area:
(5 or less)Contact Information:
Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
AddressTel.:
E-mail:Roland von Huene
Geology
University of California, Davis and Geomar, Kiel
2910 North Canyon Rd., Camino, California 95709
001 530 644 6078
Fax: 530 644 4948
rhuene@mindspring.com
Permission to post abstract on IODP-MI Web site:

X

Yes

No

Abstract: (400 words or less)
CRISP is a project to understand the initiation of large earthquakes and seismic rupture by drilling on eitherside of the updip limit of seismogenesis. The shallow dip of the subduction zone off southern Costa Rica andrelatively high subducting plate temperature cause this seismogenic environment to rise to drilling depth.
Materials, temperature, lithification, fluid flow and chemical changes that occur down the subduction zone are
hypothesized to cause the transition from stable to unstable slip that ultimately results in great earthquakes. Alongthe erosional convergent margin of Costa Rica the seismogenic plate interface is surrounded by eroded debris
rather than by trench sediment.
CRISP involves the only known erosional end-member of convergent margins within reach of scientificdrilling. Samples of the fault rock and observations of dynamics will be integrated with laboratory experiments totest 5 principal hypotheses as stated below in the scientific objectives. CRISP is structured in 2 programs thatsystematically lead to deep riser drilling of the seismogenic zone. The non-riser drill Program A will provide coresto characterize lower plate igneous basement rock and its hydrology. Paleo-depth indicators will allow a firstestimation of eroded debris and trench sediment thickness input by the subduction channel into the seismogenic
zone. Instruments will be deployed in the holes to record microseismicity and monitor fluid pressure. Program B
involves 3.5-km and 6.0-km-deep holes that are engineered from results of Program A. Program B riser drillingsamples the subduction channel along the plate interface and characterizes conditions in the zone of stable slip andthen conditions in the zone of unstable slip. This provides observations to determine physical and mineralogicaltransformations and dynamic changes causing unstable slip. The riser-drilling sites are in 500m and 1000m deep
water and in an area of optimum operating conditions nearly year around. Osa Peninsula provides the opportunity
to expand investigation farther down the seismogenic zone with land drilling to ~7km should that become
attractive in the future. With a low sediment supply, fast convergence rate, abundant seismicity, subduction
erosion, and a change in subducting plate relief along strike, CRISP offers excellent opportunities to learn causesof earthquake nucleation and rupture propagation. It complements other deep fault drilling (SAFOD and
NantroSeize) and investigates the first order seismogenic processes common to most faults and those unique toerosional margins.

537-CDP7
Scientific Objectives: (250 words or less)
The proposed drilling and accompanying geophysical programs will acquire data to test 5 key hypotheses:
1) Landward of the frontal sediment prism the transition from stable to unstable slip is accomplished bya transition from a fluid-rich broad fault-damage zone to a thinner and drier slip zone.
2) Fluid pressure gradient and fluid advection localize locking of erosional plate boundaries temporarilyand spatially
3) Fault mechanics associated with the transition from stable to unstable slip are influenced by lithology,
physical properties, and structure of eroded materials in the subduction zone4) Fluid chemistry, P-T conditions and residence time affect the state of eroded basement material throughalteration, diagenesis, and low-grade metamorphism influencing the transition from stable to unstable slip.
5) Variability in subducted plate relief and subduction channel thickness, affect material properties
and fluid distribution triggering seismicity and controlling rupture propagation.
The deployment of observatories will provide capability to monitor any near-field precursory signals that indicate thestage of a rupture zone in an earthquake cycle. A physical properties map along the plate interface derived fromseismic attributes and calibrated with the drill holes will indicate whether areas of locking offshore and potential
hazardous earthquake locations can be identified from remote geophysical information.
Please describe below any non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives.

Proposed Sites:
Site Name

Position

Water
Depth
(m)

Penetration (m)
Sed

Bsm

Total

Brief Site-specific Objectives

Received 27 Jan 2006

IODP Proposal Cover Sheet
New

Revised

537B-Full4

Addendum

Above For Official Use Only

Please fill out information in all gray boxes
Title:CRISP Program B: The Transition from Stable to Unstable Slip at Erosional
Convergent Plate Boundaries

Proponent(s):C. R. Ranero, C. Marone, S. Bilek., U. Barckhausen, P. Charvis, J-Y Collot, H. DeShon, G. Di Toro, T.
Dixon, L. Dorman, S. Galeotti, I. Grevemeyer, R. Harris, S. Husen, M. Kastner, M. Kinoshita,
T. Matsumoto, K. McIntosh, J. Morgan, J. Morris, C. Mueller, S. Neben, C. Reichert, D. Scholl, S. Saito, S.
Schwartz, V. Spiess, E. Suess, P. Vannucchi, H. Villinger, S. Vinciguerra, R. von Huene, W. Wallmann.

Keywords:(5 or less)

Seismogenic zone, fluid flow, subduction erosion

Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
AddressTel.:
E-mail:César R. Ranero
Marine geodynamics
IFM-GEOMAR
Wischhofstrasse 1-3, 24148, Kiel, Germany
49-431-6002279
Fax:
cranero@ifm-geomar.de

Area:

Central America
off Costa Rica

Contact Information:

49-431-6002922

Permission to post abstract on IODP-MI Web site:

X

Yes

No

Abstract: (400 words or less)
CRISP is designed to investigate the processes leading to seismogenesis at erosional convergent margins in 2
Programs. Each Program will involve sampling, downhole observatories, and laboratory experiments on therecovered materials. Program A focuses on the incoming oceanic plate, the decollement at the margin’s front where
slip is aseismic, and shallow structure of the overriding plate. Program B will investigate the plate boundary in thetransition from stable slip to unstable slip by drilling and monitoring at two sites. One site is located updip, butnear, the end of the seismogenic zone, and a second site is drilled into the seismogenic zone.
At least 50% of the world’s subduction zones are erosional margins. Erosional convergent margins have a
subduction channel containing material removed from the overriding plate mixed with sediment from the incoming
plate. The nature and physical properties of this material are currently unconstrained. Similarly, the volume,
distribution and chemistry of fluids at erosional plate boundaries are poorly known.
In Program B we propose a detailed investigation of subduction earthquake processes and to sample and monitor
the plate boundary where temperatures range ~100-200°C. Previous work indicates that key processes become activein that temperature range and control the onset of seismicity. Drilling will for the first time sample eroded material
and fluids in the subduction channel and investigate plate boundary fault mechanisms during tectonic erosion.
CRISP Program B will provide the core material for detailed laboratory experiments designed to isolate theprocesses and physical conditions that control the onset of seismogenesis.
Four Major Goals of Program B Drilling, Monitoring and Laboratory Experiments are:1) Quantify effective stress and plate boundary migration via focused investigation of fluid pressure gradient and fluid
advection across the erosional plate boundary.
2) Determine the structure and fault mechanics of an erosional convergent margin and identify the processes that
control the updip limit of seismicity.
3) Constrain how fluid-rock interaction affect seismogenesis by studying fluid chemistry and residence time,
basement alteration, diagenesis, and low grade metamorphism.
4) Obtain physical properties of a 3-D volume that spans the seismogenic zone.
The subduction zone offshore Osa Peninsula provides the tectonic setting to reach CRISP goals. The shallow
subduction angle and high temperatures bring to shallow depth processes that elsewhere occur at greater depth,
beyond the reach of drilling.

537B-Full4
Scientific Objectives: (250 words or less)
CRISP Program B will sample and monitor the plate boundary environment to study physical conditions andmaterial properties in the transition into the seismogenic zone. The scientific objectives of Program B are to test fivemain hypotheses central to understanding structure and seismogenesis at erosional plate boundaries:1) Landward of the frontal sediment prism, the transition from stable to unstable slip parallels the transition from a
fluid-rich and broad fault zone, with distributed slip, to a narrower zone of active deformation with localized shear andfluid compartmentalization.
2) Fluid pressure gradients and fluid advection affect the migration and coupling of erosional plate boundaries both
temporally and spatially.
3) The lithology, physical properties, and structure of eroded materials influence fault mechanics and the transition fromstable to unstable slip at subduction interfaces.
4) Fluid chemistry, P-T conditions and residence time affect the state of eroded material through basement alteration,
diagenesis and low-grade metamorphism.
5) Lateral variability in subducted plate relief, subduction channel thickness, material properties and fluid distribution
affect seismogenesis and rupture propagation.
These hypotheses will be tested by A) direct observation of the lithology, physical properties and structure of theplate boundary and surrounding rock, B) monitoring temperature, stress, pore-fluid pressure and chemistry, andseismicity, C) laboratory experiments on core samples, and D) dedicated geophysical surveys designed to expand
regionally the results from drilling and monitoring.
Please describe below any non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives.
Riser drilling
Drilling at >100°C and <200°C will require development of tools.

Proposed Sites:
Site Name

Position

CRIS-03A

84° 4.77852 W
8° 35.23956 N

CRIS-06A

84° 9.77076 W
8° 45.16602 N

Water
Depth
(m)
530

500

Penetration (m)Sed

Brief Site-specific Objectives

Bsm

Total

700

2850

3550

Drilling and monitoring theplate boundary and subduction
channel in the area of transition
between aseismic and seismic
slip and temperatures between
100°-150°C, updip, but near,
the end of the seismogenic zone.

1920

4080

6000

Drilling and monitoring theplate boundary and subduction
channel in the seismogenic zone
at temperatures between 150°<200°C.

Received 1-October-2003

IODP Proposal Cover Sheet
New

RevisedAddendum

Please fill out information in all gray boxes
Title:
Proponent(s):Keywords:(5 or less)Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
AddressTel.:
E-mail:603-CDP3
Above For Official Use Only

NanTroSEIZE: The Nankai Trough Seismogenic Zone ExperimentComplex Drilling Project
Gaku Kimura, Harold Tobin, and the NanTroSEIZE Working Group(24 Co-Proponents)
Seismogenic zone, earthquakes, tsunamigenesis,
fault mechanics

Area:

Southwest
Japan margin

Contact Information:
Harold Tobin
Earth and Environmental Science Department
New Mexico Tech
Socorro, NM 87801, USA
Fax: +1-505-835-6436+1-505-835-5920
tobin@nmt.edu
Permission to post abstract on iSAS Web site:

Yes

No

Abstract: (400 words or less)This Complex Drilling Project (CDP) proposal describes the rationale and scientific objectives for an
integrated program of geophysical and geologic studies, non-riser drilling, and riser drilling designed toinvestigate the aseismic to seismic transition of the megathrust system and the processes of earthquake
and tsunami generation at the Nankai Trough subduction zone. Our fundamental goal is the creationof a distributed observatory spanning the up-dip limit of seismogenic and tsunamigenic behavior.
This will involve sampling and instrumenting key elements of the active plate boundary fault system atseveral locations off the Kii Peninsula, where the plate interface and active mega-splay faults –implicated in tsunamigenesis – are accessible to drilling within the region of coseismic rupture in the1944 Tonankai M8 great earthquake. The most ambitious objective is to access and instrument the
Nankai plate interface within the seismogenic zone to advance our knowledge of fundamental aseismicand seismic faulting processes and controls on the transition between them. The strategy of
NanTroSEIZE differs fundamentally from that of other proposed deep fault drilling programs because
we will document the evolution of fault zone properties by trading time for space along the dipping plateboundary.
We propose 3 distinct phased IODP drilling efforts: Phase 1 – Inputs to the seismogenic zone system,
investigating variations in the sediments, oceanic crust, and fluids input to the plate boundary system;
Phase 2 – Mega-splay (OOST) fault drilling to sample and instrument thrusts which splay from the basal
décollement up through the forearc, in order to characterize fault properties transecting the aseismic toseismic transition from 1 to 3.5 km depth shallow; and Phase 3 – Sampling and instrumenting the plateinterface (décollement) at ~ 6 km below seafloor, in a region predicted to be within both the zone
capable of generating seismogenic behavior and in the zone of co-seismic slip in the 1944 greatearthquake. Long-term monitoring of a wide range of phenomena will be a major part of the effort, todetect signals of fault zone processes in the near-field. In addition, ongoing seismological and geodeticarrays in the vicinity as well as in the deep boreholes, geologic studies, laboratory and modeling efforts
are all integral components of the NanTroSEIZE project, essential to success in achieving project
objectives.

603-CDP3
Scientific Objectives: (250 words or less)
The principal scientific objective of the proposed drilling is to acquire data bearing on and testing the following
key hypotheses:

1. Systematic, progressive material and state changes control the onset of seismogenic behavior on
subduction thrusts.
2. Subduction zone megathrusts are weak faults.
3. Within the seismogenic zone, relative plate motion is primarily accommodated by coseismic
frictional slip in a concentrated zone.
4. Physical properties, chemistry, and state of the fault zone change with time during the earthquake
cycle.
5. The mega-splay (OOST) thrust fault system slips in discrete events which may include
tsunamigenic slip during great earthquakes.
Proposed NanTroSEIZE efforts will test models for the frictional behavior of fault rocks across theaseismic – seismogenic transition, the composition of faults and fluids and associated pore pressure andstate of stress, partitioning of strain spatially between basal interface and splays, temporally between
coseismic and interseismic periods, and between infraseismic and aseismic events vs. seismic events.
Long-term borehole observations potentially ultimately will test whether interseismic variations or
detectable precursory phenomena exist prior to great subduction earthquakes.
Please describe below any non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives.
In various combinations, the following non-standard measurements are desired for sites covered by this CDP:
During Drilling and Casing Installation: Logging/measurement while drilling, drill stem & wirelinepressure/permeability tests, cross-hole hydrologic tests, offset/walkaway vertical seismic profiling, cross-holeseismic.
Long-Term Borehole Observatory Monitoring: Array temperature measurement, pressure measurement in packerisolated intervals, array measurement for short-period, three-component seismometry, bottom-hole broadband andstrong motion seismometry, bottom hole strain, multi-level tilt, and long-term fluid collection for biological andgeochemical measurements. Many of these measurements will need to be made at temperatures of ~ 80 – 150+ C.

Proposed Sites:
SEE INDIVIDUAL PROPOSALS FOR EACH PHASE FOR SITE DESCRIPTIONS

Received 1 April 2004

IODP Proposal Cover Sheet
New

RevisedAddendum

Above For Official Use Only

Please fill out information in all gray boxes
Title:

603C-Full

NanTroSEIZE Drilling and Observatory Phase 3: A Window into the
Seismogenic Zone

Proponent(s): Kiyoshi Suyehiro, Harold Tobin, Eiichiro Araki, Susan Bilek, Tadanori Goto, Pierre Henry,
Gaku Kimura, Aitaro Kato, Masa Kinoshita, Chris Marone, Greg Moore, J. Casey Moore,
Demian Saffer, Arito Sakaguchi, Masanao Shinohara, Ralph Stephen, Akito Tsutsumi,
Kohtaro Ujiie, Kelin Wang
Keywords: Seismogenic zone, fault mechanics, borehole observatory,
SouthwesternArea:(5 or less) tsunamigenesis
Japan margin

Contact Information:
Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
AddressTel.:
E-mail:Harold Tobin
Earth and Environmental Science Department
New Mexico Tech
Socorro, NM 87801 USA
505-835-5920
Fax: 505-835-6436
tobin@nmt.edu
Permission to post abstract on iSAS Web site:

Yes

No

Abstract: (400 words or less)
The principal goal of NanTroSEIZE is to understand seismogenesis and rupture propagation along subduction
plate boundary faults by direct testing of key hypotheses related to the mechanics of subduction megathrusts.
NanTroSEIZE Phase 3 represents the culmination of the Seismogenic Zone Initiative: drilling into,
sampling, and monitoring of the subduction zone plate interface at depths of coseismic slip. This proposal
centers on the deepest drilling effort in the NanTroSEIZE project: sampling a single site across the entire plateinterface into the top of the subducting Philippine Sea plate. The proposed borehole will penetrate a major splay
fault (~4 km bsf) potentially implicated in coseismic slip, as well as the master decollement (~6 km bsf), at alocation of shallow large slip during the 1944 Tonankai Mw 8.2 earthquake.
The goal of this proposal is to address two key questions by a combination of logging, coring, down-hole
experiments, and long-term monitoring:(1) What controls the nature of fault slip and its spatial variability (i.e. the updip transition from aseismic toseismogenic slip)?
(2) What processes control temporal changes in slip behavior on a given fault?
Specifically, this proposal is aimed at testing hypotheses explaining controls on unstable slip, and documenting theroles of fault zone state (stress, fluid pressure, fabric) and composition in controlling frictional rheology. Downhole and monitoring observations, core analyses, and post-cruise laboratory studies will provide direct tests ofexisting hypothesis for fault zone frictional behavior. One focus of Phase 3 will be on documenting the material
properties and ambient conditions at each of the two faults, and comparing results with findings from shallower
portions of the plate boundary system sampled during Phases 1 and 2 to rigorously characterize controls on fault
slip behavior in an active megathrust system.
Proposedactivities include (1) drilling, LWD, and casing of a main hole - with drillstem tests performed at
casing set points, (2) creation of a sidetrack coring hole with continuous coring from 4000-6200 mbsf, and (3) welltests in perforated casing and installation of an observatory system for continuous monitoring of pore fluidpressure, temperature, strain, tilt, and seismicity. The borehole observatories, along with surface arrays ofmeasurements, and regional geodetic and seismic monitoring, will provide critical data toward understanding theslip distribution, temporal variability, and controlling mechanisms of seismogenic faulting along the plate boundary
system.

603C-Full
Scientific Objectives: (250 words or less)
The scientific objectives of NanTroSEIZE Phase 3 drilling are to use direct observation to rigorously
evaluate the following hypotheses, which are central to understanding earthquake mechanics along subduction
megathrusts:(1) Systematic, progressive material and state changes control the onset of seismogenic behavior on subduction
thrusts; (2) Subduction zone megathrusts are weak faults; (3) Within the seismogenic zone, relative plate motion is
primarily accommodated by coseismic frictional slip in a concentrated zone; (4) Physical properties, chemistry, andstate of the fault zone change systematically with time throughout the earthquake cycle; and (5) The mega-splay(OOST) thrust fault system slips in discrete events which may include tsunamigenic slip during great earthquakes.
These hypotheses will be evaluated by detailed characterization – in fault zones and in the surrounding rock volume –of the lithology, structural geology, and physical properties of the rock; the geochemistry of pore fluids; themicrobiological activity; the distribution of temperature, stress, and pore fluid pressure in space and time; theseismicity in the near-borehole environment and downdip; the temporal evolution of the strain field; and the evolutionof physical properties in the volume around the borehole.

Please describe below any non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives.
Essentially all technologies to be used are non-standard. These will include, but are not limited to:Riser-based drilling, LWD suite, DVTP-P, active hydrofracturing tests (wireline packer test), VSP.
A borehole observatory with multi-level packers and perforated intervals, Geodetic (strain/tilt), seismic andhydrologic (P,T) sensors and other instruments will be installed for a long-term borehole observatory.

Proposed Sites:

NT3-01A

33°17.6’N, 136°38.6’E

Water
Depth
(m)
1950

NT3-02A

33°12.9’N, 136°27.4’E

2100

Site Name

Position

Penetration (m)
Sed

Bsm

Total

Brief Site-specific Objectives

6000

200

6200

Study the progressive change inthe fault properties byintersecting the splay fault at~4.5km and the seismogenic
fault at 5.8 to 6km depth

6000

200

6200

Alternate site for NT3-01A

Received 1 April 2005

IODP Proposal Cover SheetNewX Revised603D-Full2

Addendum

Above For Official Use Only

Please fill out information in all gray boxes
Title:The Nankai Trough Seismogenic Zone Experiment: Observatory Science at theReference Sites

Proponent(s):Elizabeth Screaton, Michael Underwood, Demian Saffer, Kelin Wang, Geoff Wheat, Koichiro
Obana, Greg Moore, Kevin Brown, Juichiro Ashi

Keywords:(5 or less)

Subduction inputs; hydrogeology; long-term observatories

Area:

Nankai TroughShikoku Basin

Contact Information:
Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
AddressTel.:
E-mail:Elizabeth Screaton
Department of Geology
University of Florida
PO Box 112120, 241 Williamson, Gainesville FL 32611 USA(352) 392-4612
Fax: (352) 392-9294
screaton@ ufl.edu
Permission to post abstract on IODP-MI Sapporo Web site:

X

Yes

No

Abstract: (400 words or less)
The NanTroSEIZE Complex Drilling Plan describes a multi-phase strategy to get at the root cause of the transition
from stable sliding to stick-slip fault behavior -- by intersecting the “seismogenic conveyor belt” of Nankai Troughon either side of its up-dip limit of seismicity. With a campaign of coring, logging, downhole measurements, andlong-term observatory science, NanTroSEIZE will test hypotheses concerning the onset of seismogenic behavior
and locking of subduction thrusts. Characterizing the inputs to the seismogenic zone through examination ofreference sites is a vital component of NanTroSEIZE. This revised full proposal outlines scientific rationale andplans for installation of long-term borehole observatories at NantroSEIZE reference sites. Monitoring at theseobservatories serves two distinct purposes. First, the observatories will provide information on material properties
and background geophysical and geochemical conditions. The state of stress and strength of coupling on theplate-boundary fault are acutely sensitive to 3-D variations in pore pressure, and these pore pressures will begreatly affected by the distribution and permeability of turbidites and the permeability of the ocean crust. Second,observatories allow us to detect temporal changes in the geophysical or geochemical conditions and even thematerial properties. Temporal changes include the gradual stress build-up during the interseismic period.
Associated variations in the thermal and hydrological regimes, and episodic seismic and aseismic strain events,
could show how the seismogenic zone adjusts to new conditions caused by the stress build-up, which elevates
predictive understanding of the seismogenic zone. Two reference sites in Shikoku Basin, on a basement high andbasement plain, will show how stratigraphy, basement topography, and thermal structure affect the physical andhydrologic properties of subduction inputs. Each will require a pair of screened intervals: one targeting open
basement and one targeting the overlying sediment. A site located 7 km seaward of the deformation front will
indicate how far pressure and chemistry anomalies are transmitted seaward of the deformation front. CORK
monitoring at the toe of the accretionary prism will isolate temperature and pressure signals in the frontal
décollement from signals in the subducting turbidites. A second shallow observatory at the prism toe will monitor
micro-seismicity and strain. An observatory in Kumano Basin provides an important complement to backgroundand transient data obtained within and seaward of the mega-splay system. This monitoring network will provide avital context for observations within the plate boundary fault system.

603D-Full2
Scientific Objectives: (250 words or less)Coring, logging, and conventional downhole measurements will commence at four reference sites during Phase I and
II of the Nankai Trough Seismogenic Zone Experiment. This proposal describes scientific objectives for long-termborehole observatories to be installed at four of these sites and one additional site. The fundamental objectives of the
proposed observatory science are to map background properties of the incoming sediment and crust and to monitor
temporal changes associated with the seismic cycle. Specific objectives include:(1) Monitor the differences in hydrologic properties and fluid-flow signals where basement highs are subducting
versus where basement plains are subducting.
(2) Determine if, where, and why compartments of excess pore pressure develop seaward of the deformation front; if
present, determine their effect on early-subduction fault dynamics.
(3) Compare hydrologic properties and fluid-flow signals in turbidite sand bodies before and after they have passed
beneath the toe of the accretionary prism Assess the role of these turbidite sand bodies in drainage of deeper
sediments, and impacts of drainage on plate boundary strength.
(4) Monitor hydrologic properties and fluid-flow signals within the frontal décollement zone for rigorous comparison
against properties and flow in subducted sand lenses beneath the décollement.
(5) Determine how basement fluid flow influences margin-scale patterns of heat flow and fluid flow.
(6) Monitor micro-seismicity, strain, and fluid flow response to tectonic events.

Please describe below any non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives.

Proposed Sites:
Site Name

Position

Water
Depth
(m)

Penetration (m)
Sed

Bsm

Total

NT1-01A

Lat: 32° 44.8878’N
Long: 136° 55.0236’E

3540

460m

40m

500m

NT1-02A

Lat: 32° 47.4996’N
Long: 137° 09.2784’ E

4210

730m

40m

770m

NT1-03A

Lat: 33° 01.23258’N
Long: 136° 47.9485’E

4125

1200m

0m

1200m

NT1-05A

Lat: 33° 01.3482’N
Long: 137° 3.3432’E

4310

1528m

40m

1568m

NT1-06A

Lat: 32° 51.35’N
Long: 137° 17.58’E

4200

990m

40m

1030m

NT2-04A

Lat: 33° 23.4’N,
Long: 136° 34.6’E

1990

1400m
forearcbasin

40m
acoustic
basement

1440m

Brief Site-specific Objectives
One CORK hole with screened
interval in position equivalent toturbidites and sealed basement.
Companion CORK hole with fully
cased sediment & open basement.
One CORK hole with screened
interval in turbidites and sealed
basement. Companion CORK holewith fully cased sediment and open
basement.
CORK monitoring of décollement andturbidites; will not extend tobasement. Monitor micro-seismicity
and strain.
One CORK hole with screened
intervals in turbidites and sealed
basement. Companion CORK holewith fully cased sediment and open
basement.
Alternate to NT1-02A. One CORK
hole with screened interval inturbidites and sealed basement.
Companion CORK hole with fully
cased sediment and open basement.
One CORK hole with screened
intervals in sediments. Monitor
micro-seismicity and strain.

Received 28 September 2010

IODP Proposal Cover Sheet
New

Revised

698-Full3

Addendum

Above For Official Use Only
Please fill out information in all gray boxes
Please check if this is Mission proposal
Title:

Continental Crust Formation at Intra-Oceanic Arc:
Ultra-Deep Drilling to the Middle Crust of the Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc

Proponent(s):Yoshiyuki Tatsumi, Katherine Kelley, Richard Arculus, Makoto Arima, Susan Debari, James B.
Gill, Osamu Ishizuka, Yoshiyuki Kaneda, Jun-ichi Kimura, Shuichi Kodaira, Yasuhiko Ohara, Julian
Pearce, RobertJ. Stern, Susanne M. Straub, Narumi Takahashi, Yoshihiko Tamura, Kenichiro Tani
Intra-oceanic arc, upper crust, middle crust, continental crust,Izu-BoninArea:magmatism

Keywords:(5 or less)Contact Information:
Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
AddressTel.:
E-mail:Yoshiyuki Tatsumi
Institute for Research on Earth Evolution
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology
Natsu-shima, Yokosuka 237-0061, Japan
81-46-867-9760
Fax: 81-46-867-9625
tatsumi@jamstec.go.jp
Permission to post abstract on IODP Web site:

Yes

No

Abstract: (400 words or less)This proposal is for the ultra-deep drilling site of a series of IODP proposals in the Izu-Bonin-Mariana(IBM) arc that aim at comprehensive understanding of arc evolution and continental crust formation. We
propose to drill a deep hole that penetrates through a complete sequence of intra-oceanic arc upper crustand into the in situ middle crust that may be a nucleus of continental crust. The average continental
crust possesses an intermediate composition (~60 wt.% SiO2), which raises the question of how
intra-oceanic arcs produce continental crust if the dominant product of mantle wedge melting and amajor proportion of intra-oceanic arc lava are basaltic (50 wt.% SiO2). There is no pre-existing
continental crust in the IBM upper plate, yet recent seismic studies of this arc reveal a thick middle crustlayer with 6.0-6.8 km/s Vp that is hypothesized to be intermediate in composition. The primary goals ofsampling the in situ arc crust through drilling are: (1) to identify the structure and lithologies of theupper and middle crust, (2) to test seismic models of arc crustal structure, (3) to constrain the petrologic
and chronological relationship of the middle crust to the overlying upper crust, (4) to establish theevolution of arc crust by relating this site with other regional drill sites and exposed arc sections, and (5)to test competing hypotheses of how the continental crust forms and evolves in an intra-oceanic arc
setting. These objectives address questions of global significance, but we have specifically identified the
IBM arc system as an ideal locale to conduct this experiment. The composition of the pre-subduction
upper plate was normal oceanic crust, and the tectonic and temporal evolution of this arc system iswell-constrained. Moreover, the IBM system is considered as the best-studied intra-oceanic arc on Earthby extensive sampling of the slab inputs and arc outputs through field studies and drilling, and by aseries of recent, focused geophysical surveys. We propose returning to the region of ODP Site 792 todrill, via. Eo-Oligocene upper crust, to the middle crust at proposed site IBM-4. The mid-crustal layer inthis area is shallow enough to be reached by drilling, and heat flow is low enough for drilling to proceedat mid-crustal temperatures. Samples recovered from IBM-4 will complement the drilling objectives atother proposed sites in Eocene (IBM-2) and Neogene (IBM-3) arc crust and pre-arc oceanic crust(IBM-1), which are proposed separately.

698-Full3
Scientific Objectives: (250 words or less)Petrologic objectives focus on (1) identifying the lithology, bulk composition, and structure of therocks that comprise the in situ upper and middle crust beneath the Eo-Oligocene IBM arc; (2)establishing the age and thermal/petrologic history of the IBM middle crust and its temporal andpetrologic relationship to the upper crust overlying it; (3) relating the petrology, structure, andcomposition of this mature arc crustal section to equivalent sequences from older (Eocene;
IBM-2) and younger (Neogene; IBM-3) arc crust from the same system, to upper- and mid-crustal
rocks exposed in accreted arc terranes, and to rocks that represent middle and bulk continental
crust; and (4) testing models of the formation of arc middle crust, i.e., simple fractionation of
mantle-derived basalt or andesite magmas vs. partial melting of mafic arc crust. The main
geophysical objective focuses on using the recovered rocks and borehole data from this deep
crustal site to evaluate geophysical models of the seismic velocity structure of the IBM arc crust,i.e., a layered structure with relatively homogeneous velocities within each layer vs. a gradational
crustal velocity structure.

Please describe below any non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives.

Proposed Sites:
Site Name
IBM-4

Position
32°24’N
140°23’E

Water
Depth
(m)

1798

Penetration (m)
Sed

800

Bsm

Total

4700

5500

Brief Site-specific Objectives

2000m penetration into the
middle crust.
886 m of the necessary
sampling at the IBM-4 Site
has already been done by
ODP Leg 126 Site 792

IODP Proposal
Sheet
IODP
ProposalCover
Cover
Sheet

707 -

MDP

Kanto Asperity Project: Overview

Title

Kanto Asperity Project: Geological and Geophysical Characterization of the Source Regions of Great
Earthquakes and Slow Slip Events

Proponents

R. Kobayashi, Y. Yamamoto, T. Sato, T. Nishimura, C. Moore, M. Shishikura, D. Curewitz, N. Hayman,
E. Shalev, P. Henry, T. Hirono, T. Hori, K. Koketsu, P. Malin, M. Matsu'ura, S. Nakao, T. Sagiya, H.
Sato, R. Stein, W. Thatcher, N. Takahashi, K. Ujiie, K. Wang, M. Tanahashi, B. Shibazaki, S.
Lallemant, J. Beavan,

Keywords

Earthquakes, Slow Slip, Monitoring, Asperity

Area

Central Japan margin

Contact Information
Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
Address:Tel.:
E-mail:Reiji Kobayashi
Graduate School of Science and Engineering
Kagoshima University
1-21-35 Korimoto

Kagoshima890-0065

Fax:+81-99-285-8149+81-99-285-8149

reiji@sci.kagoshima-u.ac.jp

Permission to post abstract on IODP-MI Web site:

Yes

No

Abstract:
The Kanto Asperity Project proposes a drilling and long-term monitoring program in the southern Kanto region of southeasternJapan with the aim of determining the characteristics of the plate boundary in and around the source regions (asperities) ofgreat earthquakes and slow slip events (SSEs). This region (Tokyo Metropolitan Area) is a densely populated economic
center that has been subjected to repeated great earthquakes.
Recent progress in supercomputer technology has enabled numerical simulations of the generation cycles of earthquakes andSSEs, but the parameters are not based on scientific data, and are not sufficiently reliable to assess the hazards associatedwith future earthquakes. The establishment of a realistic earthquake-generation model is of crucial importance in mitigating
the danger posed by earthquake geohazards.
Three different types of slip events have occurred at similar depths; the 1923 Taisho Kanto earthquake, 1703 Genroku
earthquake, and SSEs off Boso Peninsula. In the cases of Nankai and Cascadia, SSEs occur at deeper levels than theasperities, and the location can be controlled by temperature and pressure. The Boso SSEs occur at the same level as theasperities, raising the possibility that the conditions (materials, fluids, or surface roughness) in the Kanto region are different tothose encountered at Nankai and Cascadia.
Our main objectives are to understand why the different types of events occur side by side at almost same depth (Objective 1)
and to establish realistic earthquake-generation models using data on each step of the process of SSEs and data on frictional
experiments (Objective 2).
This Multi-phase Drilling Project consists of the three programs. Program A proposes ultra-deep drilling to intersect plateboundaries in the Boso SSE region and the Taisho asperity to compare the geological materials at the two sites. Coring andlogging at plate boundaries would also yield realistic frictional properties and effective normal stress, as derived fromexperiments and from measurements of pore pressure, respectively. Program B proposes long-term monitoring (boreholeobservatories) for recording in detail crustal deformations and seismicity during 2-3 cycles of Boso SSEs, enabling testing of
the hypothesis that SSEs can be used to assess the validity of earthquake generation models. Program C proposes drilling atfour sites to recover input materials from the Philippine Sea Plate. The cores, and the results of frictional experiments using
the core materials, will be used to test the hypothesis that the different types of slip arise from different input materials.

Page 1 of 2
generated: Tue Oct 16 02:30:07 2012
by if340_pdf / kk+w 2007 - 2011(user 1.8535)

707 - MDP
Scientific Objectives
We propose two main objectives to be achieved.
Objective 1: To understand why the three different types of events occur laterally, at similar depths in the Sagami Trough.
Objective 2: To establish realistic earthquake-generation models using data obtained at each step of the generation cycle ofnatural earthquakes.
To achieve these objectives, three programs A-C will test the following hypotheses.
For Objective 1:
Hypothesis 1-1: The different types of slips arise from different input materials.
Coring and logging at four sites on the Philippine Sea Plate just before subduction to identify and characterize the input
materials (Program C).
Hypothesis 1-2: Coupling strength depends on elapsed time after subduction.
Ultra-deep drilling to intersect plate boundaries in the Taisho asperity and the SSE region to compare core materials,
diagenetic and metamorphic conditions, pore-water chemistry. (Program A).
For Objective 2:
Hypothesis 2-1: The Boso SSEs can be used to assess models of earthquake generation.
Long-term monitoring for recording in detail of tilt, pressure, and seismicity during 2-3 cycles of Boso SSEs, to establish
physical model of SSE cycle so as to interpret the observed spatio-temporal behavior (Program B). The model of SSEs isapplied to that of earthquake generation.
Hypothesis 2-2: Constitutive parameters obtained from fault zone materials and pore pressure in a fault zone can beincorporated into numerical simulations of earthquakes.
Ultra-deep drilling to intersect plate boundaries to yield realistic frictional properties and pore pressures, as derived fromexperiments on recovered materials and by logging, respectively (Program A).

Non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives.
Extensive logging (Vp, Vs and anisotropy), in situ experiment, such as pore pressure, hydraulic properties and stress tensor,
VSPs, and oriented cores are necessary for the initial values for geodetic and seismic monitoring. Long-term monitoring
observatories will require tiltmeters, broadband seismometers, accelerometers, and pressure gauges installation.

Proposed Sites
Site Name

Position(Lon, Lat)

Page 2 of 2
generated: Tue Oct 16 02:30:07 2012
by if340_pdf / kk+w 2007 - 2011(user 1.8535)

Water
Depth
(m)

Penetration (m)
Sed

Bsm

Total

Brief Site-specificObjectives

Received 1 October 2011

781-MDPIODP Proposal Cover Sheet
New

RevisedAddendum

Above For Official Use Only

Please fill out information in all gray boxes

Please check if this is Mission
proposal
Title: Multiphase Drilling Project: Unlocking the Secrets of Slow Slip by Drilling at

the Northern Hikurangi Subduction Margin, New Zealand
Proponent(s): Laura Wallace, Stuart Henrys, Philip Barnes, Demian Saffer, Harold Tobin, Nathan
Bangs, Rebecca Bell, and the Hikurangi margin working group
Keywords: slow slip events, subduction margin, Hikurangi, fault
New ZealandArea:(5 or less) mechanics, fluids

Contact Information:
Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
AddressTel.:
E-mail:Laura M. Wallace
Natural Hazards GroupGNS Science
1 Fairway Drive, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand+64 4 570 4534
Fax: +64 4 570 4600
l.wallace@gns.cri.nz
Permission to post abstract on IODP Web site:

Yes

No

Abstract: (400 words or less)Over the last decade, the discovery of episodic slow slip events (SSEs) at subduction margins
around the globe has led to an explosion of new theories about fault mechanics and subduction
interface deformation mechanisms and rheology. The northern Hikurangi margin is the only
place on Earth where well-documented SSEs occur on a subduction interface within range ofexisting drilling capabilities. Drilling, down-hole measurements, sampling, and monitoring of thenorthern Hikurangi SSE source area provides a unique opportunity to definitively test hypotheses
for the properties and conditions leading to SSE occurrence, and ultimately, to unlock the secretsof slow slip. Furthermore, northern Hikurangi SSEs recur every two years, and thus provide an
excellent setting to monitor changes in deformation rate, in situ conditions, and rock physicalproperties within and surrounding the SSE source area throughout a slow slip cycle.
We propose to drill the northern Hikurangi SSE source area with a 3 phase approach:(1) Seven shallow (~400-1200 m below the seafloor) riserless sites to collect samples andgeophysical logs of the overriding and subducting plates, and strategically install observatory
equipment to monitor near-surface changes in deformation, seismicity and physical properties
throughout a SSE cycle and characterize the distribution of SSE slip with very high fidelity.
(2) A deep riser hole (~6 km below the sea floor) that penetrates the subduction interface anddirectly samples rocks from the SSE source region, collects logs across the fault zone(s), andmeasures temperature, fluid pressure and chemistry, and stress.
(3) Installation of a long-term borehole monitoring system to detect changes in deformation rate,
and physical and chemical properties at the SSE source during a complete SSE cycle.
Sampling material within the SSE source area and incoming plate section (protolith for fault zonerock deeper down) will reveal the frictional, lithological and structural character of the interface
in an active SSE source region. Observatory facilities to monitor changes in hydrology, strain rateand seismicity near and above the SSE source area throughout a two-year SSE cycle will elucidate
the role that short-term variations of physical conditions play in the occurrence of aseismic vs.
seismic slip. Comparison of properties of the interface at northern Hikurangi (dominated byaseismic creep and moderate, shallow subduction thrust events) and the Nankai margin (where
stick-slip behaviour over large regions produces great megathrust earthquakes) may help solve themystery of why some subduction margins rupture in megathrust earthquakes while others do not.
1

781-MDP
Scientific Objectives: (250 words or less)
Drilling, sampling, downhole logging and measurements, and instrumenting the proposed riserlessand riser sites will resolve competing hypotheses and key questions regarding the generation of slow
slip and the mechanics of subduction interface thrusts. Major questions that will be addressed are:(1) Do slow slip events (SSEs) occur under highly elevated fluid pressures? (2) What is the role offault strength and rock frictional properties in facilitating slow slip? (3) What are the rockcompositions and fault zone architecture associated with slow slip? (4) Do short-term hydrologicalvariations facilitate SSEs or is there no relationship? (5) How do fluid chemistry, pressure,temperature, and fluid flux (near the surface and at the SSE source) vary in response to SSEs? (6)What control does temperature have on the down-dip limit of the seismogenic zone and the depth toslow slip events? (7) Is the structural character and frictional properties of the subduction interface
dominated by aseismic slip and moderate subduction thrust earthquakes (i.e., Northern Hikurangi)
fundamentally different from that of subduction interface faults characterized by stick-slip behaviour
and great megathrust earthquakes (such as Nankai)?
Please describe below any non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientificobjectives.
Completion of the objectives will require development of one or more long-term borehole monitoring systems,
based on existing CORK and LTBMS designs for both JOIDES Resolution and Chikyu drilling. Non-standard
downhole measurements using the MDT (Modular Dynamic Tester) or similar for in situ pore pressure, stress,
and permeability data may be required.

Proposed Sites:
SEE INDIVIDUAL PROPOSALS FOR EACH PHASE OF THE PROJECT FOR SITE
DESCRIPTIONS2

IODP Proposal Cover Sheet

781B -

Full

Hikurangi: Riser

Title

Unlocking the secrets of slow slip by drilling at the northern Hikurangi subduction margin, New Zealand:
Riser drilling to intersect the plate interface

Proponents

L. Wallace, Y. Ito, S. Henrys, P. Barnes, D. Saffer, S. Kodaira, H. Tobin, M. Underwood, N. Bangs, A.
Fagereng, H. Savage, S. Ellis, .. The Hikurangi Margin Working group,

Keywords

SSEs subduction Hikurangi earthquakes fluids

Area

New ZealandContact Information
Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
Address:Tel.:
E-mail:Laura Wallace
Institute for Geophysics
University of Texas
J.J. Pickle Research Campus, Bldg.
Austin196, 10100 Burnet Rd. (R2200)

78758

Fax:
lwallace@ig.utexas.edu

Abstract
Over the last decade, the discovery of episodic slow slip events (SSEs) at subduction margins around the globe has led to an
explosion of new theories about fault rheology and slip behavior along subduction megathrusts. The northern Hikurangi
margin is the only place on Earth where well-documented SSEs occur on a subduction interface within range of scientificdrilling capabilities. Drilling, down-hole measurements, and sampling of the northern Hikurangi SSE source area provides aunique opportunity to definitively test hypotheses for the physical conditions and rock properties leading to SSE occurrence,and ultimately, to unlock the secrets of slow slip.
This proposal is for the deep, riser drilling component of a recently submitted Multi-phase Drilling Project (781-MDP) proposal
for IODP drilling to discern the mechanisms of subduction zone slow slip events (SSEs) by scientific drilling in the region ofshallow SSEs at northern Hikurangi. The primary aims of the riser phase are to sample, log, and conduct downholemeasurements in the hanging wall and across the plate interface where SSEs occur.
Here, we propose a single riser borehole intersecting the plate interface at 5-6 km bsf, to collect samples, geophysical logs
and make downhole measurements at the source of SSEs. The riser borehole is designed to address two fundamental
scientific objectives: (1) characterize the composition, mechanical properties, and structural characteristics of the megathrustin the slow slip source area; and (2) characterize hydrological properties, thermal regime, stress, and pore pressure state
above and within the SSE source region. Together, these data will test a suite of hypotheses about the fundamental
mechanics and behavior of slow slip events, and their relationship to great subduction earthquakes. Without direct sampling ofrocks from the SSE source and in situ measurements of physical properties (as proposed here), geoscientists are limited to
speculation regarding the mechanisms that lead to SSEs.
We also expect that comparisons between cores and logs from deep, riser drilling of the subduction interfaces at both north
Hikurangi and Nankai (the NanTroSEIZE project) will address the mystery of why some subduction zones rupture in Great
earthquakes (e.g., Nankai), while others are dominated by aseismic creep (e.g., N. Hikurangi).

Page 1 of 2
generated: Mon Apr 22 04:40:54 2013
by if340_pdf / planiglobe.com 2007 - 2013(user 0.4935)

781B -

Full

Scientific Objectives
Drilling, coring, geophysical logging, and downhole measurements will resolve competing hypotheses and key questions
regarding the generation of slow slip and the mechanics of subduction interface thrusts. Major questions that will be
addressed are:(1) What control does temperature and pressure have on the down-dip limit of the seismogenic zone and the depth of slow
slip events? (2) Does high fluid pressure at the plate interface influence the occurrence of SSEs, and what role domineralogical dehydration transformations play in the supply of fluids to the SSE source area? (3) What are the lithologies
hosting slow slip, and do they promote conditional stability? If so, do fast seismic slip and slow aseismic slip occur in the same
location on the interface? Do SSEs represent prematurely arrested normal earthquakes, as is suggested from dynamic
weakening in laboratory friction tests? (4) Are the structural character and frictional properties of a subduction interface
dominated by slow, aseismic slip and moderate subduction thrust earthquakes (i.e., Northern Hikurangi) fundamentallydifferent from that of subduction interface faults characterized by stick-slip behaviour and great megathrust earthquakes (suchas Nankai)?

Non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives.
LWD tools: As complete a suite as is possible and practical for logging-while-drilling LWD) should be employed. At a minimum
azimuthal resistivity imaging, sonic velocity, density and neutron porosity, gamma, and annular pressure logging arerequested.
In situ pore pressure and stress measurements: a packer-based or similar wireline or LWD tool that can be used to conduct
pumping and drawdown tests and mini-frac experiments (one example is the Schlumberger modular dynamic tester, or MDT,tool) is important to measure both stress and hydrogeologic state of the slow slip environment and upper plate.

Proposed Sites
Site Name
HSM-01B

Page 2 of 2
generated: Mon Apr 22 04:40:54 2013
by if340_pdf / planiglobe.com 2007 - 2013(user 0.4935)

Position(Lat, Lon)
-38.727283,
178.614233

Water
Depth
(m)
994

Penetration (m)
Sed
6000

Bsm

Total
0

Brief Site-specific Objectives

6000 1.Coring and logging to assess
physical properties and rockcomposition within and above theupper plate above SSE source region
2. Case and install temporary SSE
observatory hole between drillingphases3. Case and install long-term boreholeobservatory when the hole iscompletedIODP Proposal
Sheet
IODP
ProposalCover
Cover
Sheet

800 - MDP

SloMo

Title

Nature of the Lower Crust and Moho at Slower-spreading Ridges

Proponents

H. Dick, J. Natland, S. Arai, P. Robinson, C. MacLeoc, M. Tivey, I. Benoit, G. Ceuleneer, D. Teagle, K.
Ozawa, M. Godard, J. Miller, R. Tribuzio, H. Kumagai, M. Kurz, J. Koepke, S. Miyashita, J. Maeda, R.
Pedersen, J. Canales, G. Hirth, J. Lisenberg, A. Yoshinobu, H. Zhou, W. Bach, J. Snow, K. Edwards,
V. Edgecomb, Y. NIu, A. Sanfilippo, . France, F. Klein, M. tominaga, T. Schroeder, N. Abe, B. Payot,
M. Python, Y. Harigane, V. LeRoux,

Keywords

Moho
Crust

Area

Southwest Indian
Ridge

Contact Information
Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
Address:Tel.:
E-mail:Henry J. B. Dick
Geology and Geophysics
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
McLean Laboratory, MS#8

Woods Hole

02543

Fax:

1-508-892-2590
hdick@whoi.edu

Permission to post abstract on IODP-MI Web site:

Yes

No

Abstract:
This multi-phase drilling proposal is to drill through the Atlantis Bank gabbroic massif into mantle 2.2 km NE of 1.5-km deep
Hole 735B to 500-m below Moho. There are 2 major objectives. First to recover the lowermost gabbros and crust-mantle
transition to understand the processes creating Mid-Ocean Ridge Basalt – the most abundant magma type on Earth, andsecond, resolve the controversy as to whether the Moho at slow spreading ridges can be a serpentinization front. Based on
geologic mapping, geochemistry, and seismic refraction the igneous crust-mantle boundary below Atlantis Bank is believed~2.5 km above Moho. This is an ideal location, then, to test the serpentinization front hypothesis for Moho. If successful inpenetrating serpentinized mantle, the drilling may not only extend the limits for life, but also document an entire new planetary
biosphere below the ocean crust.
The drill site is at the center of the 700-km2-gabbro massif where the crust-mantle transition is most fully developed at thelikely point of focused melt delivery from the mantle. This will test competing hypotheses for MORB petrogenesis: one
supported by experimental petrology that it segregates at depths of 10 to 30 km where MORB melts would be last in
equilibrium with the olivine and two pyroxene mantle assemblage, and then transported to the crust with little additional mantle
interaction. The alternative hypothesis is that MORB aggregates and pools in the mantle at the base of the crust, where
melt-rock reaction with the mantle and lower crust, significantly modifies the melt composition prior to intrusion to higher levels
and eruption to the seafloor. The latter process has two major implications: 1) the assumed composition of primary magmas,
based on compositions calculated assuming that MORB is produced by simple fractional crystallization of a parental melt isincorrect, and that 30 years of experimental petrology has used the wrong composition and model in predicting mantle-melt
equilibrium, and 2) that mantle hybridized by melt-rock reaction at the base of the crust contributes significantly to the bulk
composition of the crust. The results will profoundly affect understanding of magma generation and the linkages between the
mantle, melt, and crust.
Combined with the existing holes the drilling will produce a transit spaced at ~ 1-km intervals to look at lateral heterogeneity of
the crust, test the nature of magnetic reversals in plutonic rock, and document the stress-strain evolution of a plate boundary
undergoing asymmetric seafloor spreading.

Page 1 of 2
generated: Mon Nov 5 06:29:25 2012
by if340_pdf / kk+w 2007 - 2011(user 0.3627)

800 -

MDP

Scientific Objectives
There are two principle objectives:
I. Test the hypothesis that the Moho beneath Atlantis Bank is a serpentinization front.
II. Recover the igneous lower crust and the crust-mantle transition at an average melt flux for slow and ultraslow-spreading
ridges.
From this we seek to understand:•The igneous stratigraphy of the lower crust•How much mantle material is incorporated into the lower crust.
•How melt is transported through and emplaced into the lower crust•How the lower crust and shallow mantle shapes the composition of mid-ocean ridge basalt, the most abundant magma on
Earth?
•The primary modes of accretion of the lower crust.
•Lateral heterogeneity of the lower crust at magmatic time scales.
•The distribution of strain in the lower crust and shallow mantle in the shallow lithosphere during asymmetric seafloor
spreading.
•The nature of magnetic anomaly transitions in the lower crust.
•The role of the lower crust and shallow mantle in the global carbon cycle.
•Life in the lower crust and hydrated mantle.
This drilling will:
Provide an important step towards a full penetration in the Pacific by providing critical needed experience in deep drilling inlower crustal and mantle rock.
Create a laboratory for hole-to-hole and ship-to-hole experiments for in-situ determination of the seismic character of lower
crust and mantle rock at a seismically appropriate scale.

Non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives.
biogeochemical tools

Proposed Sites
Site Name

Position(Lon, Lat)

Water
Depth
(m)

Penetration (m)
Sed

Bsm

Total

Brief Site-specificObjectives

AtBk-357.29166, -32.6716

700

0

1000

1000 AtBk-3 lies on the northernmost lip of
the Atlantis Bank Platform and has
theobjective of examining the shallow
igneous and high-temperaturedetachment
deformation history at a significantly
later point in its history (~500,000 yrs)
than
at either AtBk-1 or 1105A or 735B.
We would occupy this location in theevent
that we were unsuccessful in
spudding in at AtBk-2.

AtBk-257.339166, -32.68333

1700

3

1000

1003 Drill the dike-gabbro transition in
ultraslow spread crust to examine thehistory ofalteration, deformation and intrusion

AtBk-1a57.28516, -32.7125

700

0

6000

6000 I. Test the hypothesis that the Moho
beneath Atlantis Bank is a
serpentinization front.
II. Recover the igneous lower crustand the crust-mantle

Page 2 of 2
generated: Mon Nov 5 06:29:25 2012
by if340_pdf / kk+w 2007 - 2011(user 0.3627)

Received 25 March 2012

IODP Proposal Cover Sheet
X New

Revised

805-MDP

Addendum

Above For Official Use Only

Please fill out information in all gray boxes

Please check if this is Mission proposal
Title:
MoHole to Mantle (M2M)
Proponent(s):Keywords:(5 or less)Susumu Umino, Benoît Ildefonse, Peter B. Kelemen, Shuichi Kodaira, Katsuyoshi Michibayashi,Tomoaki Moroshita, Damon A.H. Teagle, and the MoHole proponents (full list inserted after thereference list)
Mantle, Moho, oceanic lithosphere, oceanic crust, Mid-Ocean
Central/East
Ridge processes, hydrothermal cooling, carbon cycle, ultradeep
Area:
Pacific
drilling

Contact Information:
Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
AddressTel.:
E-mail:Katsuyoshi Michibayashi
Institute of Geosciences
Shizuoka University
Ohya 836, Suruga-ku, Shizuoka, 422-8529, Japan+81 542384788
Fax: +81 542380491
sekmich@ipc.shizuoka.ac.jp
Permission to post abstract on IODP Web site:

Yes

No

Abstract: (400 words or less)
The M2M project will sample for the first time upper mantle peridotites that in the near geological past resided
in the convecting mantle, and recently (~20 to 100 Myrs) underwent partial melting at a fast-spreading mid-ocean
ridge. This will be achieved by drilling through intact fast-spread oceanic crust, and ~500m into the mantle
lithosphere. This first in-situ sampling of fresh upper mantle rocks will provide hitherto unattainable informationon the chemical and isotopic composition (including fluid mobile elements K, U, C, S, H2O, noble gases),
physico-chemical conditions (e.g., fO2, fS), seismic velocities and magnetic signatures, physical properties
deformation and rheology, and the scales of chemical and physical heterogeneity of the uppermost mantle. This
information is essential to understand the formation and evolution of Earth, its internal heat budget, planetarydifferentiation and reservoir mixing by mantle convection, mantle melting, and melt focusing and transport at
mid-ocean ridges.
On the descent to the mantle, the ultradeep hole (MoHole) will sample fast spreading ocean crust, and make thefirst in situ observations of the geological nature of the Mohorovičić Discontinuity (Moho), the uppermost primaryseismic boundary in the Earth, assumed to be the crust-mantle boundary. Fast spreading ocean crust is targetedbecause it exhibits relatively uniform bathymetry and seismic structure, and is the great majority of crust recycled
back into the mantle by subduction during the past 200 Myrs. Sampling a section of intact oceanic crust will test
models of magmatic accretion at mid-ocean ridges, quantify the geometry and vigor of hydrothermal cooling andgeochemical exchanges with the oceans, identify the limits of life in the sub-seafloor biosphere and its functions,and ground-truth remote geophysical observations.
This proposal provides the scientific justification for drilling a >6000 m borehole to the mantle. The rationale has
been developed by six workshops since 2006, and summarizes the scientific state-of-the-art, and the current vision
for engineering and technology development, and operations. M2M directly addresses Challenges 6, 8, 9 and 10 of
the 2013-2023 IODP Science Plan. A site for mantle drilling has yet to be selected, but three potential target
regions await additional site surveys.
Drilling into the mantle will be the most ambitious undertaking ever achieved by the geoscience community andmust engage the full spectrum of scientific expertise. Observations of pristine upper mantle will transform ourunderstanding of the evolution of our planet and challenge the fundamental paradigms that are the foundations ofEarth science.

805-MDP
Scientific Objectives: (250 words or less)
The M2M project echoes long-term goals of Earth scientists since the late 1950's, to understand the oceanic
lithosphere. With a MoHole, we will address first-order questions about the composition and structure of the Earth's
convecting mantle, the geological nature of the Moho, the formation and evolution of oceanic crust, and the deep
limits of life. Specific objectives of M2M are to:• Determine the in-situ composition, structure and physical properties of the uppermost mantle, and the physics andchemistry of mantle melting and melt migration processes,• Determine the scales of physical and chemical heterogeneity of the uppermost mantle,• Determine the geological meaning of the Moho in fast-spread lithosphere,• Determine the bulk composition of the ocean crust to establish the relationship between lavas at the seafloor and themelts that separated from their mantle sources,• Determine the mode of magmatic accretion at fast spreading ridges,• Understand the extent and intensity of hydrothermal exchange between ocean crust and seawater, and estimate thechemical flux returned to the mantle by subduction,• Determine the contribution of the lower ocean crust and upper mantle to global geochemical cycles, including
carbon and water,• Establish the limits, and controlling factors of life in the ocean lithosphere.
• Calibrate regional seismic measurements against core samples and borehole experiments, including long-term
geophysical and microbiological monitoring,• Understand the origin of marine magnetic anomalies and quantify the contribution of lower crustal rocks to themagnetic signature of the ocean crust.
Please describe below any non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives.
Continuous mud circulation (water depth > 3500 m); coring, logging, and fluid/gas sampling in a high temperature(≥ 200°C) environment; specialized drill bits for abrasive, hard, hot rocks; specialized drill string with high tensile
strength; low weight, special drilling mud for use at high temperature; new casing and cementing materials andstrategies; …

Proposed Sites:
Site Name

Position

Penetration (m)Water
Depth (m)

Sed

Bsm

Total

Cocos Plate

6.7-8.7°N
89.5-91.9°W

3400-3650

250-300

>6000

>6000

Off
Southern/Baja
California

20-33°N
120-127°W

Mostly4000-4500

80-130

>6000

>6000

NE HawaiianArch22.9-23.9°N
154.5-155.8°W

4050-4500

~200

>6000

>6000

Brief Site-specific Objectives

MoHole site is yet to be
determined, and otheroptions may be consideredIODP Proposal Cover Sheet

Full

2

Received for: 2016-04-01

Japan Trench Tsunamigenesis

Title

835 -

Tracking Tsunamigenic Slips Across and Along the Japan Trench (JTRACK): Investigating a new paradigm
in tsunamigenic megathrust slip with very deep water drilling using the D/V Chikyu

Proponents

Shuichi Kodaira, Jim Sample, Michael Strasser, Kohtaro Ujiie, Jamie Kirkpatrick, Patrick Fulton, Jim Mori,
Demian Saffer, Takehiro Hirose, Weiren Lin, Kelin Wang, Yasu Nakamura, Matt Ikari, Ken Ikehara, Marta
Torres, Liz Screaton, Rachel Lauer, Chris Goldfinger, Toshiya Kanamatsu, Paola Vannucchi, Jan
Behrmann, Virginia Toy, Achim Kopf, Tim Byrne, Saneatu Saito, Greg Moore, Brian Boston, Hung-Yu(Sonata) Wu, Tsuyoshi Ishikawa, Emily Brodsky, Ryota Hino, Asuka Yamaguchi, Toshiya Fujiwara, Anja
Schleicher, Christine Regalla, Kentaro Omura, Marianne Conin

Keywords

Tsunami, Earthquake, Subduction, Paleoseismology, Fault

Proponent
Affiliation
Country

Area

Japan Trench

Proponent Information
Shuichi Kodaira
JAMSTEC-CEAT
Japan✔ Permission is granted to post the coversheet/site table on www.iodp.org

Abstract
Understanding the huge slip and associated devastating tsunami of the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake is a high priority
challenge for IODP with important societal impacts. JTRACK investigates spatial and temporal aspects of physical,hydrological, and chemical properties of the fault zone to elucidate key factors that can control large (and small) slip on themegathrust. These results may be used to explain the 2011 earthquake, past tsunamigenic events along the Japan
Trench, and possibly other great subduction earthquakes world-wide. Planned drilling includes a variety of investigations
targeting the fault zone and associated structures. Geologic studies will focus on structure and physical properties,
especially frictional characteristics for components of the input pelagic sediments, such as the abundant smectite
recognized during previous drilling of the megathrust. Hydrological and chemical effects in and around the fault zone arelargely unknown, but likely contribute to earthquake processes. We plan analyses of interstitial water to evaluate the role offluids during faulting, along with investigations of the local permeability structure. The evolving stress state following theearthquake will be studied with borehole breakouts and temperature/pressure monitoring in a borehole observatory.
JTRACK has the unique opportunity to study fault healing after a large earthquake. The strategy for this proposal consistsof two 2-hole transects across the Japan Trench in the region of the shallow plate boundary fault that ruptured in 2011.
One transect is an area of large slip (>50 m) and the other of smaller slip (1/3~1/2 of the large slip). Each transect has an‘inner trench slope’ site mainly targeting the plate boundary fault zone, and an ‘input’ site seaward of the trench as areference site. The borehole sites have largely independent science objectives and there are few logistical constraints on
the order or timing of drilling. This may be advantageous for scheduling since operations can be done during several
expeditions of short duration.

Generated: 2016-05-06T20:45:56+00:00

835 -

Full

2

Scientific Objectives
Our primal objective is to define spatially-varying physical and chemical properties and conditions of the sediments and fluids of thenear-trench megathrust that contribute to huge fault displacements and very large tsunamis. Following recommendations from the IODP
Science Evaluation Panel and community input at the JTRACK Workshop (May 17-19, 2014, Tokyo), this proposal focuses on the 2011
Tohoku-oki rupture zone by drilling two transects across the Japan Trench in regions of large and small coseismic slip. We will investigate
the detailed geologic structures and rock properties of the fault zone, especially frictional and strength characteristics. Permeability andchemical studies will be used to infer the local hydrological structure and its effect on the earthquake rupture. Combining theseobservations and using comparisons of similar measurements for areas of high and low slip during the 2011 earthquake, we will try to infer
key factors that control the amount of displacement during large earthquakes. In addition, time-dependent observations will be carried out
to study fault healing after a large earthquake. These will focus on how the local hydrological and stress conditions change during the few
years following the large fault displacement during the earthquake.

Non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives

Generated: 2016-05-06T20:45:56+00:00

835 - Full2

Proposed Sites (Total proposed sites: 5; pri: 4; alt: 1; N/S: 0)
Penetration (m)Position(Lat, Lon)

Water
Depth
(m)

Sed

Bsm

Total

JTNT-02A(Primary)

38.5272
144.1992

7115

520

0

520

Obtain sample and logging data of a reference section on the incoming
plate seaward of the small slip area of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake as abaseline for comparison with sediments in the prism, plate-boundary
décollement and underthrust section. Investigate the role of fluids in thereference input section with geochemical and physical property datafrom continuous cores. Measure the stress state in the incoming
sediment section from borehole and sediment property measurements.

JTNT-04A(Alternate)38.5171
144.0254

7300

1080

0

1080

Continuously core the frontal prism, fault zone and subducted plate tooceanic basement in the small slip area of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake
to obtain representative fault and surrounding rock samples and logging
data for structural analyses and laboratory experiments. Investigate therole of fluids in slip with geochemical and physical property data fromcontinuous cores. Measure the prism stress state from borehole andsediment property measurements. An alternate site of JTNT-01A

JTNT-01A(Primary)

38.552144.0355

7400

980

0

980

Continuously core the frontal prism, fault zone and subducted plate tooceanic basement in the small slip area of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake
to obtain representative fault and surrounding rock samples and logging
data for structural analyses and laboratory experiments. Investigate therole of fluids in slip with geochemical and physical property data fromcontinuous cores. Measure the prism stress state from borehole andsediment property measurements.

JTCT-02A(Primary)

37.9267
144.0688

6945

450

0

450

Obtain sample and logging data of a reference section on the incoming
plate seaward of the large slip area of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake as abaseline for comparison with sediments in the prism, plate-boundary
décollement and underthrust section. Investigate the role of fluids in thereference input section with geochemical and physical property datafrom continuous cores. Measure the stress state in the incoming
sediment section from borehole and sediment property measurements.

JTCT-01A(Primary)

37.9389
143.9135

6930

950

0

950

Continuously core the frontal prism, fault zone and subducted plate tooceanic basement in large slip area of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake toobtain representative fault and surrounding rock samples and logging
data for structural analyses and laboratory experiments. Install along-term fault zone observatory to monitor pore pressure andtemperature near the previous JFAST temporary temperatureobservatory. Investigate the role of fluids in slip with geochemical andphysical property data from continuous cores. Measure the prism stressstate from borehole and sediment property measurements and long-term
observatory monitoring.

Site Name

Generated: 2016-05-06T20:45:57+00:00

Brief Site-specific Objectives

IODP Proposal Cover Sheet857 - MDP

2DREAM: Mediterranean Salt Giant

Title

Uncovering a Salt Giant: Umbrella proposal of the multi-phase drilling project (MDP)

Proponents

A. Camerlenghi, G. Aloisi, S. Cloetingh, H. Daigle, G. DeLange, R. Flecker, D. Garcia-Castellanos, Z.
Gvirzman, C. Hübscher, W. Krijgsman, J. Kuroda, J. Lofi, S. Lugli, V. Manzi, T. McGenity, A.
Moscariello, M. Rabineau, M. Roveri, F. Sierro, Y. Makovsky, N. Waldmann, A. Maillard-Lenoir,

Keywords

Messinian, Salt, Deep Biosphere, Mediterranean

Area

Balearic Margin,
Provençal Basin,

Contact Information
Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
Address:Tel.:
E-mail:Angelo Camerlenghi

OGS Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale
Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/C

Sgonico

34151

Fax:

00390402140447
acamerlenghi@ogs.trieste.it

Abstract
About 6 million years ago the Mediterranean Sea became an enormous saline basin where more than one million cubic
kilometres of salt accumulated, locally exceeding a thickness of 3 km in the deep basins. This extreme, but geologically brief
event (640 ka; the so-called Messinian salinity crisis, MSC), changed the chemistry of the global ocean and had a permanent
impact on both the terrestrial and marine ecosystems of a huge area surrounding the Mediterranean. Drilling the MSC salt
giant represents a unique opportunity to understand the sedimentary history, stratigraphy, biosphere and fluid dynamics of asalt giant in a state close to its original depositional configuration, and to understand the responsiveness of a land-locked
oceanic basin to planetary dynamics.
The MDP proposal “Uncovering a Salt Giant” originates from a series of workshops and international initiatives carried out since2006, when riser-drilling technology was introduced in IODP in 2004.
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;addressing four overarching questions:•What are the causes, timing and emplacement mechanisms of the MSC salt giant?
•What are the factors responsible for early salt deformation and fluid flow across and out of the halite layer?
•Do salt giants promote the development of a phylogenetically diverse and exceptionally active deep biosphere?
•What are the mechanisms underlying the spectacular vertical motions inside basins and their margins?
The pre-proposal “Probing deep Earth and surface connections” (857A-Pre, Rabineau et al.) has already been submitted within
this MD proposal, while the remaining three pre-proposals will be submitted following the response of SEP.
Two deep basin sites will be proposed for riser drilling, one each in the Western and Eastern Mediterranean basin(West-to-East transect), aiming at the recovery of the complete Messinian sequence. One of these, in the Western Basin, will
be extended down to basement. Four intermediate basins sites are located at shallower water depths and target the recovery
of MSC records to reconstruct a shallow-to-deep transect.
The planning of complementary continental drilling within ICDP is in progress.

Page 1 of 2
generated: Mon Oct 13 18:20:53 2014
by if340_pdf(user 0.2992)

857 - MDP

2

Scientific Objectives
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- reconstruct paleoclimate conditions during the MSC and investigate the impact on global climate
What are the factors responsible for early salt deformation and fluid flow across and out of the halite layer?
- understand syn-sedimentary salt tectonics and halite creep- constrain post-depositional salt deformation and its consequences on sedimentary mass wasting- to understand the physical and mineralogical conditions that allow fluids to migrate in and through thick tabular salt
sequences
Do salt giants promote the development of a 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 and a highly variable chemical environment has produced a novel
deep biosphere community- use the biomarkers and surviving microbes trapped within brine inclusions to reconstruct the depth, photic and oxic
conditions of ancient, hypersaline depositional environments
What are the mechanisms underlying the spectacular vertical motions inside basins and their margins?
- quantify the consequences of base-level change on river behaviour, sediment erosion, supply, transport, karstification andlandscape-relief evolution

Non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives.
Riser drilling, sidewall coring, LWD

Proposed Sites
Site Name

Page 2 of 2
generated: Mon Oct 13 18:20:53 2014
by if340_pdf(user 0.2992)

Position(Lat, Lon)

Water
Depth
(m)

Penetration (m)
Sed

Bsm

Total

Brief Site-specific Objectives

IODP Proposal Cover Sheet

866 - FullJapan Trench Paleoseismology

Received for: 2017-10-02

Title

2

TRACKing past earthquakes in the sediment record along the Japan Trench:
Testing and developing submarine Paleoseismology in the deep sea (JTRACK-Paleoseismology)

Proponents

Michael Strasser, Ken Ikehara, Toshiya Kanamatsu, Shuichi Kodaira, Cecilia McHugh, Yasuyuki Nakamura,
Antonio Cattaneo , Timothy Eglinton, Chris Goldfinger, Takuya Itaki, Arata Kioka, Achim Kopf, Jasper
Moernaut, Jim Mori, Yoshitaka Nagahashi, Volkhard Spieß, Witold Szczuciński, Mike Underwood, Kazuko
Usami, Stefan Wiemer

Keywords

Paleoseismology, Earthquake, Sedimentology, Event Stratigraphy

Proponent
Affiliation
Country

Area

Japan Trench

Proponent Information
Michael Strasser
University of Innsbruck
Austria✓⃞ Permission is granted to post the coversheet/site table on www.iodp.org

Abstract
Short historical and even shorter instrumental records limit our perspective of earthquake maximum magnitude andrecurrence, and thus are inadequate to fully characterize Earth´s complex and multi-scale seismic behaviour and its
consequences. Examining prehistoric events preserved in the geological record is essential to reconstruct the long-term
history of earthquakes and to deliver observational data that help to reduce epistemic uncertainties in seismic hazard
assessment for long return periods. “Submarine paleoseismology” is a promising approach to investigate deposits from thedeep sea, where earthquakes leave traces preserved in the stratigraphic succession. However, at present we lackcomprehensive data sets and long-term records that allow for conclusive distinctions between quality and completeness ofthe paleoseismic archives.
Motivated by the mission to fill the gap in long-term records of giant (Mw9-class) earthquakes, J-TRACK Paleoseismology
aims at testing and developing submarine paleoseismology in the Japan Trench (JT). We propose a multi-coring approachby Mission Specific Platform shallow-subsurface (40m) piston coring to recover the continuous Upper Pleistocene-toHolocene stratigraphic successions of trench-fill basins along an axis-parallel transect of the 7-8km deep trench. The coresfrom 18 proposed primary (and/or 13 alternate) sites will be used for multi-method applications to characterize eventdeposits, for which the detailed stratigraphic expressions and spatio-temporal distribution will be analyzed for proxyevidence of earthquakes.
Sediment remobilization related to the 2011-Mw-9.0-Tohoku-oki earthquake and the respective deposits are preserved intrench basins, formed by flexural bending of the subducting Pacific plate. These basins are ideal study areas for testing
event-deposits for earthquake triggering, because they are poorly connected for sediment-transport from the shelf,
experience high sedimentation rates and low benthos activity (and thus high preservation potential) in the hadal
environment. Results from conventional coring covering the last ~1.500 years reveal good agreement between thesedimentary record and historical documents. Subbottom profiles images are consistent with basin-fill successions of
episodic muddy turbidite deposition, thus defining clear targets for paleoseismologic investigations on longer time scales
accessible only by IODP coring.
We will apply, further refine and implement new methods for establishing event-stratigraphy in the deep sea and forrecognizing giant vs. smaller earthquakes vs. other driving mechanism. The results of this proposal can potentially produce
a fascinating record unravelling an earthquake history that is 10 to a 100 times longer than currently available information.
This would contribute to a tremendous advance in the understanding of the recurrence pattern of giant earthquakes andearthquake-induced geohazards globally.

Generated: 2017-10-05T21:21:06+00:00

866 - Full

2

Scientific Objectives
There is a high potential of using event-stratigraphy of trench-fill sedimentary successions in the Japan Trench to reconstruct a long historyof giant earthquakes off NE Japan: The primary research objectives of JTRACK-Paleoseismology are to:O-1: Identify the sedimentological, physical, chemical, and biogeochemical proxies of event-deposits in the sedimentary archive that allow
for confident recognition and dating of past Mw9-class earthquakes vs. smaller earthquakes vs. other driving mechanism.
O-2: Explore the spatial and temporal distribution of such event-deposits to investigate along-strike and time-dependant variability of
sediment sources, transport and deposition processes, and stratigraphic preservation.
O-3: Develop a long-term earthquake record for giant earthquakes.
O-1 and O-2 are related to the mission of testing and developing submarine paleoseismology to produce robust long-term records as input
for addressing O-3 in the Japan Trench, for comparison with global examples. To address these objectives we propose IODP Mission
Specific Platform shallow-subsurface (40m) piston coring to recover the continuous Upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
successions of isolated trench-fill basins along an axis-parallel transect of the 7-8km deep Japan Trench. The cores from proposed 18
primary (and/or 13 alternate) sites will be used for multi-method applications to characterize event-deposits, for which the detailed
stratigraphic expressions and spatio-temporal distribution will be analyzed for proxy-evidence of earthquakes.

Non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives
Mission Specific Platform shallow-subsurface (40m) piston coring in deep waters of 7-8 km depth

Generated: 2017-10-05T21:21:06+00:00

866 - Full2

Proposed Sites (Total proposed sites: 31; pri: 18; alt: 13; N/S: 0)

Site Name

JTPS-01A(Primary)

JTPS-02A(Primary)

JTPS-03A(Alternate)

JTPS-04A(Alternate)

JTPS-05B(Primary)

JTPS-06B(Primary)

Position(Lat, Lon)

36.07202
142.73503

36.10118
142.75813

36.22997
142.88166

36.24424
142.89031

36.89173
143.40772

36.91171143.42432

Water
Depth
(m)

8030

8000

7990

7990

7700

7710

Generated: 2017-10-05T21:21:08+00:00

Penetration (m)Brief Site-specific Objectives
Sed

40

40

35

40

40

40

Bsm

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

40

(i) Recover an expanded (relative to coupled site JTPS-02A) continuous
Holocene stratigraphic succession (potentially reaching the upper
Pleistocene) comprising event-deposits from the deepest depocentre in
the southernmost-part of the JT. (ii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern andevent-deposit characteristics and integrate with JTPS-02A to establish
robust stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes(O-1). (iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal
distribution of event-deposits and the northward-extent of sedimenttransport routed through the Nakaminato canyon (O-2) to develop a
long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover a condensed (relative to coupled site JTPS-01A), continuous
upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic succession, comprising thinsedimentary event-deposits on a trench-floor high near the deepest
depocentre in the southernmost-part of the JT study area. (ii) Analyze thestratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics and integrate withresults from the expanded couple site JTPS-01A to establish robust
stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1).
(iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal
distribution of event-deposits and the northward-extent of sedimenttransport routed through the Nakaminato canyon (O-2) to develop a
long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

35(i) Recover a condensed (relative to coupled site JTPS-04A) continuous
upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic succession, comprising
event-deposits on an elevated trench-floor morphology in thesouthernmost trench-basin (Alternate site to JTPS-02A in <8km water
depth). (ii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit
characteristics and integrate with JTPS-04A to establish robust
stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1).
(iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal
distribution of event-deposits and the northward-extent of sedimenttransport routed through the Nakaminato canyon (O-2) to develop a
long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover an expanded (relative to coupled site JTPS-03A), continuous
Holocene stratigraphic succession (potentially reaching the upper
Pleistocene), comprising event-deposits from a local depocentre on anelevated trench-floor morphology in the southernmost trench-basin(Alternate site to JTPS-01A in <8km water depth). (ii) Analyze thestratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics and integrate with
JTPS-03A to establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxyevidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare results with all other sites to
explore spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits and the northwardextent of sediment-transport routed through the Nakaminato canyon(O-2), to develop a long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover a continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession (condensed in the upper part and more expanded in thelower part; relative to coupled site JTPS-06B), comprising eventdeposits from a small isolated trench-basin in the central part of thesouthern JT. (ii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit
characteristics and integrate with JTPS-06B to establish robust
stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1).
(iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal
distribution of event-deposits and the northward-extent of sedimenttransport routed through the Nakaminato canyon (O-2), to develop a
long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover a continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession (expanded in the upper part and more condensed in thelower part; relative to coupled site JTPS-05B), comprising eventdeposits from a small isolated trench-basin in the central part of thesouthern JT. (ii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit
characteristics and integrate with JTPS-05B to establish robust
stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1).
(iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal
distribution of event-deposits and the northward-extent of sedimenttransport routed through the Nakaminato canyon (O-2), to develop a
long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

866 - Full2

Proposed Sites (Continued; total proposed sites: 31; pri: 18; alt: 13; N/S: 0)

Site Name

JTPS-07A(Primary)

JTPS-08A(Alternate)

JTPS-09A(Primary)

JTPS-10A(Primary)

JTPC-01A(Primary)

JTPC-02A(Primary)

Position(Lat, Lon)

37.41496
143.73196

37.42749
143.73726

37.68110143.86610

37.70031
143.87689

38.00853
144.00566

38.02804
144.00227

Water
Depth
(m)

7820

7820

7550

7540

7570

7570

Generated: 2017-10-05T21:21:08+00:00

Penetration (m)Brief Site-specific Objectives
Sed

40

30

40

40

30

35

Bsm

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

40

(i) Recover a continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession comprising event-deposits from an isolated trench-basin in
the north-central part of the southern JT (would be expanded section
relative to coupled contingency-option site JTPS-08A). (ii) Analyze thestratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics (at best integrated
with contingency-coring site JTPS-08A) and compare with integrated
results from JTPS-09A,-10A to establish robust stratigraphic patternrecognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare resultswith all other sites to explore spatio-temporal distribution of eventdeposits (O-2) to develop a long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

30(i) Recover a continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession comprising event-deposits from the isolated trench-basin in
the north-central part of the southern JT. Contingency-option site ascondensed section relative to coupled site JTPS-07A. (ii) Analyze thestratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics and integrate with
JTPS-07A to establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxyevidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare results with all other sites to
explore spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits (O-2) to develop a
long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover an expanded (relative to coupled site JTPS-10A) continuous
upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic succession comprising
event-deposits from an isolated trench-basin in the northernmost part ofthe southern JT. (ii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit
characteristics and integrate with JTPS-10A to establish robust
stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1).
(iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal
distribution of event-deposits (O-2) to develop a long-term record for
giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover a condensed (relative to coupled site JTPS-09A) continuous
upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic succession comprising
event-deposits from the isolated trench-basin in the northernmost part ofthe southern JT. (ii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit
characteristics and integrate with JTPS-09A to establish robust
stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1).
(iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal
distribution of event-deposits (O-2) to develop a long-term record for
giant earthquakes (O-3).

30(i) Recover a condensed (relative to coupled site JTPC-02A) continuous
Holocene stratigraphic succession (potentially reaching the upper
Pleistocene) comprising event-deposits from the isolated trench-basin in
the structurally-complex area affected by 2011-coseismic-rupturepropagation-to-the-trench. (ii) Recover and analyze the top of an older
trench-fill deformation event. (iii) Analyze the stratigraphic-pattern andevent-deposit characteristics and integrate with JTPC-02A to assess
local variability and establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognition ofproxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iv) Compare results with all othersites to explore spatio-temporal distribution of earthquake-eventdeposits (O-2) to develop a long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

35(i) Recover an expanded (relative to coupled site JTPC-01A) continuous
Holocene stratigraphic succession (potentially reaching the upper
Pleistocene) comprising event-deposits from the isolated trench-basin in
the structurally-complex area affected by 2011-coseismic-rupturepropagation to the trench. (ii) Recover and analyze the top of an older
trench-fill deformation event. (iii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern andevent-deposit characteristics and integrate with JTPC-01A to assess
local variability and establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognition ofproxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iv) Compare results with all othersites to explore spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits (O-2) todevelop a long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

866 - Full2

Proposed Sites (Continued; total proposed sites: 31; pri: 18; alt: 13; N/S: 0)

Site Name

JTPC-03B(Primary)

JTPC-04A(Alternate)

JTPC-05A(Primary)

JTPC-06B(Alternate)

JTPC-07A(Alternate)

JTPC-08A(Primary)

Position(Lat, Lon)

38.29761
144.05920

38.57586
144.12499

38.75801
144.12942

38.86920
144.15224

38.91249
144.21916

39.03126
144.24752

Water
Depth
(m)

7460

7560

7620

7630

7400

7340

Generated: 2017-10-05T21:21:08+00:00

Penetration (m)Brief Site-specific Objectives
Sed

40

40

40

35

40

40

Bsm

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

40

(i) Recover a continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession comprising event-deposits from the isolated trench-basin
within the relatively-elevated trench-floor segment in the central JT. (ii)
Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics andcompare with integrated results from the couple sites JTPC-01A & -02A
(in the south) and JTPC-05B (in the north) to establish robust
stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1).
(iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal
distribution of event-deposits (O-2) to develop a long-term record for
giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover a continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession comprising event-deposits from an isolated graben-fill basinin the structurally-complex central part of the central JT, where theneighboring trench-basin only comprises disturbed sections.
Contingency-option site as condensed section relative to coupled site (s.
l.) JTPC-05A. (ii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit
characteristics and integrate with JTPC-05A to establish robust
stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1).
(iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal
distribution of event-deposits (O-2) to develop a long-term record for
giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession comprising event-deposits from a trench-basin in the central
JT (expanded section of coupled contingency-option graben-basin sites(s.l.) JTPC-04A,-07A). (ii) Analyze stratigraphic-pattern and eventdeposit characteristics (at best integrated with contingency sites
JTPC-04A&-07A) and compare with results from the couple sites
JTPC-8A,-09A in the north and JPTC-03A in the south, to establish
robust stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes(O-1) (iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal
distribution of event-deposits(O-2) to develop a long-term record for
giant earthquakes(O-3).

35(i) Recover a continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession comprising event-deposits from the isolated trench-basin in
the northern-to-central part of the central JT. Alternate sites to
JTPC-05B&-09A, and contingency-option coring site (coupled (s.l.) withthe relatively-condensed site JTPC-07A). (ii) Analyze the stratigraphic
pattern and event-deposit characteristics and integrate with JTPC-07A
to establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence ofearthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore
spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits (O-2) to develop a longterm record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover a continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession comprising event-deposits from an isolated graben-fill basinin the northern-to-central part of the central JT. Alternate sites to
JTPC-04A&-08A, and contingency-option coring site (coupled (s.l.) withthe relatively-expanded sections at sites JTPC-06B/-10A). (ii) Analyze
the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics and integratewith JTPC-06B/-10A to establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognitionof proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare results with allother sites to explore spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits (O-2)
to develop a long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover a condensed (relative to coupled site s.l. JTPC-09A)
continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic succession
comprising event-deposits from an isolated graben-fill basin in the
structurally-complex northern part of the central JT, where theneighboring trench-basin is at the same water-depth but only comprises
disturbed sections. (ii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and eventdeposit characteristics and integrate with JTPC-09A to establish robust
stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1).
(iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal
distribution of event-deposits (O-2) to develop a long-term record for
giant earthquakes (O-3).

866 - Full2

Proposed Sites (Continued; total proposed sites: 31; pri: 18; alt: 13; N/S: 0)

Site Name

JTPC-09A(Primary)

JTPC-10A(Alternate)

JTPN-01A(Alternate)

JTPN-02A(Primary)

JTPN-03A(Alternate)

JTPN-04A(Alternate)

Position(Lat, Lon)

39.08195
144.21682

38.90768
144.15905

39.24858
144.20297

39.44436
144.21630

39.51979
144.32902

39.76647
144.26910

Water
Depth
(m)

7440

7640

7460

7520

7250

7470

Generated: 2017-10-05T21:21:08+00:00

Penetration (m)Brief Site-specific Objectives
Sed

35

40

30

30

40

40

Bsm

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

35

(i) Recover an expanded (relative to coupled site s.l. JTPC-08A)
continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic succession
comprising event-deposits from an isolated narrow trench-basin in the
structurally-complex northern part of the central JT. (ii) Analyze thestratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics and integrate with
JTPC-08A to establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxyevidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare results with all other sites to
explore spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits (O-2) to develop a
long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover a continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession comprising event-deposits from the isolated trench-basin in
the northern-to-central part of the central JT. Alternate sites to
JTPC-05A & -09A, and contingency-option coring site (coupled (s.l.) withthe relatively-condensed site JTPC-07A). (ii) Analyze the stratigraphic
pattern and event-deposit characteristics and integrate with JTPC-07A
to establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence ofearthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore
spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits (O-2) to develop a longterm record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

30(i) Recover a continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession (potentially reaching the middle Pleistocene) comprising
event-deposits from the trench-basin south of the large >1km-highescarpment at 39.4°N (Alternate site to JTPN-02A). (ii) Recover andanalyze the top of mass-transport deposits potentially linked to themega-landslide. (iii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit
characteristics and compare with JTPC-8A & -9A to assess local
variability and establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxyevidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iv) Compare results with all other sites
to explore spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits (O-2) to develop
a long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

30(i) Recover continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession (potentially reaching the middle Pleistocene) comprising
event-deposits from the trench-basin north of the large >1km-highescarpment@39.4°N. (ii) Recover and analyze the top of mass-transport
deposits potentially linked to mega-landslide. (iii) Analyze thestratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics (at best integrated
with contingency-coring site JTPN-03A) and compare with
JTPN-04A,-05A/JTPC-08A,-09A to assess local variability and establish
robust stratigraphic-pattern-recognition of proxy-evidence ofearthquakes (O-1). (iv) Compare results with all other sites to explore
spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits (O-2) to develop a longterm record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover a continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession (potentially reaching the middle Pleistocene) comprising
event-deposits from an isolated graben-fill basin near the large >1kmhigh escarpment and petit-spot volcano field. Contingency-option site ascondensed section relative to coupled site (s.l.) JTPN-02A. (ii) Analyze
the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics and integratewith JTPN-02A to establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognition ofproxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare results with all othersites to explore spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits (O-2) todevelop a long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession (potentially reaching the middle Pleistocene) comprising
event-deposits from the isolated trench-basin in the central part of thenorthern JT. Alternate site to JTPN-07A and contingency-option site ascondensed section relative to coupled site JTPN-05A. (ii) Analyze thestratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics and integrate with
JTPN-05A to establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxyevidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare results with all other sites to
explore spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits and thesouthward-extent of sediment-transport routed through the Ogawara
canyon (O-2) to develop a long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

866 - Full2

Proposed Sites (Continued; total proposed sites: 31; pri: 18; alt: 13; N/S: 0)

Site Name

JTPN-05A(Primary)

JTPN-06A(Alternate)

JTPN-07A(Primary)

JTPN-08A(Alternate)

JTPN-09A(Primary)

JTPN-10A(Primary)

Position(Lat, Lon)

39.78013
144.27636

40.05940
144.31855

40.09392
144.32612

40.32440
144.40110

40.39568
144.42047

40.43742
144.43687

Water
Depth
(m)

7480

7570

7560

7600

7620

7600

Generated: 2017-10-05T21:21:08+00:00

Penetration (m)Brief Site-specific Objectives
Sed

40

40

40

40

40

30

Bsm

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

40

(i) Recover continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene (potentiallyreaching the middle Pleistocene) stratigraphic succession comprising
event-deposits from a trench-basin in the central area of northern JT(would be expanded section relative to coupled contingency-option site
JTPN-04A). (ii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit
characteristics (at best integrated with JTPN-04A) and compare with
JTPN-02A,-07A, to establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognition ofproxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare results with all othersites to explore spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits and thesouthward-extent of sediment-transport routed through the Ogawara
canyon (O-2) to develop a long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover a continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic
succession (potentially reaching the middle Pleistocene) comprising
event-deposits from a trench-basin in the central area of the northern JT.
Alternate site to JTPN-05A and contingency-option site as condensed
section relative to coupled site JTPN-07A. (ii) Analyze the stratigraphic
pattern and event-deposit characteristics and integrate with JTPN-07A
to establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence ofearthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore
spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits and the southward-extent
of sediment-transport routed through the Ogawara canyon (O-2) todevelop a long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover continuous upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene (potentiallyreaching the middle Pleistocene) stratigraphic succession comprising
event-deposits from the isolated trench-basin in the central part of thenorthern JT (would be expanded section relative to coupled contingencyoption site JTPN-04A). (ii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and eventdeposit characteristics (at best integrated with JTPN-06A) and comparewith JTPN-05A, to establish robust stratigraphic pattern recognition ofproxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare results with all othersites to explore spatio-temporal distribution of event-deposits and thesouthward-extent of sediment-transport routed through the Ogawara
canyon (O-2) to develop a long-term record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover an expanded (relative to coupled site JTPN-11A) continuous
upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic succession (potentiallyreaching the middle Pleistocene) comprising event-deposits from theisolated trench-basin in the northernmost JT. Alternate site to JTPN-09.
(ii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics
and integrate with results from couple site JTPN-11A to establish robust
stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1).
(iii) Compare results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal
distribution of event-deposits and the southward-extent of sedimenttransport routed through the Ogawara canyon (O-2) to develop a longterm record for giant earthquakes (O-3).

40(i) Recover an expanded (relative to coupled site JTPN-10A), continuous
upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic succession (potentiallyreaching the middle Pleistocene) comprising event-deposits from thedeepest depocentre in the northernmost part of the JT. (ii) Analyze thestratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics and integrate withresults from couple site JTPN-10A to establish robust stratigraphic
pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare
results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal distribution of eventdeposits and the southward-extent of sediment-transport routed throughthe Ogawara canyon (O-2) to develop a long-term record for giant
earthquakes (O-3).

30(i) Recover a condensed (relative to coupled site JTPN-09A), continuous
upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic succession (potentiallyreaching the middle Pleistocene) comprising event-deposits on a trench-floor
high near the deepest depocentre in the northernmost part of the JT. (ii)
Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics andintegrate with results from coupled site JTPN-10A to establish robust
stratigraphic pattern recognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iii)
Compare results with all other sites to explore spatio-temporal distribution of
event-deposits and the southward-extent of sediment-transport routed
through the Ogawara canyon (O-2) to develop a long-term record for giant
earthquakes (O-3).

866 - Full2

Proposed Sites (Continued; total proposed sites: 31; pri: 18; alt: 13; N/S: 0)

Site Name

JTPN-11A(Alternate)

Position(Lat, Lon)

40.25341
144.39081

Water
Depth
(m)

7550

Generated: 2017-10-05T21:21:08+00:00

Penetration (m)Brief Site-specific Objectives
Sed

30

Bsm

0

Total

30

(i) Recover a condensed (relative to coupled site JTPN-08A) continuous
upper Pleistocene-to-Holocene stratigraphic succession (potentiallyreaching the middle Pleistocene) comprising event-deposits from an
isolated trench-basin in the northernmost JT. Alternate site to JTPN-10A.
(ii) Analyze the stratigraphic pattern and event-deposit characteristics
and integrate with JTPN-08A to establish robust stratigraphic patternrecognition of proxy-evidence of earthquakes (O-1). (iii) Compare resultswith all other sites to explore spatio-temporal distribution of eventdeposits and the southward-extent of sediment-transport routed throughthe Ogawara canyon (O-2) to develop a long-term record for giant
earthquakes (O-3).

IODP Proposal Cover Sheet

2

Received for: 2016-04-01

Lord Howe Rise Continental Ribbon

Title

871 - CPP

First deep stratigraphic record for the Cretaceous eastern Gondwana margin: Tectonics, paleoclimate anddeep life on the Lord Howe Rise high-latitude continental ribbon

Proponents

Ron Hackney, Yasuhiro Yamada, Kliti Grice, Junichiro Kuroda, Jessica Whiteside, Marco Coolen, Fumio
Inagaki, Richard Arculus, Dietmar Mueller, Saneatsu Saito, Scott Bryan, Julien Collot, Jun-Ichi Kimura, Nick
Mortimer, Yoshihiko Tamura, Takehiko Hashimoto, Clinton Foster, Sean Johnson, William Orsi, Talitha
Santini

Keywords

Cretaceous, rifting, paleoclimate, microbiology, Gondwana

Proponent
Affiliation
Country

Area

Lord Howe Rise

Proponent Information
Ron Hackney
Geoscience Australia
Australia✔ Permission is granted to post the coversheet/site table on www.iodp.org

Abstract
Active plate tectonics and resulting changes in crustal architecture profoundly influence global climate, oceanic circulation,and the origin, distribution and sustainability of life. A key element of the 50-year-old theory of plate tectonics is thedistinction between passive and active continental margins in both convergent and extensional tectonic settings. Yet wehave been unable to fully resolve the tectonic setting and evolution of Gondwana’s eastern margin because much of it is
now dispersed as huge, thinned, submerged, and relatively inaccessible "ribbons" of continental crust that include the Lord
Howe Rise (LHR). Continental ribbons are not easily explained by plate tectonics, but they have been a crucial
characteristic of post-Archean continental dispersal, modification, and re-assembly. The tectonic and paleogeographic
evolution of these ribbons is poorly understood, as the deep stratigraphy of a large, un-accreted and intact continental
ribbon, like the LHR, has not previously been explored.
The Cretaceous world - of which the LHR is a part - witnessed major changes in biogeochemical cycling, climate andevolution. These changes are thought to have been initiated by increased oceanic-crust production, possibly in
combination with periodic and sudden releases of methane that resulted in elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations anda rise in global sea level. However, modelling results indicate that the very warm ocean temperatures resulted inheat-stressed organisms that mean proxy estimates of Cretaceous climate should be re-evaluated.
Drilling exploration of the deep sub-seafloor biosphere has demonstrated that a remarkable diversity of microbial life ispresent in deeply-buried sediments. However, the biotic-abiotic transition zone has not yet been reached despite
penetrating 2.5 km (~20 Ma) below the seafloor. Depth-dependent increases in temperature are considered to pose amajor constraint on life at depth. However, the thermally-assisted decomposition of organic matter present in deep, warm
sediments may provide a source of energy that is sufficient to support microbial communities in repairing thermally-induced
cellular damage, thereby allowing life to persist beyond the depth range previously explored.
We propose a single deep-riser drill hole through a sedimentary basin and into basement on the 1600 km long by 600 km
wide LHR. The processes of LHR crustal ribbon development will be investigated using rock cores recovered from up to
3,500 m below the seafloor. These samples will also provide major breakthroughs in understanding ocean biogeochemical
cycles at high southern latitudes from the Cretaceous onwards, and in extending the known limits of life beneath the ocean
floor.

Generated: 2016-04-05T22:10:26+00:00

871 - CPP

2

Scientific Objectives
Our globally-significant objectives, grouped into three broad themes, are:
• EARTH: To define the role and importance of elongate strips of continental crustal ribbons in plate tectonic cycles and continental
evolution.
• OCEANS/CLIMATE: To recover new high-latitude data to better constrain the timing and nature of Cretaceous paleoclimate and linked
changes in ocean biogeochemistry.
• LIFE: To test fundamental evolutionary concepts of sub-seafloor microbial life over a 100 million year timeframe.
These objectives help to address Challenges defined within each Research Theme of the IODP Science Plan for 2013-2023, and will be
met by addressing the following questions:• Are continental ribbons the key for determining the driving mechanism for plate tectonics?
• Is the LHR continental ribbon the result of upper-plate extension and rifting accompanying slab roll-back, or mantle upwelling
accompanied by propagating seafloor spreading?
• The history of the eastern Gondwana margin was characterised by long-lived subduction throughout the Paleozoic, but was thissubduction continuous through the Cretaceous?
• Do the LHR basins also contain a record of the paleogeographic and paleoenvironmental conditions prevailing during the transition froma relatively cool Early Cretaceous climate to a Late Cretaceous hothouse world?
• Do Ocean Anoxic Events (OAE) extend to high southern latitudes in the southwest Pacific?
• What are the limiting conditions under which life can be sustained?
• Have energy-starved conditions deep below the seafloor suppressed rates of genetic evolution, and therefore preserved correlations
between deep subsurface microbial communities and their depositional environment?

Non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives

Generated: 2016-04-05T22:10:26+00:00

871 - CPP 2
Proposed Sites (Total proposed sites: 7; pri: 3; alt: 4; N/S: 0)
Penetration (m)Position(Lat, Lon)

Water
Depth
(m)

Sed

Bsm

Total

DLHR-1B(Alternate)-26.394283
160.989760

1643

1344

300

1644

Recover a complete Early–Late Cretaceous record to: constrain thelocation and timing of Cretaceous subduction and magmatism along theeastern Gondwana margin, and the timing and drivers of
subduction–rifting transition; obtain a Cretaceous high-latitude southernhemisphere climate record; identify effects of Cretaceous atmosphericand carbon cycle perturbations on Cretaceous terrestrial environments;
identify effects of continental fragmentation and large-scale continental
magmatism on terrestrial and marine environments of eastern
Gondwana (including the development of Late Cretaceous marine
anoxia and oceanographic circulation in southwest Pacific); constrain
the limits of deep microbial life. Determine nature and age of underlying
pre-rift basement.

DLHR-2A(Alternate)-26.759528
161.197392

1670

2757

300

3057

Recover a complete Early–Late Cretaceous record to: constrain thelocation and timing of Cretaceous subduction and magmatism along theeastern Gondwana margin, and the timing and drivers of
subduction–rifting transition; obtain a Cretaceous high-latitude southernhemisphere climate record; identify effects of Cretaceous atmosphericand carbon cycle perturbations on Cretaceous terrestrial environments;
identify effects of continental fragmentation and large-scale continental
magmatism on terrestrial and marine environments of eastern
Gondwana (including the development of Late Cretaceous marine
anoxia and oceanographic circulation in southwest Pacific); constrain
the limits of deep microbial life. Determine nature and age of underlying
pre-rift basement.

DLHR-3A(Primary)-27.384797
161.663069

1530

1915

300

2215

Recover a complete Early–Late Cretaceous record to: constrain thelocation and timing of Cretaceous subduction and magmatism along theeastern Gondwana margin, and the timing and drivers of
subduction–rifting transition; obtain a Cretaceous high-latitude southernhemisphere climate record; identify effects of Cretaceous atmosphericand carbon cycle perturbations on Cretaceous terrestrial environments;
identify effects of continental fragmentation and large-scale continental
magmatism on terrestrial and marine environments of eastern
Gondwana (including the development of Late Cretaceous marine
anoxia and oceanographic circulation in southwest Pacific); constrain
the limits of deep microbial life. Determine nature and age of underlying
pre-rift basement.

BLHRV-1B(Primary)-27.564559
163.139748

1215

293

300

593

Determine nature and age of the ‘volcanic’ pre-rift basement to provide
additional constraints on the location and timing of Cretaceous
subduction and magmatism along the eastern Gondwana margin, andthe timing and drivers of subduction–rifting transition. Complements theresults of proposed deep drilling at site DLHR-1B, DLHR-2A or
DLHR-3A.

BLHRV-2A(Alternate)-27.895908
160.870635

2018

200

300

500

Determine nature and age of the ‘volcanic’ pre-rift basement to provide
additional constraints on the location and timing of Cretaceous
subduction and magmatism along the eastern Gondwana margin, andthe timing and drivers of subduction–rifting transition. Complements theresults of proposed deep drilling at site DLHR-1B, DLHR-2A or
DLHR-3A.

Site Name

Generated: 2016-04-05T22:10:27+00:00

Brief Site-specific Objectives

871 - CPP 2
Proposed Sites (Continued; total proposed sites: 7; pri: 3; alt: 4; N/S: 0)
Penetration (m)Position(Lat, Lon)

Water
Depth
(m)

Sed

Bsm

Total

BLHRB-1B(Primary)-27.552905
162.918633

1208

258

300

558

Determine nature and age of the ‘bland’ pre-rift basement to provide
additional constraints on the location and timing of Cretaceous
subduction and magmatism along the eastern Gondwana margin, andthe timing and drivers of subduction–rifting transition. Complements theresults of deep proposed drilling at site DLHR-1B, DLHR-2A or
DLHR-3A.

BLHRB-2B(Alternate)-27.251973
162.820968

1193

263

300

563

Determine nature and age of the ‘bland’ pre-rift basement to provide
additional constraints on the location and timing of Cretaceous
subduction and magmatism along the eastern Gondwana margin, andthe timing and drivers of subduction–rifting transition. Complements theresults of proposed deep drilling at site DLHR-1B, DLHR-2A or
DLHR-3A.

Site Name

Generated: 2016-04-05T22:10:27+00:00

Brief Site-specific Objectives

IODP Proposal Cover Sheet

876 -

Pre

Bend-Fault Serpentinization

Title

Bend-Fault Serpentinization: Oceanic Crust and Mantle Evolution from Ridge through Trench

Proponents

J. Morgan, T. Henstock, D. Teagle, P. Vannucchi, G. Fujie, S. Kodaira, I. Grevemeyer, L. Ruepke, H.
Villinger, C. Ranero, B. Ildefonse, K. Johnson, P. Kelemen, M. Schrenk,

Keywords

bend-fault serpentinization, mantle evolution, MoHole

Area

Cocos Plate near
Nicaragua

Contact Information
Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
Address:Tel.:
E-mail:jason morgan
earth sciences
royal holloway, university of london
egham hillegham

tw20 0ex

Fax:
jason.morgan@rhul.ac.uk

Abstract
During the past decade, it has become recognized that plate bending near a trench before subduction can be associated withsignificant chemical hydration-linked reactions in cold lithospheric mantle and overlying ocean crust. Bend-faults appear toplay a key role by providing high-permeability pathways for seawater to flow into the oceanic crust and uppermost mantle.
Bend-Fault serpentinization (BFS) has now been imaged by seismic reflection and refraction methods at Central American,
Alaskan, Japanese, and South American subduction zones. The implications of this process for the exchange of water andcarbon between Earth’s exosphere and mantle are profound. Offshore Nicaragua where bend-fault serpentinization is best
imaged, seismic observations suggest that a ~10-15km-thick layer beneath the Moho has been partially serpentinized by~10-20%. Serpentinized peridotites exposed on slow-spread ridges and ophiolites commonly contain more than 1%
carbonate. If created globally during bend-faulting and then subducted this volume of serpentinized, carbonated mantle would
recycle water and CO2 into the mantle comparable to that emitted by plate spreading or consumed by crustal alteration,
weathering and mountain building; this would require a total rethink of our basic understanding of Earth’s global carbon andwater cycles. This will also require us to obtain samples of crust and mantle after bend-faulting to know the ultimate
composition of the oceanic crust and mantle recycled during subduction. Furthermore, mantle serpentinization has been
linked to hydrogen and methane-generating reactions that are favorably used for chemosynthetic activity by microorganisms.
If bend-fault serpentinization is indeed associated with hydrogen and methane production, then this region may be a major
unrecognized component of the deep biosphere, and may have been in fact the first and safest place for deep-life to flourish
on early Earth. Subducting bend-fault regions could have been a cradle for early life because these would have been the firstplaces where water-ultramafic rock reactions would occur under liquid water-cover that was able to persist through impact
events that induced incomplete vaporization of the proto-oceans.
In principle, the ‘ideal’ BFS program would be co-located with MoHole drilling of oceanic crust and mantle on the samelithospheric flowline before the onset of plate-bending and BFS processes. In this way, we would obtain samples that will
enable us to unravel how ridge, off-axis, and subduction plate-bending-related processes shape the long-term evolution ofEarth’s crust and mantle.

Page 1 of 2
generated: Tue Oct 14 19:58:42 2014
by if340_pdf(user 0.3004)

876 -Pre

Scientific Objectives
Our objective is to drill through the ocean crust in an area of active bend-fault serpentinization that is occurring as the Cocos
Plate bends and subducts at the Middle American Trench (MAT). We propose a dual-mode drilling strategy. First, D/V
JOIDES Resolution or D/V Chikyu drilling through the upper parts of the Bend-fault system to better understand the chemistry
and shallow fluids and fluid flow, and also assess drilling through bend-faults. Second, a MoHole-type drilling strategy tosample an intact crustal and mantle section through 1km below the ~5.5km-deep crust-mantle boundary.
The MAT is a unique site where known Bend-Fault Serpentinization lies beneath seafloor at ~3000-3800m water depths. It isalso unique in that we can: (1) study the oceanic crust and mantle created at a modern fast-spreading ridge, the EPR; (2)sample it off-axis by MoHole drilling to obtain a complete crustal and mantle section that constrains the extent of ridge andoff-axis processes in shaping the crust and uppermost mantle; (3) resample it at a site on bend-faulted crust that constrains
the effects of bend-fault processes and obtains the actual crust and mantle material being recycled into the mantle at thistrench.

Non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives.
MoHole-type drilling in ~3200m water depth

Proposed Sites
Site Name

Position(Lat, Lon)

COCOS-01A

10.703, -87.571

Page 2 of 2
generated: Tue Oct 14 19:58:42 2014
by if340_pdf(user 0.3004)

Water
Depth
(m)
3200

Penetration (m)
Sed
450

Bsm
6550

Total

Brief Site-specific Objectives

7000 Drill through active bend-fault in the
sub-Moho mantle, with spot-coring andside-wall core-sampling throughoceanic crust/mantle. This would be
one of ~3-4 planned drillholes within a~4km region with almost identical
drilling conditions. The shallower holes
would be used to gain experience indrilling through an active bend-fault,
and also used to study fluid flow, andthe character of the bend-fault and its
associated fluids and alteration in its
sediment portion and mid-crustal
regions. Only one hole is mentioned
here as its drilling conditions will apply
to the others, except their depths
would be ~500m, ~2400m, and again~7000m, respectively

IODP Proposal Cover Sheet

886 -

Pre

NW Pacific Bend-Fault Hydrology

Title

Bend-Fault Hydrology in the Old Incoming Plate

Proponents

T. MORISHITA, G. FUJIE, S. ONO, J. MORGAN, D. TEAGLE, M. YAMANO, S. SAITO, S. KODAIRA,
J. KIMURA, N. ABE, P. KELEMEN, B. ILDEFONSE,

Keywords

Incoming Plate, Hydration, Outer rise

Area

Northwest PacificContact Information
Contact Person:
Department:
Organization:
Address:Tel.:
E-mail:Tomoaki MORISHITA

Kanazawa University

Fax:moripta@staff.kanazawa-u.ac.jp

Abstract
The oceanic plate has played a main role in global deep water circulation within the Earth. The physical, chemical andstructural properties of the incoming plate are also crucial for understanding co-seismic megathrust slip at subduction zones. It
has been generally accepted that hydration due to plate bending-induced normal faults (bend-faults) occurs in the region
between trench and outer rise (outer rise). It is, however, emphasized that little is yet known about the degree and style ofhydration in the oceanic plate at outer rises. Bend-fault hydration processes depend on thermal conditions and stress state.
Investigating several subduction zones wtih various conditions is crucial to expand our knowledge of bend-fault hydration
processes. The northwest Pacific (NW Pacific) region is one of the world oldest, thus coldest, and most studied oceanic
plates, and is therefore a high priority region to study bend-fault hydration. Water circulation (deep penetration and deep
upwelling) and hydration through the bend-faults in the NW Pacific region is supported by results from extensive recent
geophysical surveys. Here:(1) Horst and graben structures formed by bend-faulting are the best developed in the world, (2) Large bend-fault earthquakes(M>7) have repeatedly occurred and been well recorded, (3) Detailed Vp/Vs variations within the incoming plate have been
determined (only known here), (4) The local stress state is likely to have changed significantly after the 2011 Tohoku
Earthquake, and (5) Anomalously high heat flow suggests heat transport by water circulation. In addition, the NW Pacific Plateis the best place to comprehensively study relationships between subduction inputs, subduction tectonics, and subduction
zone processes because one successful drilling project (JFAST) and a newly planned drilling project (JTRACK) will further
augment the research goals of this proposal and because geochemical compositions of volcanic rocks and their quantitativemodeling has also been extensively studied in the northeastern Japan Arc. In order to address (a) hydration processes andtheir extents along bend-faults and (b) geochemical and geophysical properties of the old incoming plate prior to subduction,
we will analyze in-situ physical properties and lithofacies that will be best obtained by ocean drilling in the NW Pacific region.

Page 1 of 2
generated: Sat Apr 4 00:29:10 2015
by if340_pdf(user 0.3132)

886 -Pre

Scientific Objectives
In order to address the following scientific objectives we propose to conduct in-situ sampling and observations of a damage
zone associated with bend-fault hydration in the incoming plate at the northwest Pacific outer rise region:(1) The Nature of horst-and-graben bend-fault hydration, which includes:+ What are the mechanisms that enable seawater to penetrate to large depths in the incoming plate at outer rise region inspite of the high pressure and high temperatures at large depth?
+ How much water lies within the incoming plate?
+ What are the factors changing Vp/Vs in the incoming plate?
(2) The physical properties of the plate interface in the incoming plate, namely:+ What are sediment compositions, permeabilities, and stress fields linked to plate-boundary fault/megathrust behavior?

Non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives.

Proposed Sites
Water
Depth
(m)

Penetration (m)Site Name

Position(Lat, Lon)

HKD-2A
HKD-1A
THK-2A

41.15, 147.17
41.77, 146.715
38.99, 145.25

5180
6210
5400

500
500
500

1000
1000
1000

THK-1A

39.04, 144.77

5890

500

1000

Page 2 of 2
generated: Sat Apr 4 00:29:10 2015
by if340_pdf(user 0.3132)

Sed

Bsm

Total

Brief Site-specific Objectives

1500
1500
1500 To sample basaltic rocks from an area
where the bend-faults are notobserved but seismic structures arealtered by the bend-faults induced
small cracks and to obtain in-situ
geophysical properties for comparing
core-samples with the primary site andestablishing the relationship between
the degree of the development ofbend-faults and the structural
evolution.
1500 To recover complete coring around abend-fault, to sample sediments
focusing on the chert and clay-richlayer, and to obtain in-situ geophysicalproperties.

IODP Proposal Cover Sheet

Pre

Received for: 2016-04-01

Fore Arc Mohole-to-Mantle

Title

898 -

Oceanic to Proto-Arc Mantle Transformation: Fore Arc M2M (Moho-to-Mantle) in the Bonin Trench,
Northwestern Pacific

Proponents

Katsuyoshi Michibayashi, Mark Reagan, Susumu Umino, Atsushi Okamoto, Ken Takai, Tomoaki Morishita,
Osamu Ishizuka, Yumiko Harigane, Jun-Ichi Kimura, Takeshi Hanyu, Yasuhiko Ohara, Natsue Abe,
Yoshihiko Tamura, Shigeaki Ono, Saneatsu Saito, Toshiya Fujiwara, Mikiya Yamashita, Gou Fujie, Koichiro
Obana, Shuichi Kodaira

Keywords

Mantle, Lower Crust, Moho, Fore-arc

Proponent
Affiliation
Country

Area

Bonin Trench

Proponent Information
Katsuyoshi Michibayashi
Shizuoka University, ODS/JAMSTEC
Japan✔ Permission is granted to post the coversheet/site table on www.iodp.org

Abstract
We aim to drill through deep oceanic crust and the Moho into the uppermost mantle beneath the Bonin fore-arc in the NW
Pacific. The goals are to understand the origin and evolution of supra-subduction zone crust, the nature of the Moho, andthe geochemical and geodynamic evolution of recently accreted lithospheric mantle.
Although peridotite samples are not geologically rare on the Earth’s surface, fresh and in situ peridotite from recently
convected mantle has yet to be obtained. We propose to drill into relatively young oceanic mantle; our target site is thefore-arc mantle/crust section exposed on the landward slope of the Bonin Trench. We sample the fresh lower igneous crustand the uppermost mantle peridotite, including the intervening boundary layer, that were accreted during the tectonism andmagmatism associated with initiation of subduction at ~52–48 Ma.
We explore:
1. Petrology: Peridotite and gabbro preserve records of melt-mantle reaction during subduction initiation and information of
the pre-existed oceanic lithosphere
2. Tectonophysics: Peridotite records the structural history of subduction initiation, ocean lithosphere formation, andsubsequent deformation
3. Fluid and Hydrology: Serpentinite in the fore-arc mantle to mantle-crust boundary records hydrology and chemistry of
the subduction fluids during subduction initiation
4. Biosphere: Circulation of subducted fluids in the mantle and crust and their boundary (Moho) generates an unusual deep
biosphere
Our objectives differ from those of the M2M projects aimed at mid ocean ridges, which focus on the formation of theoceanic crust during sea-floor spreading. Our focuses are on: (1) subduction initiation and (2) physical, chemical, andbiological interactions between the mantle, crust and surface environment in a supra-subduction zone setting. These areentirely relevant to the driving force of the plate tectonics and interactions between Earth’s deep mantle and the surface.
They also address the IODP Science Plan Challenges 8, 9, 10 and 11 in the EARTH CONNECTIONS theme andChallenges 5 and 6 in the BIOSPHERE FRONTIERS theme.

Generated: 2016-04-05T22:08:21+00:00

898 -Pre

Scientific Objectives
1. Petrology: Peridotite and gabbro preserve records of melt-mantle reaction during subduction initiation and information of the pre-existed
oceanic lithosphere
2. Tectonophysics: Peridotite records the structural history of subduction initiation, ocean lithosphere formation, and subsequent
deformation
3. Fluid and Hydrology: Serpentinite in the fore-arc mantle to mantle-crust boundary records hydrology and chemistry of the subduction
fluids during subduction initiation
4. Biosphere: Circulation of subducted fluids in the mantle and crust and their boundary (Moho) generates an unusual deep biosphere

Non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives

Generated: 2016-04-05T22:08:21+00:00

898 - Pre
Proposed Sites (Total proposed sites: 4; pri: 4; alt: 0; N/S: 0)
Penetration (m)Position(Lat, Lon)

Water
Depth
(m)

Sed

Bsm

Total

FM-01A(Primary)

28.472002
142.894852

7000

50

450

500

Ultramafic rocks such as peridotite, pyroxenites and serpentinites

FM-02A(Primary)

28.464926
142.851044

6500

50

450

500

lower crustal rocks such as gabbro and troctolite

FM-03A(Primary)

28.476512
142.922145

7500

50

50

100

Serpentinite muddy sediments and/or ultramafic rocks such as
peridotite, serpentinite and pyroxenite

FM-04A(Primary)

28.483096
142.960488

8000

50

50

100

serpentinite muddy sediment and/or ultramafic rocks such as peridotite,
serpentinite and pyroxenite

Site Name

Generated: 2016-04-05T22:08:22+00:00

Brief Site-specific Objectives

IODP Proposal Cover Sheet

925 - Pre

Blanco FZ Earthquake Triggering

Received for: 2017-10-02

Title

Earthquake Triggering Experiment on the Blanco Fracture Zone

Proponents

Jim Mori, James Kirkpatrick, Heather Savage, Emily Brodsky, Margaret Boettcher, Rachel Abercrombie,
Frederic Cappa, Brett Carpenter, Xiaowei Chen, William Ellsworth, Nicholas Hayman, Jeff McGuire, Monica
Schwehr, Jessica Warren

Keywords

Earthquakes, triggering, transforms, faults, Blanco

Proponent
Affiliation
Country

Area

Blanco fracture zone

Proponent Information
Jim Mori
Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University
Japan✓⃞ Permission is granted to post the coversheet/site table on www.iodp.org

Abstract
To better understand earthquake triggering and address societal concerns about seismic events caused by humanactivities that have recently been occurring at alarming rates, we propose an active experiment to induce earthquakes on
the Blanco Fracture Zone. Using water injections into the fault zone, changes in the local pore pressure can affect the stressstate and bring the fault closer to failure in an earthquake. Past experiments have shown that such changes in effective
stress can trigger small earthquakes relatively easily. A unique aspect of this proposal is to attempt triggering of a larger
event. The Blanco Fracture Zone provides favorable sites where moderate-sized (M5 to 6) natural earthquakes occur atregular intervals of 5 to 20 years. We propose an experiment that will trigger both small earthquakes and a possibly larger
event near or prior to the time of the next anticipated recurrence.
Careful monitoring of seismicity, water pressure and fluid movement associated with triggering of both small and larger
earthquakes will provide unique new information about the stress conditions and initiation of the induced earthquakes. We
will address scientific issues related to the spatial and temporal triggering of earthquakes from the stress forcing due towater injection. One important aspect is investigation of the dependence of the maximum size of a triggered event on thelocal stress conditions, which is an important unsolved problem for trying to evaluate the seismic hazard from induced
earthquakes.
Sampling the transform fault to obtain physical rock properties, such as frictional strength and permeability is an importantcomponent of the project. Relating the observed fault properties to the spatial and temporal aspects of the earthquake
triggering, has high potential for obtaining a better understanding of physical mechanisms of earthquakes initiation andoccurrence.
All of these seismological topics are also relevant to naturally occurring earthquakes, so the experiment will address
fundamental issues in understanding the physical mechanisms of all earthquakes.

Generated: 2017-10-05T21:14:13+00:00

925 - Pre
Scientific Objectives
Controlled triggering of earthquakes of various sizes with associated observations of local fluid and elastic properties will contribute to abetter understanding of the stress conditions and initiation processes of induced and natural earthquakes. Scientific topics to be addressed
include,What are the amplitudes and timing of stress changes that trigger earthquakes?
Where will earthquakes occur?
What will be the size of the triggered earthquakes?
Is the nucleation process different for small and and large earthquakes?
Another important aspect of the project is to obtain fault-zone samples of an oceanic transform and measure physical properties, such as
frictional strength and permeability. Relating these fault zone properties to the spatial and temporal occurrence of the earthquakes, canprovide new information about the physical mechanisms of earthquake initiation and rupture for both induced and natural earthquakes.

Non-standard measurements technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives
Use the riser system for controlled water injections into the fault zone

Generated: 2017-10-05T21:14:13+00:00

925 - Pre
Proposed Sites (Total proposed sites: 2; pri: 1; alt: 1; N/S: 0)

Penetration (m)Position(Lat, Lon)

Water
Depth
(m)

Sed

Bsm

Total

BLA-01A(Primary)

43.6210-127.6520

2000

50

1500

1550

Sample transform fault zone
Site for water injection

BLA-02A(Alternate)43.4030-127.9540

2000

50

1500

1550

Sample transform fault zone
Site for water injection

Site Name

Generated: 2017-10-05T21:14:13+00:00

Brief Site-specific Objectives

Agenda Item 12Long Term Strategy for Future Chikyu Implementation
a. Chikyu Riser proposals
b. Collaboration with JRSO (TDCS)c. Collaboration with ESO? (Proposal 866)
d. CDEX M2M Task Force Teame. Education/Research Program onboard Chikyu

Agenda Item 13
Chikyu Outreach Activities

IODP/Chikyu E&O Activities

CDEX
Outreach TeamJ-DESCIODP/Chikyu E&O

Ocean Drilling
Science
Centre/JAMSTEC

JAMSTEC
Outreach Dept.

1

Education and Research projectCore-Log-Seismic Integration Investigation at Sea• Onboard workshop for students and young scientists• 12 Jan - 24 Feb 2018 (w/IODP Exp. 380)
• Short (2 weeks) and full sessions (40 days)• Role of Nankai Frontal Prism in past tsunamigenic earthquakes and slow
slip, using Exp. 314 LWD data (Site C0006) and Exp. 316 cores (Sites
C0006 and C0007)• Lectures, thematic break-out sessions, laboratory work, data analysis,presentations, discussions, and writing• 6 lecturers onboard, 4 mentors supporting activities from shore• 18 applicants (Japan 7, US 6, ECORD 5)• 14 selected (Japan 5, US 4, ECORD 5)

Lecture/seminar, symposium/workshop• Upon request, CDEX/JAMSTEC conducted lectures/seminars
about DV Chikyu and scientific ocean drilling for elementary,(junior) high schools, private companies, and general public.
• 3 schools at Hachinohe (total 143 students)• 9 schools at Shimizu (total 1,203 students)• CDEX/JAMSTEC held symposia at Hachinohe (150 attendees)• With USSSP, ECORD, and ICDP, CDEX/JAMSTEC held a town
hall meeting at AGU.

Expedition outreach (1) Exp.365: NanTroSEIZE Shallow Megasplay
 Issued a press release at the beginning and end of the expedition
 Transmitted information via official webpage and Twitter account Created 4 episodes plus 1 LTBMS explanation video and posted on
YouTube (total 12,400 viewers as of 2 March 2018), exhibited a digest
version of the video at the G7 Summit Japan 2016 International Media
Center Selected as AGU Cinema 2016 Top 10.

Expedition outreach (2) Exp.370: Temperature Limit of the Deep Biosphere off Muroto Issued a press release and held a news briefing at the beginning andend of the expedition (total 26 media companies attended) Transmitted information via official webpage and Twitter account Created 1 video and posted on YouTube (total 3,001 viewers as of 2
March 2018)
 Selected as AGU Cinema 2017 Top 10.
 Provided an opportunity for filming onboard to NHK

5Open ship events• 15-18 September 2017, Hachinohe port
• Originally 2 days special open ship event for VIPs, and 2 days open ship
event for general public.
• Open ship for general public became 1 day due to typhoon approach.
• Total visitors, 5,012.

• 23-24 December 2017, Shimizu port
• 2 days open ship event for VIPs and general public.
• Total visitors, 7,814

Hachinohe port

Shimizu port

Shimizu port

6

Special exhibition “Deep Ocean 2017”• at the National Museum of Nature and Science• from 11 July – 1 October, 2017
• Total 617,062 visitors in 79 days (#2 in record), 7,811
visitor/day (#1 record)• held a mini symposia about JFAST at the Museum (100seats) and webcasted the event (16,047 viewers)

7

Outreach Future Plan
• Join EGU session, ECORD IODP Outreach: Past, Present andFuture• Exp. 358 video project• Similar to Exp. 365 and 370 video.
• Also considering overall NanTroSEIZE summary video.

• Special volume of several Japanese magazines are underconsideration.

8

Agenda Item 14
KCC ReportAgenda Item 15
Safety Review Committee Update

15. Chikyu Safety Review Committee Report

Safety Review Committee Update
1. Newly established Geohazard sub-committee
2. IODP Expedition 380 NanTroSEIZE (C6)
3. Casing Design of IODP NanTroSEIZE (C2) Exp.358
6th Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) Meeting
19–20 March 2018@Kobe University
Shigemi Naganawa
Chair of Chikyu Safety Review Committee

Activities :Chikyu Safety Review Committee and Sub-committee#

Description

1

Drilling Sub-Committee (DSC) reviewed the safety of the newly fabricated drilling tools mechanically activated by the
UWTV and acusutic system for drilling efficiency to be utilized during IODP Exp. 380 NanTroSEIZE and provided therecommendations to the chair of Chikyu Safety Review Committee (CSR) (Aug. 9)2Geohazard Sub-Committee (GSC) reviewed the mandate of the newly established Geohazard Sub-Committee andprovided the recommendations to the chair of Chikyu Safety Review Committee (CSR) (Aug. 16)

3

Chikyu Safety Review Committee (CSR) did final safety evaluation of the newly fabricated drilling tools to bemechanically activated by the UWTV and acusutic system for drilling efficiency for the usage during IODP Exp. 380
NanTroSEIZE considering the recommendations of DSC and approved the drilling plan (Aug. 23)

Drilling Sub-Committee (DSC) and Geohazard Sub-Committee (GSC) jointly evaluated the drillig and geohazard of
4 IODP Exp. 380 NanTroSEIZE and IODP NanTroSEIZE C2 casing design, and also provided the recommendations to thechair of Chikyu Safety Review Committee (CSR) (Nov. 7)
5

Chikyu Safety Review Committee (CSR) did final safety evaluation of IODP Exp. 380 NanTroSEIZE and IODP
NanTroSEIZE C2 casing design. (Nov. 28)
2017
JFY H28
J

F

M

A

M

CIB#5

R&M

J

2018
J

A

JFY H29
S
O

1 2 3

J
M
H

R&M

N

D

J

F

U S
W C
T O
V R

Dock

M

CIB#6

4 5

U
W
T
V

EXP.
380
(C6 )

1. Newly established Geohazard sub-committee
Chikyu Safety Review Committee Structure 2017

So far, geohazrd for;

JAMSTEC President&
CDEX Director General
Recommendations

3.

1) riser hole2) deep section of riser-less;were based on proponent study only

Review Request

Chikyu Safety Review Committee

A Committee Chair, SC chairs and othermembers with expertise in Drilling Ops, Marine
Ops, Hole Stability, Ship Safety and Ship
engineering (6 Experts)
ResultStudy

Result

Study

2. Drilling Safety

1.

(Currently active)(Newly activated)

Sub Committee(5 experts)

Mandate : After the project is shifted tothe implementation stage,

Geohazard
Sub Committee(5 experts)

Geo-hazard Sub Co shall study thesite survey data submitted by the
proponent to review potential shallow
geo-hazard and deep geologicalsafetyShare the info. among Chikyu Safety
Review Committee as well as Drilling
Safety Sub Committee

2. IODP Expedition 380 NanTroSEIZE(C6) Evaluated that thewell is planned based on the experience and procedure
followed so far gained during the offset wells drilled in the past, and nomajor risk would be encountered for implementation

 The key for this project is whether the

cement is placed around the sensorsof the observatory string
as per the plan Since this operation is riser-lessoperation, no information of fluid
return available
Successful cementing operation can,however, be accomplished by monitoring
the amount of cement pumped
in conjunction with the cement plug
as well as by monitoring pressure
indication carefully3. Safety Review on Casing Design
IODP NanTroSEIZE (C2) Exp.358

 Agreed to the casing program CDEX designed (3 sets of liners,

including 2 sets of Expandable-No back up)

 Focused on improvement of collapse pressure: Current Plan
1.
2.
3.

Swellable packer to be utilized instead of cement setting
2. 9-5/8” CSG tie-back needs to be conducted
3. 9-3/8” Liner Hanger to be changed to in the 13-3/8” CSG

 Suggested the utilization of VSP in conjunction with geomechanics-

study is worth considered for the last open hole section

Previous Casing Program(CIB #4 Meeting 23-24 March 2016)11-3/4”Liner(already installed)2922.5mbsf

Hole Size:
10-5/8” x 12-1/4”

9-5/8” x 11-3/4”
Expandable Casing

Hole Size:
9-1/2” x 11-3/8”
9-3/8” Liner
Contingency
7-5/8” x 9-3/8”
Expandable Casing

Hole Size:
8-1/2” x 9-1/2”
Hole Size:
7-1/2” x 8-1/2”

7” Liner

Mega-splay fault
6” hole6” hole will be drilled through target
formation of mega-splay fault

Changed to
8-1/2”
Last Open HoleCore size
7-3/8”

Current Plan
Fiscal Year
2017

Existing Uncertainty
 13-3/8” CSG wear condition

 USIT will be run to measure

the wear Prepare 11-3/4” Tie back

 11-3/4” CSG cement condition
 USIT Squeeze cementing

 14-1/2” OH Condition

11-3/4” shoe

below

 Slick assembly will be applied

for drill out Whipstock is prepared

Revised Operation Sequence

Agenda Item 16
Chikyu/IODP Performance Review
a. JFY2017 Review
b. Current Mid-term (JFY2014 – 2018)
Review Introduction

Chikyu/IODP Performance Review

JFY2017 Review
Main Points of Review :• Efficiently operate and share both facilities and equipment• Improve and maintain research environment to attract outstanding
researchers from domestically and internationally of Japan• Contribute as a hub for international human resource exchanges• Contribute to the promotion of advanced science and technology• To widely disseminate news to the public about the marine
scientific technology developments and contributions to society
carried out by CDEX
• Contribute to improving the international recognition of “Chikyu”

Agenda Item 17
Review of Consensus Statements and Action Items

Agenda Item 18
Next CIB Meeting

Agenda Item 19
Any Other Business