Chikyu IODP Board meeting #7
11 - 12 June 2019

Takigawa Memorial Hall
Kobe University

Final minutes

#7Chikyu IODP Board Meeting

List of participants
Name
Members
Keir
GilbertBenoîtHiroshi

BeckerCamoin*Ildefonse
Kitazato

Shin'ichi

Kuramoto

Ryo
Tatsuya
Yoshiyuki
David
Liaisons
Dirk
Brad
Holly
TsuyoshiSean

Anma
Watanabe
TatsumiGoldberg

Barry

Katz*

Clive
Gabriele
Lisa
David
MichikoObservers
Naokazu
Jamie
Akiko
YusukeNeal
Uenzelmann-Neben*
McNeill*
McInroy*
Yamamoto

LeanneArmandGaku

KimuraInstitution

Kroon
Clements
Given*
Ishikawa
Gulick*Ahagon
Allan
Fuse
Kubo

ShigemiNaganawa
Harue
MasudaMika
Saido
KiyoshiSuyehiro
AsahikoTaira
Mike
LovellJAMSTEC
ChihiroBaba
Yumi
EbashiNobuhisa
Eguchi
Lallan Prasad
Gupta
Mizue
IijimaFumio
IngakiKazuhiko
Kashiwase
Itaru
Kawama
Nori
Kyo
Lena
Maeda
Eigo
MiyazakiTom
NawateNatsumiOkutsuSunny
Saito
Yoshinori
SanadaTomokazu
Saruhashi
Ikuo
SawadaKoji
TakaseSean
ToczkoSatoshi
Tsukioka
Takehiko
Yano
non-attendance*

Technical Advisory Team chair, University of Miami, USA
ECORD Managing Agency, CEREGE, France
University of Montpellier, FranceTokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Japan
Director-General, Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3,
JAMSTEC, Japan
Tokushima University, Japan
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
Chikyu IODP Board Chair, Kobe University, Japan
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, USA
IODP Forum chair, The University of Edinburgh, UK
JR Science Operator, Texas A&M University, USA
IODP Science Support Office, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA
Kochi Core Center, JAMSTEC, Japan
Science Evaluation Panel Co-chair, University of Texas at Austin, USA
Environmental Protection and Safety Panel Chair, Chevron Corporation, Houston, TX,
USA
JR Facility Board Chair, University of Notre Dame, USA
ECORD Facility Board Chair, Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany
Science Evaluation Panel Co-chair, University of Southampton, UK
ECORD Science Operator, British Geological Survey, UK
IODP Science Support Office, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA
Kochi Core Center, JAMSTEC, Japan
National Science Foundation, USA
Marine Works Japan, Ltd., Japan
Kochi Core Center, JAMSTEC, Japan
Australian and New Zealand International Ocean Discovery Program Consortium, The
Australian National University, Australia
Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium, Tokyo University of Marine Science andTechnology, JapanThe University of Tokyo, Japan
Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium, Osaka City University, Japan
Marine Works Japan, Ltd., Japan
JAMSTEC, Japan
President, JAMSTEC, Japan
University of Leicester, UK
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan
Institute for Marine-Earth Exploration and Engineering MarE3, JAMSTEC, Japan

Chikyu IODP Board meeting #7
11 - 12 June 2019
Takigawa Memorial Hall
Kobe University
Executive Summary (List of Consensus Items)

CIB_Consensus_0619-01: Approve agenda.
The CIB approved the #7 meeting agenda as is.
CIB_Consensus_0619-02: Approve minutes.
The CIB approved the last meeting’s minutes with some modification
CIB_Consensus_0619-03: Linkage between IODP and ICDP.
The CIB strongly encourages closer programmatic linkages between IODP and ICDP
in the future, including coordinated scientific planning for post-2023 scientific drilling,
improved proposal review procedures (e.g., for amphibious projects), and continued
cooperative use of shipboard and shore-based laboratories.
CIB_Consensus_0619-04: NanTroSEIZE.
The CIB reaffirms the importance of the scientific objectives and goals of IODP
Proposal 603C and recognizes the exceptional efforts by CDEX andthe Chikyu scientific and technical party to achieve them at Site C0002 during
Expedition 358. The ongoing reviews of Expedition 358 operations will be critical tounderstanding the deep riser drilling operations at Site C0002 and the lessons learned
for planning deep riser drilling at any future sites. The CIB will therefore ask the
proponents of Proposal 603C and the PCT/MarE3 to update an operational plan for
consideration of future deep riser drilling at NanTroSEIZE, based on Expedition 358
experiences and the pending reviews.
CIB_Consensus_0619-05: Three riser proposals.
CIB thanks the proponents of 537B-Full4 (CRISP), 698-Full3 (IBM), and 781B-Full(Hikurangi) for being so responsive to our 2018 request for updates to their riser drilling
proposals. At our 2019 meeting, it became clear that the financial constraints in the
new JAMSTEC 7-year plan and renewed commitment to NanTroSEIZE deep riser
objectives mean it is unrealistic at this time to select another riser drilling program forthe near-term future unless it is a CPP. Therefore, CIB will hold these proposal
updates for potential consideration at future meetings if appropriate circumstancesdevelop.
We also note that proposals 537B and 781B will likely involve similar technicalchallenges as completing NanTroSEIZE deep riser objectives. Therefore, theexperience gained in analyzing and addressing those challenges in renewed
NanTroSEIZE riser operations should be quite beneficial for potential future riser
drilling at CRISP or Hikurangi.
CIB_Consensus_0619-06: Overall Seismogenic zone workshop.
The CIB suggests that JAMSTEC organizes an international workshop, including the
NanTroSEIZE scientists as well as other seismogenic zone proponent groups, forfuture seismogenic zone deep riser drilling projects using D/V Chikyu.

CIB_Consensus_0619-07: Wording for the Next IODP Call for Proposals.
It became clear at this meeting that no new Chikyu riser projects can be scheduled forthe current phase of IODP. Therefore, the CIB suggests that the next IODP call for
proposals include the following wording: “As no new riser projects (other than CPPs)
can be implemented until the post-2023 phase of scientific ocean drilling, the CIB
recommends that proponents for completely new riser projects do not submit new
proposals until the publication of a new science plan for the post-2023 program.”
CIB_Consensus_0619-08: IODP Policy and Guidelines.
The CIB accepts changes to ”IODP Sample, Data and Obligations Policy and
Implementation” , “Standard IODP Confidentiality Policy”, and “Guidelines for Site
Characterization Data” as explained by the JRFB chair at the meeting.
CIB_Consensus_0619-09: Farewell to Yoshiyuki Tatsumi.
Professor Yoshiyuki Tatsumi has been an outstanding Chairman for the Chikyu IODP
Board for the past four years, a critical time in terms of scheduling Chikyu IODP
operations under difficult financial constraints. His patience and sense of humor in
drawing out relevant details and potential conflicts to guide CIB to productive overarching decisions was especially important. We greatly appreciate his agreement todouble his term of service, and we have thoroughly enjoyed coming to Kobe for CIB
meetings once every four years. We don’t want to say sayonara now, but instead wereally hope to see Tatsumi-san remain very active in IODP and the post-2023 programof scientific ocean drilling.
CIB_Consensus_0619-10: Farewell to Hiroshi Kitazato.
The Chikyu IODP board expresses its sincere thanks to Prof. Hiroshi Kitazato for his
service as a member of the CIB. He has been an active member adding enthusiasm
and perspectives to his scientific expertise as a eukaryotic microbiologist.
The CIB would like to send its best wishes for his future even-more successful career.
We have no doubt that he will stay present in IODP community, guiding and helping
us with his vast knowledge to his expertise and his gentle attitude.
CIB_Consensus_0619-11: Farewell to Benoit Ildefonse.
Benoit Ildefonse will be stepping down as the ECORD member on CIB and we wish
to offer our fullest appreciation of his steady and thoughtful contributions to Chikyu
programs over this time. Benoit has been an active scientist in IODP and continental
drilling programs for many years and there is little doubt that he will remain close to
deep crustal drilling as this research progresses over the next phases of the program.
We will greatly miss his joyful participation at board meetings, but equally look forward
to the new and fascinating science the he will surely propose in the future.
CIB_Consensus_0619-12: Farewell to Keir Becker.
The CIB wishes to express its deep gratitude to Keir Becker for his tireless service
as a US-based board member for the past three years. Keir has been instrumental
in advising on Chikyu activities and providing clear insights from the deck, from thelab, the conference table, and the beer pub. His vast experience with IODP and clear
view of the most important goals in scientific ocean drilling will be sorely missed, but
we look forward to hearing more from him as the TAT committee chair in the near
future. Thank you Keir!

Chikyu IODP Board #7 meeting
11–12 June 2019
Takigawa Memorial Hall
Kobe University
Meeting Minutes
Day 1

Tuesday, 11 June 2019

Agenda Items
1. Welcome Remarks (Shin’ichi Kuramoto)(09:16 h.)
Chair Yoshiyuki Tatsumi (CT) greeted and welcomed everyone to Kobe, confirmed the
Wi-Fi connection instructions and then asked Director Shin’ichi Kuramoto for his welcome
remarks.
S. Kuramoto welcomed the CIB members, liaisons, and observers, first introducing his
new title as Director General of the new organization, the Institute for Marine-Earth
Exploration and Engineering (MarE3), JAMSTEC. He explained the new seven years midterm period begun this April. The new MarE3 will take up the mantle of the old CDEX,
managing all the JAMSTEC research vessels. He expressed his hopes for the 7th CIB
meeting–a lot of good discussions, updates on the recent IODP expedition 358 results,
the economic situation, and he thanked everyone present for their attendance.
2. Introductions and Logistics (Nobuhisa Eguchi)(09:25 h.)
C. Tatsumi moved to self-introductions. Nobu Eguchi described the logistics details &escape route. He also announced details of the evening’s reception to be held on the top
floor of the Hotel Okura KOBE.
3. Approval of Agenda (Chair – C. Tatsumi)(09:27 h.)
C. Tatsumi began the agenda review and approval. After lunch, the JRFB and otherreports will be heard. We may have time to discuss the future of riser drilling.
N. Eguchi added we are broadcasting this meeting by ZOOM. The attendees in the
program with asterisks can connect by the ZOOM conference web application. GilbertCamoin will join us by 1830, and Sean Gulick will cover the SEP meeting as scheduled.
C. Tatsumi said that tomorrow, we’ll review the Chikyu proposals, and Ocean Drilling
beyond 2023. We’ll also have other items to discuss regarding Chikyu, outreach, policies,
etc. C. Tatsumi said that we’ll end with consensus items and future CIB work. Any items
to add?
1

Clive Neal asked if C. Tatsumi or himself would present these items on policies?
C. Tatsumi asked C. Neal to do so.
Benoit Ildefonse noted that the Agenda has him presenting the ECORD update, but thisshould be done by Gilbert Camoin, correct?
C. Tatsumi and N. Eguchi both said B. Ildefonse was correct.
CIB_Consensus_0619-01: Approve agenda.
The CIB approves the #7 CIB meeting agenda as is.

4. Approval of Last Meeting Minutes (Chair – Yoshiyuki Tatsumi)(09:32 h.)
C. Tatsumi asked for comments on the last CIB minutes, and Keir Becker noted that there
are a few typos, etc. N. Eguchi asked that they be sent to Sean Toczko or himself.
C. Tatsumi confirmed that with this, there was consensus on the minutes, and they wereapproved.

CIB_Consensus_0619-02: Approve minutes. Minutes approved with somemodification.
approved
the last
minuteswithsome modification.
5.The
CIBCIB
Decisionssincethe meeting’s
Last Meeting(Chair- Tatsumi)(09:33 h.)
C. Tatsumi began with the review of CIB decisions made since the last meeting. Proposal
871 addendum (Lord Howe Rise CPP) and 2 other proposed riser sites were approved.
N. Eguchi said these followed the last CIB meeting, and they were referred to the lastJune 2018 SEP, particularly regarding the LHR CPP. Communication and approval were
all conducted online.
C. Tatsumi asked if there were any comments or questions.
C. Tatsumi asked if there were any addendum for IODP 358. Any comments orquestions?

2C. Tatsumi asked if there were any other decisions?
N. Eguchi noted there were two consensus items.
6. CIB Action Item Status (Chair - Tatsumi)(09:36 h.)
C. Tatsumi asked about the status of the CIB actions. Although Action Item_0318-01 wasapproved, apparently no action has been taken. MarE3 will review and resolve theseissues. The last CIB had recommended that Keir Becker join the DWOP as CIB liaison(Consensus Item_0318-03), and his report is in the agenda book.
It was agreed that K. Becker would present his summary after the coffee break, & thegroup was asked to read through the report and comment at any time during the meeting.
Clive Neal asked K. Becker if the summary was covered during the TAT meeting, and K.
Becker said it wasn’t.

7. Other FB, IODP Forum, and Agency Activities
a. IODP Forum (Dirk Kroon)(09:40 h.)
IODP Forum Chair Dick Kroon presented the Forum update. Some key items aredeveloping stronger links with ICDP and NASA, and most vitally, the new Science Planfor IODP. D. Kroon presented the same talk to JRFB and the ICDP meetings. One main
discussion point in Osaka will be the structure of the new marine drilling program. There
will be two separate science plans, IODP and ICDP. David Goldberg asked if the reportdevelopment timing among the groups are synchronized, and D. Kroon said that IODP is
way ahead of ICDP.
D. Kroon said that ICDP would like to remain independent and separate. Each platform
will retain their unique features. There will need to be closer links with ICDP thru
amphibious proposals. This is endorsed both by JRFB and ICDP. C. Tatsumi asked if the
CIB could endorse the ICDP amphibious proposals as well, through discussion at thismeeting. D. Kroon agreed with this.
D. Kroon talked about the Chinese plan to have an IODP workshop in August. A newvessel is being considered as a JR replacement, which needs a vital and exciting scienceplan to justify NSF support. The new science plan needs to be ready by this time nextyear, what a challenge.

3

D. Kroon said we need stronger links with ICDP & NASA in the science plan. Theinternational flavor of the program needs to be retained and expanded. Workshops need
to be open and transparent. The results need to be integrated, and a pre-meeting has
been scheduled in Lamont (23-24 July), including 3 delegates from each PMO, with one
delegate from other countries. This meeting will produce a road-map document
summarizing the structure of the new science plan, for discussion at the Osaka Forummeeting.
D. Kroon said that the Forum delegates will form a writing group to write the new scienceplan, with the first draft ready by mid-January 2020. This will be posted for community
comments on the IODP website. There will be two iterations of review and writing.
C. Tatsumi asked if there were any questions or comments? The ICDP science plan will
be discussed in 2021?
D. Kroon said they will have their meeting much later than us, but they will have a task
force attend the Forum meeting to observe and see how the two programs could belinked.
Jamie Allen commented on how complex and complicated this effort is. Nations bringing
platforms may have different institutional needs and limitations. Therefore, there may be
a need for different science plans. We will need a flexible document, from the NSF side.
D. Goldberg asked if D. Kroon’s plans “A” & “B” are similar to what J. Allen suggested.
D. Kroon said NO. We have not even discussed this. Therefore, the first day will needdiscussion with our Japanese colleagues to accommodate their, and everyone else’s
needs, to balance the science plans across the program.
Clive Neal said there should be one science plan, with different executive summaries,
aimed at each PMO. Therefore, plans “A” and “B”.
D. Kroon agreed, saying he is only talking about program structure, since the community
is waiting for this.
Kiyoshi Suehiro said that the last science plans included an embedded implementation
plan. Should this be included as well, or should this be left to each PMO?
D. Kroon said let’s dream first, then look at if these dreams could be implemented. We
should keep ourselves grounded in reality, however.

4

N. Eguchi asked if we are talking about the science plan or the program? We should talkabout the science structure at the Forum.
D. Kroon said we should purely talk about science at the Forum.
Hiroshi Kitazato asked T. Yano if his presentation discusses the new science plan?
Maybe this should be based on new ideas and sciences? Perhaps new science fields or
disciplines should be included, to produce new ideas?
D. Kroon said yes, this is what these workshops, even in Japan, have been producing.
This is why I think linking with ICDP and NASA are important to achieve this.
C. Tatsumi said that this is why J-DESC invited JAXA to the JDESC meeting.
C. Tatsumi called for a coffee break for 30 min at 10:10 hrs.
Coffee Break (10:10–10:40)
Developing Linkages between IODP-ICDP(10:42)
C. Tatsumi said that after the break, the development of linkages between ICDP and
IODP will be discussed. If we all agree, we can make consensus on the importance of
this linkage, as the CIB.
Shin’ichi Kuramoto reminded everyone that for the last few years, the ICDP-Oman project
has been using Chikyu as a floating lab.
Gaku Kimura said that J-DESC has 2 sections, one for IODP and one for ICDP. These
often discuss various drilling proposals together, onshore and offshore Japan. We are
discussing the opening of data and samples from the onshore drilling to the global science
community. This can be applied to ICDP projects all over the world, and if accomplishedwill be good for science.
D. Kroon fully agreed, but there is still a desire to remain independent. There is resistanceon both sides, related to the different policies of each. IODP needs to work fast on
developing a new program, and trying to integrate will require greater thought anddiscussion. What we are working on now is an important first step.
Clive Neal stated that these are very different programs, although the goals are similar.
The amphibious proposals are a good way to help bring the review process together for5both programs. Creating a simplified, single process for proposals, is an important firstgoal.
Benoit Ildefonse mentioned that this is needed since amphibious proposal workshops aregoing on.
D. Kroon said that there are a lot of really interesting science targets, and we need tosolve this problem, since navigating through two systems has failed the scientists.
B. Ildefonse said that IODP funding of these workshops shows that the interest is there.
C. Tatsumi closely encourages the strengthening of links between IODP-ICDP, and asked
if we are in consensus?
CIB_Consensus_0619-03: Linkage between IODP and ICDP.
The CIB strongly encourages closer programmatic linkages between IODP and
ICDP in the future, including coordinated scientific planning for post-2023
scientific drilling, improved proposal review procedures (e.g., for amphibious
projects), and continued cooperative use of shipboard and shore-basedlaboratories.

b. JR Facility Board (Clive Neal)(10:53 h.)
Clive Neal presented the JRFB overview from last May. Policy revisions were held for alater discussion. The JRFB consensus items were reviewed and discussed. Proposal
pressure remains excellent, and NSF has extended JR support until 2024. JRFB
continues to encourage proposal pressure, such that the next FB meeting will be
extended from 2 to 3 days. JRFB will send SEP reps to ICDP SAG meetings, and invite
SAG reps to SEP meetings, all for amphibious proposals. JRFB will retain some undrilledsites on a case-by-case basis, for future drilling. Proposal 910 has been scheduled for
Oct-Nov 2021; more are expected. C. Neal showed the JR track and expedition schedule,
up to 2023. The schedule up to 2021 was shown, keeping in mind there could be changes,
if fuel prices change drastically.
C. Neal discussed the proposed JR replacement vessel. There will be increases in costs,
and new MOUs to reflect this will be needed. Efficiencies will allow greater science
returns. The target is to have 11 months of science per year, budget permitting. Siem
Offshore is offering a new ship option, possibly within 2.5 years of contract assignment.
Jamie Allen said that these are ideas, and this is very much a proposal in flux.

6

C. Neal. The design includes fuel efficiencies, a 40% increase in tripping speed, a 30%
increase in lab space, better WOB and coring results. There will be a cost increase.
The next JRFB meeting will be held in Scripps (dates, etc).
S. Kuramoto asked if the new vessel idea include deepening riserless drilling?
C. Neal said that the new vessel would be an improvement upon JR, but not anything likethe ability of riser drilling.
J. Allan pointed out that the main concern here is not just to get deeper, but to more
carefully manage the risk of drilling deeper. Ability and consistency of results are morevaluable here. A dual-function rig will help minimize the risks.
C. Neal said that after the last deep drilling workshop, we have seen that there have been
improvements in technology.
Brad Clement added that the day rate increases shown here are equivalent to 11%.
David Goldberg asked if the JRFB recommendation on swapping observers begins
immediately?
C. Neal reminded everyone that this whole effort is to streamline and enhance joint
proposal review.

e. MEXT (Tatsuya Watanabe)(11:07 h.)
Tatsuya Watanabe gave the MEXT presentation. He stated that unlike last year, he will
be able to attend the whole meeting. He discussed the JAMSTEC budget allocation.
There was a slight increase in 2019 as opposed to 2018. In May 2018, the JapaneseCabinet approved the next 5-yr plan for “Ocean Policy of Japan”. IODP promotion was
explicitly mentioned in this plan. The plan also retained Mantle drilling and international
cooperation. The objectives and activities plan were extended for 7 years, and directly
mention ultra-deep water drilling. The CIB recommendations have been key in receiving
this governmental support.
C. Tatsumi said that “You mentioned drilling into the mantle, “in the future” - what future
does this refer to?”7

T. Watanabe said that in the Japanese text, this is not explicitly stated, it just says “in the
future”.
C. Tatsumi wanted to confirm that T. Watanabe is in support of mantle drilling.
D. Kroon was interested and wanted to hear more about the Asian Countries with whom
Japan would like to “establish a cooperative framework”.
T. Watanabe said that Japan is interested in getting other Asian nations together under
one consortium, perhaps.
Leanne Armand said that this item is a good subject for a meeting next year withunaligned groups joining some part of the program.
K. Becker asked to confirm if any specific locations are mentioned for the ultra-deep
drilling targets?
T. Watanabe said that there are some plans, but no specific drilling sites are mentioned.
In general, this is a deep sea drilling plan, based on the Chikyu. It assumes a step coworking mainly with IODP, however, Chikyu must develop 4 km riser capacity.
S. Kuramoto said JAMSTEC had explained to the Gov’t about the need to develop the 4
km riser system, and other technologies, for basement drilling.
C. Tatsumi said that we will discuss this in more detail tomorrow.

f. NSF (Jamie Allan)(11:25 h.)
Jamie Allan began with a greeting message from Tom Janacek and Rody Batiza
conveying their greetings to all. J. Allan stated that there is a lot going on at NSF, and so
the messages being shared with the different meetings are going to be the same. The
only information that can be shared include what is available to the general public via the
NSF website. NSF in in the process of extending renewal until 2024 (another 5 yrs). 2024
is actually an extra, optional, year. Memoranda are being circulated before final NSF
clearance process begins.
The latest Presidential budget request reflects a 1B USD decrease. Actual 2019 budget
is flat, 2020 is still unclear, but should be ca. 65M USD. One concern is reflected in fears
of contributions amounts from international partners. MOST (China) might provide 3 to
6M USD, but nothing has been settled. If MOST monies don’t come through, this will have8

a big impact on science by JR. There will be long-term issue deals with contributions from
JR partners.
The new JR replacement concept is spurring actions within NSF. One clear need is a newscience plan. NSF considering releasing a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) to gaugecommunity interest in post-JR IODP drilling community. NSF is clear that it will be very
difficult to support a new “IODP-type” program; however, this must be a bottom-up effort.
C. Neal asked J. Allan to explain more about the “Dear Colleague Letter”.
J. Allan answered that the Dear Colleague Letter is sent to the community. Basically, it
has been cleared by the NSF leadership. It is a request by NSF for information tocommunity and a declaration of interest by the community. For example, we put out theDear Colleague Letter to determine community interest. But we didn’t get a response,
showing that clearly, there is no US institution that is interested in providing a far-ranging
drillship. I think that we were sure we’d get at least one response. We need to make surethere are opportunity for multiple responses and for multiple different ideas.
S. Kuramoto asked if responses from other countries could help with the DCL?
J. Allan said the DCLs are aimed at US institutions, because only they could provide afacility that NSF would be able to support. The replacement concept might start from2023, but could happen later. NSF would need current partners to continue contributing
funds at similar percentage rates to acquire a new vessel. To reduce a gap in drilling
activity, more money from the NSF partners will be needed. JR itself will not be able toextend past 2028, for environmental reasons.
C. Tatsumi asked if there were any further questions? With no questions, the meeting
moved on to the ANZIC presentation.
g. ANZIC (Leanne Armand)(11:43 h.)Leanne Armand presented the ANZIC update, stating that Neville Exon has received theOrder of Australia over the weekend - congratulations. The Chikyu 2019-2020
subscription hasn’t been renewed, due to gov’t uncertainty, and available funds havebeen focused on legacy work. There is a proposal within the ANZIC renewal bid which
includes funds for Chikyu support. The renewal bid is for 2 x 5 yr terms starting from 2021,
and includes 10 M AusD/yr. It includes USIO, Chikyu, ECORD, and possibly China
membership, as the situation develops. The China IODP support relies on their program
getting off the ground.
ANZIC is looking for greater participation in US/ECORD/MarE3 workshops & events.

9

ANZIC have increased to 5 staff. The renewal strategy & schedule were presented
reviewed. The current gov’t has not yet clarified their position on science. May 2020 iswhen the next Federal budget is going to be announced, but there may be some updates
before then regarding the position of the program.
Recent activities and expedition participation were shared, covering 4 expeditions.
Advertising new expeditions, for the moment, is on hold, due to the uncertain budget
situation.
The Lord Howe Rise (LHR) CPP has been addended and updated. However, it is unlikely
at this point that 2020 funding will be received. The priority is to get ANZIC renewed.
J. Allan. You mentioned that other groups have been supported up through 2019, eventhough funds haven’t been received yet. So, is your hold is based on available support?
L. Armand. Our support runs up to the end of Dec 2020, so that is our cutoff. We need tostate clearly that if people apply, we have no funds for support. All preparation and drilling
outlines have been worked out, and we are just waiting on a funding resolution. The
challenge is that this is a very expensive project, and numbers need to be updated. The
renewal of ANZIC seems to support LHR, but the reverse won’t work. Ron Hackney iscurrently the POC, but may be reassigned soon.
There is a new proposal for using Chikyu to examine Permo-Jurassic Oceans, and weare looking at interest in Chikyu from the Australian oil & gas sectors. This is in very earlystages.
The ANZIC-IODP ICP13 in 2-6 Sept 2019 in Sydney being planned, and we are looking
forward to seeing MarE3 there as well.
H. Kitazato was very interested in the Permo-Jurassic Oceans proposal, and the links to
climate perturbations. L. Armand will forward the POC for this project to anyone who isinterested.
B. Ildefonse asked if there is a CPP being developed to help make this come to life.
N. Eguchi said he has met the proponents, and stressed the need for industry support to
get Chikyu to move and become part of this project.

h. PMOs
10

J-DESC (Sanny Saito)(12 :09 h.)
Sanny Saito presented the JDESC activities update on behalf of Harue Masuda. He
described the structure and personnel layout of JDESC. Expedition participation andsupport for JR and Chikyu expeditions was shared, showing that 33 science party
members and 53 scientists received travel and training support.
S. Saito related how J-DESC/JAMSTEC have funded about 6.6 M JPY for 13 post-cruseresearches in total in JFY2018.
As for participation in international panels and boards, S. Saito showed how 9 persons in
total from Japan are assigned: 7 members to SEP, 1 member to EPSP, and 1 member to
ECORD FB. S. Saito said that currently there is no Japanese member assigned to the
JRFB.
Symposiums and workshops supported with JDESC funding were also listed, especiallyregarding “future scientific drilling workshops”. Details of the JDESC workshop from 2-3
April will be published and also presented in the Lamont meeting described earlier.
These workshops are:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Basic/Advance Logging Course
Micropaleontology Course
Paleomagnetism Course
Basic Analysis Course (including foreign participants, 3 from Korea and 1 from
Taiwan)Isotope Analysis Course
Petrologic Description Course

S. Saito introduced symposiums and workshops that J-DESC supported:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

J-DESC Future Scientific Drilling Workshop
JpGU Session: Drilling Earth Science
SAKIGAKE-JpGU Hard Rock Drilling Focus Group Kick-off Workshop
Students and Early Career Scientists Meeting on Earth and Planetary Science
15th Anniversary Symposium of Center for Advanced Marine Core Research,
Kochi Univ.
J-DESC Workshop “Scientific Ocean Drilling beyond 2023”
JpGU Session: Drilling Earth Science

S. Saito emphasized the two workshops in bold. One is the J-DESC Future Scientific
Drilling Workshop, which was held on 29–30 March 2018 in Yokohama. It was a domestic
11

workshop to review the progress of IODP science plan and discuss what are the research
focuses for further progress. There were nearly 150 participants including 43 students.
Saito told that the success of this workshop enhanced the other workshop titled J-DESC
Workshop “Scientific Ocean Drilling beyond 2023”, which was held in 2–4 April this year.
This workshops’ results were presented and discussed during JpGU in May, and thesteering committee of this workshop is now working on workshop report, which will be
published soon. After it was passed by steering committee, a new writing committee of
20 people was organized led by Drs. Kuroda and Morono. They will write a white paper
to be presented at NY and Osaka. There will be a small workshop in Kochi this week.
C. Neal stated that there is a call for non-US JRFB applicants open now, and that Sannycan apply (everyone laughs).
USSSP (Carl Brenner)(12 :18 h.)Carl Brenner presented the USSSP report to CIB. Lamont has supported USSSP for justover 4 years, and this is the first CIB C. Brenner has attended. C. Brenner presented thetasks and duties of USSSP, and described the USSSP staff, although not all are full time
workers, so that 10 people are supported on a 7-person full time support level. C. Brenner
described the five main tasks for which USSSP are responsible.
•

•

•

•

•

Expedition support including staffing nominations for all three IODP platforms
including Chikyu, funding salary & travel support for all US participants for all threeplatforms, and funding post-expedition awards for science party members.
Workshop funding including core schools or training such as Petrophysics
Summer School in Leicester, U.K. or the Core-Log Seismic Investigation at Sea(CLSI@Sea) initiative by JAMSTEC concurrent with IODP Exp. 380.
Pre-Drilling Activities that are funding to enhance either proposals, or even better,for scheduled drilling expeditions that need some pre-drilling work to get thescientific payoffs to a level higher than they otherwise might be.
Supporting panel members nomination and providing salary support for US
based Chairs. USSSP supports JRFB Chair for several months a year of salary as
well as the USSSAC Chair, and when they are US-based, SEP co-chair or IODPForum Chair, which has been a case until this year’s program when Dick took over.
Education & Outreach program, despite a fairly limited budget, but I will talk about
that.

12

C. Brenner showed the demographic breakdown of scientists who have sailed on Chikyu,
roughly 1/3 are senior level scientists. The target is to get roughly equal ratios of careerlevels sailing.
Workshops are a large part of this effort to support the US science community. These
include major planning workshops (like the NEXT workshop) and the planningassessment meetings (like the JRAW)); these produce useful documents for NSF in
reviewing the science and performance of the US drilling platform. There is also a
structure to support US-based scientists to attend non-US sponsored workshops abroad,as needed.
C. Brenner talked about education and outreach; there are five main goals for that, andthe most important of which is to raise awareness of earth science in general globally.
There is an emphasis on attending conferences in conjunction with our international
partners, and promoting and supporting the science of IODP and assure a steady influx
of future IODP leaders. USSSP is extremely happy with the support of JAMSTEC, forexample at such events as the AGU town hall meetings, etc.
Support of new career scientists, a traveling lecture circuit and other exhibits all help get
the word out on scientific ocean drilling.
The Chair called for lunchtime at 12:40 hrs, with a break until 1345.
LUNCH

8. JR Advisory Panels Report/Proposal Overview
8a. Science Evaluation Panel (Sean Gulick)*(13:40 h.)*Original agenda #8b was conducted before #8a for the presentation with ZOOM app considering timedifference, and item number was changed to #8a.

Sean Gulick presented the SEP report to the CIB by online Zoom connection. S. Gulick
introduced his new SEP Co-Chair, Lisa McNeill. Since Jan 2014, SEP has operated as a
combined science and site survey panel. SEP meets in Scripps every Jan, and in June,elsewhere. S. Gulick described the assignment of the 5 watchdogs at SEP for each
proposal, and also described the review process for the SEP in terms of site survey data;
mainly can the objectives of the proposal be achieved with the data set presented. Data
are ranked from 5 (no data) to 1 (data sufficient to support science objectives of the drillingand no further concerns), all numbered/colored before forwarding to the relevant facility
board (FB).
13

•
•
•
•
•

1-Red: no data have been reviewed by SEP
2-Orange: data reviewed by SEP are insufficient to support the drilling effort
3-Yellow: data reviewed by SEP are insufficient to support but there are still somethings not yet sufficient
4-Green: data sufficient to support, but minor concern
5-Blue: data sufficient to support with no further concern

The 2018-2019 meeting outcomes (Potsdam and Scripps) were shown, with only one
APL (939) for Chikyu. Proposal 941Full was reviewed in Jan 2019, and was sent back forrevision. There was an additional comment on Proposal 866Full2, asking to keep it at
EFB. S. Gulick listed the relevant Chikyu proposals. None of the proposals at CIB werereviewed by the current SEP. S. Gulick described each of these in turn: CRISP (537B),
IBM (698), and Hikurangi (781B).
S. Gulick concluded his presentation by telling the next SEP meeting will be held at
Edinburgh in 25–27 June 2019. This SEP meeting will review 32 new proposals, 34 to beevaluated; a new record since 2008. There are 2 Chikyu proposals (939APL2 & 951Pre).
C. Tatsumi asked if there were any questions?
C. Tatsumi. OK, thanks and we’ll move on to the SSO report from Michiko Yamamoto.

8b. Science Support Office(14:00 h.)(Michiko Yamamoto)

Michiko Yamamoto presented the SSO report. The SSO is in year 5 of a 10-yr support
contract, and SSO services are programmatic services, such as JRFB support, managing
the proposal process, curating policy documents, and developing the program and site
survey databases, maintaining the IODP home page, and security and maintenance R&D.
Proposals submitted since the beginning of this phase of the IODP program in 2013.
There were 118 new proposals: 47% of them were de-activated, 33% are under active
review, and 20% of them have been forwarded to the Facility boards. There were 36
additional proposals carried over from the old IODP that are still active in the system. All
the others have been deactivated, are scheduled, or have been drilled.
M. Yamamoto showed an effort to visualize the proposal success rates, roughly 50%.
There is a question on why there are so many proposal submissions this year, and thereasons are not clear. Since the last CIB meeting there were 2 SEP meetings and 34
proposals. 10 were deactivated, 2 forwarded to facility boards, 5 for sent to external
review. And now we have 104 in active proposal pool. There were also a large number of14

data files submitted to the site survey data base. More than 1400 files have been
submitted.
M. Yamamoto showed the breakdown by theme of proposals, by sea region, by PMO
affiliation, and by drilling platform. M. Yamamoto also showed the call for proposals fornext month’s SEP. M. Yamamoto showed the graph of active proposal status by target
ocean. The Pacific Ocean (37) is more popular than the Atlantic. If the Mediterranean isadded to the Atlantic, then it becomes the most popular region.
M. Yamamoto showed the graph of country distribution. The biggest group is ECORD,
the US, then Japan, in that order.
M. Yamamoto also showed the graph of all proponents’ distribution by PMO. Again,
ECORD is the biggest group, then the US, and Japan, with 134 proponents.
The Call for Proposals was posted in EOS this April before the submission deadline, andit needs to be done again at the next October deadline. This message is encouraging
people to submit full proposals for Chikyu, riser or non-riser operations.
M. Yamamoto also shared the sad news that Dr. Walter H. Munk had passed away. The
left picture was taken at Chikyu when he visited on 2014. The right one was from the New
York Times.
M. Yamamoto said that JR is coming to San Diego in September and November this year
before and after Expedition 385. Holly Given is working to host outreach activities and ascience symposium. There are videos for Japanese participants of this expedition.
M. Yamamoto then said that the data team is now developing a tool for web site to collectcommunity opinions about the new science plans. The other developments that havebeen done is almost for EPSP and PDB. Now the EPSP chair can create the meeting
minutes through the online system and also proponents can submit reports to the system.
C. Neal ask about the advertisements, and said we are asking SSO to work with us to
update the central proposal fees. We know there is a little community interest, and we’vebeen getting a lot of attention. We do need to revise and update this.
C. Tatsumi asked Ishikawa-san to present the KCC report.
9. KCC Report (Tsuyoshi Ishikawa)(14:11 h.)
T. Ishikawa presented on the core curation at KCC, for cores classed as IODP and nonIODP. T. Ishikawa reviewed the regional core repositories, and the capacity of KCC at15

the present. T. Ishikawa said that KCC has about 142 km of cores in total length, whichis comparable to the BCR and GCR. Legacy core disposition was described. T. Ishikawa
discussed the cores received from KCC last year, from JR and Chikyu. Sample requests
for KCC cores was shown. T. Ishikawa explained that in the last 4 years, over 150 sample
requests were received. Requests included about 60 to 80 legacy core requests, andabout 60 requests for IODP cores. The rest are requests for Chikyu cores. T. Ishikawa
also explained that KCC is regularly shipping about 15000 samples every year.
T. Ishikawa said the KCC facility is open to the IODP community. Equipment includes
XCT scanner, MSCL, XRF core scanner, and core image scanner. Unfortunately, T.
Ishikawa said a fee is charged for these instruments. T. Ishikawa said that 11 requests
for the use of these machines have been received during the last 3 years. The mostpopular one is XRF core scanner for itracks, which is very useful for paleography andoceanography studies.
Education and training opportunities at KCC include the J-DESC core schools, pre-cruise
training, and exhibition booth at JpGU and AGU.
Finally, T. Ishikawa discussed staff changes. The new IODP curator, is former CDEX
EPM Yusuke Kubo, who replaces Lallan Gupta. L Gupta was the first IODP curator at
KCC. Nan Xiao was the biological curator and is moving to the Mantle Promotion Officein MarE3. T. Ishikawa thanked them for their pioneering work.
C. Tatsumi said that the Chikyu operations update will be next.
10. Chikyu Operation/Status Update (Takehiko Yano)(14:22 h.)
Takehiko Yano gave the update on Chikyu, starting the MarE3 session of the meeting. T.
Yano noted that this will be difficult for people joining CIB for the first time, as this will lookat the operations from a financial and admin point of view. T. Yano showed the 2005 to2013 operation schedule. From 2009, the situation changed, and JAMSTEC looked atways to promote Chikyu commercially (in orange).
T. Yano described the new Chikyu business model, including the financial background.
Luckily, Watanabe-san at MEXT was able to gain CDEX a 2-3% increase this year.
However, government funding has still been pretty sluggish. From 2014, CDEX was able
to establish an independent Chikyu account, that separated the JAMSTEC and CDEX
budgets. T. Yano showed a cartoon breakdown of funds needed by Chikyu to performscience drilling. The govt support covered the “fixed costs” or the maintenance and shipcrew and CDEX management. Commercial operations allowed for savings to do scientificdrilling.

16

The last 5 yrs were shown, with the process of carrying funds forward, ending with IODPExp 358. By the end of JPFY 2018, CDEX spent ca. 62 M USD on C0002 riser drilling.
The carry forward into the new FY is zero.
Chikyu is now the 10th oldest ship in the industrial fleet, so this affects chances to getjobs in the commercial zone. One solution is to look into governmental sponsored
exploration drilling. T. Yano proposed to talk more in detail tomorrow morning.
As of 1 April 2019, CDEX and MARITEC have merged into MarE3. The policies of the
new organizations were described, with safety being the primary policy. T. Yano
presented a mission and organization chart, showing the departmental breakdown. The
total head count of the new organization is 170 people.
T. Yano gave an overview of the JAMSTEC fleet, including HOV and AUV platforms now
managed by MarE3, describing the roles of each vessel. Hakuho and Shinsei are
multipurpose oceanographic research vessels.
T. Yano said that the recently completed IODP Exp 358 would be discussed in more detail
next, and there will be some more discussion of proposals, and the long-term scienceplan for Chikyu tomorrow.
K. Becker asked if the new 7-yr plan will also have carry-over?
T. Yano said, no, we will need to spend it all by the end of the 7-yr period.
With no further questions, C. Tatsumi called for The Safety Committee presentation by
Tom Nawate.
b. Chikyu Safety Committee Results (Tom Nawate)(14:40 h.)
T. Nawate discussed the safety review committee for Chikyu drilling within CDEX. He
showed the flowchart of the internal review, and then the external review process. Tom
showed the 2018 review scheme, and the committee breakdown by drilling safety andgeohazard sub-committees.
T. Nawate showed last year’s committee review activities. With only one expedition
planned, only one committee review was held, after the sub-committee meeting. Instead,the DWOP and RTG-DWOP were attended by the sub-committee members. Tom shared
the summary of the drilling safety and geohazard subcommittee meeting from 14 Aug

17

2018. They positively reviewed the CDEX Operations group’s preparations for theupcoming riser-drilling program.
The main safety review committee meeting on 22 Aug 2018 summary was then sharedby T. Nawate. The committee concluded that the preparations for the expedition were
well in hand.
b-2: IODP Exp. 358 Results(Sean Toczko)(14:50 h.)
S. Toczko presented a quick review on the Exp. 358 science efforts, science plan, anddeep riser drilling. S. Toczko left the slides unread, since everyone has seen them manytimes already. The goal was to drill, log, and sample the plate boundary interface. S.
Toczko described the very detailed operation plan and then what actually happened.
Contingency plans included logging and coring at Sites C0024 and C0006; the C0006
cores were an attempt to collect frontal thrust samples that couldn’t be collected from Site
C0002. Site C0024 was a new site, originally a SCORE proposal, that hoped to find thedate of the formation of the Kumano basin.
S. Toczko described the expedition’s large science party, including 9 science leaders;
only 8 sailed, as Demian Saffer provided support from land. There were 3 EPMs, Nobu
Eguchi, Lena Meada, and himself, who all took in turns aboard. S. Toczko introduced
science team, which had a good balance of people new to NanTroSEIZE and Chikyu,
and veterans from other Chikyu expeditions. There was also good career balance, frommasters’ students to people who have retired from active academia. There were also two
paleontologists, both new to Chikyu.
S. Toczko also described the new Real-Time Geomechanics (RTG) team. The RTG
Team was a new concept CDEX had developed with the TAT to advise the operationsgroup with real time data and analysis from the science party, real time data from thelogging tools, all combined with a real-time geo-mechanics prospective.
S. Toczko presented a breakdown of the science party demographics, showing many
scientists from ESSAC and USSP, almost equal to the number of Japanese scientists.
The breakdown showed the national rankings as: Japan, US, Germany, and France.
S. Toczko also showed the incredibly complicated original staffing plan. This wasmodelled after industry staffing, where staff are mobilized and brought aboard as needed.
To do this, the SLs and CDEX created a model to bring people onboard directly in linewith key elements of actual drilling. The concept was that scientists would be onboard forscience operations only, when logging and coring were being done. Cuttings would becollected continuously, but only examined when scientists were onboard. When other18

things, like casing, cementing, and during other operations and engineering portions, thescientists would not be onboard.
S. Toczko showed the original operations timeline compared to the actual timeline, andthen the moved to the contingency sites. The outline showed the different boarding
groups standing by while one group was onboard. This outline was kept to until the endof the riser drilling period, and then modified for the final contingency riserless sites. This
staffing was logistically difficult, but worked pretty well. Scientists were given at least 10
to 14 days notification before being mobilized to come to the ship.
S. Toczko showed the overall NanTroSEIZE transect, with all drill sites. S. Toczko
showed the positions of Site C0002 and the contingency sites: Site C0024, which wasnear Sites C0006 and C0007, and the brand-new contingency Site C0025.
S. Toczko said that on the positive side, new holes were kicked off from the riser site, 4
in total: C0002Q, -R, -S, -T. A lot of cuttings were recovered, but only less than 2.5 m of
new core was collected. A new LWD depth record was reached in the accretionary prism,
3,252 mbsf. At Site C00024, 7 holes were drilled with LWD and coring, and the plateboundary seems to have been crossed at this point with LWD. Coring reached 621 mbsf
at Site C0024, and almost 200 m of new core was collected from Site C0025. The cores
will be measured and analyzed onboard Chikyu this summer at a core description party
in Shimizu in July; this means the expedition is not officially ended. S. Toczko admitted
that none of the main goals at the riser site were achieved, and even the depth record is
only a few hundred meters deeper than the previous record from IODP Exp. 348.
S. Toczko showed the breakdown of actual drilling days vs. total expedition days (87),which total was quite close to the original plan. T. Saruhashi will share more details about
C0002, while here are shown the total days for Sites C0024 and C0025.
S. Toczko explained the detailed differences between the about actual depth, areas ofdeep LWD coring, and the original plan. This plan was to kick off here, but this is where
we ended up.
S. Toczko showed the figure for Site C0024, and where Sites C0006 and C0007 were
drilled. S. Toczko discussed where the LWD sections were, and where it was decided totake a spot core section after it was concluded that the expedition would be unable to drill
any deeper.
S. Toczko continued with the figure for Site C0025A, where the goal was to drill to thetarget and core it. Once completed, the expedition returned to Shimizu.
S. Toczko presented the cruise evaluation assessment. Not all the scientists havesubmitted their evaluations, but in general, ratings for expedition support and facilities are19very good. S. Toczko reported that on the other hand, communication with shore-based
scientists was poor, with not doing a good enough job of keeping the science party
members onshore informed. IT access for scientists was also poor. S. Toczko explainedthat there were two internet networks onboard Chikyu during the expedition; Inmarsat
fleet express and the regular VSAT network running. The VSAT network was as poor as
usual, but the Inmarsat fleet express was very robust. S. Toczko discussed the
Schlumberger internet logging service that provided real time logging data to the onshore
team via a server in Houston, Texas. This allowed the shore-based team, including
scientists, to access and monitor near real-time logging data; and it worked very well. The
Inmarsat system worked really well, except in rainy conditions.
S. Toczko gave more details from the cruise evaluation, this shows the breakdown
between the average of previous expedition and Exp. 358. “Overall”, it’s low, because wenever reached our main target. “Pre-expedition” support was not bad, “Lab support” wasalso not bad. “IT services” was low. “Curation” was good. “Operation” was again poor
because the ultimate target wasn’t reached. “Shipboard life” was pretty high.
S. Toczko said that pre-expedition evaluations were similar to other expeditions,preparations worked very well. The main negative comments regarded the huge
uncertainty in travel. There were different teams moving over different time periods to getto the ship from different locations, for some scientists this was a problem. S. Toczko also
talked about the ZOOM meetings, supported by the Inmarsat connection. This allowed
offshore team members to get updates.
S. Toczko continued with the “Lab services” ratings, which were ranked very high, as
usual. Marine Works Japan did a very good job and with support, and they are reallyappreciated as lab technicians and for the facilities we have. This is why we were goingto have ICDP Oman support and this is also why we are going to have support for MSP
expedition.
“IT services” was generally ranked lower than the average, as discussed earlier. There
were problems with PCs. Only old OS systems could connect to the onboard IMS system& J-CORES only worked with old versions of Java.
“Curation” is again about how Marine Works Japan was pleasure to work with. The Lab
Staff are always helpful, organized, and efficient.
For “Operation”, the Site C0024 cores were great; the C0002T cores were not.
“Shipboard life” was always very well in general. More large space for gym was requested
from scientists. But it is already pretty big, with 2 running machines in the gym. But it is
not big enough for everybody. That’s it. Any questions?

20

L. Armand asked if the RTG team concept worked well.
S. Toczko answered that the plan was that as we set the casing, to break out of thecement plug and perform a leak-off test. This would give us updated information about
the formation to put back into the RTG teams model and everything else we needed todrill forward. However, we only performed two formation integrity tests, and never got to
use the full LWD BHA for riser drilling. We never got the full suite of information that weneeded. The RTG did help look into cuttings, trying to evaluate notes what was happening
in the down hole.
L. Armand again asked if this is something that JAMSTEC is considering repeating?
S. Toczko answered that he thinks this concept definitely should continue, but it depends
on what kind of drilling is targeted. This concept is a really great idea.
D. Goldberg asked about the comment on travel for science team. What would be thealternative, since it’s difficult to have a flexible window for the operation like this, right?
S. Toczko said that this was particularly difficult for those who have trouble getting to anormal port call. For the science team as a whole, it worked in getting the people out
when we needed them. There was a lot of uncertainty, but in the end, it worked better
than anticipated.
C. Brenner asked if there was anything that could have been done differently to reducethe impact on the science team travel?
S. Toczko said that there really wasn’t anything else to be done.
There were no other questions.
d. IODP 358 Operations Results (Tomo Saruhashi)(15:08 h.)
T. Saruhashi presented the operations details of Exp. 358 to the CIB; he stated that evenafter 4 attempts, CDEX thought they understood about drilling in the accretionary prism,
but this was not enough to accomplish the science target. He presented the originalcasing and drilling plan, and showed how the whole configuration was affected by all thedrilling problems. T. Saruhashi presented the time depth drilling diagram, and thendetailed the list of events that affected the plan to drill to the plate boundary. Problems
included the window milling in Hole Q, collapse and drilling multiple holes in Q, low ROP
compared to Exp 348 at the same depth range, and making a new window in casing with21

no cement. Holes S and T didn’t have spontaneous sidetracks, but the RSS parted andwas lost, and coring had to be abandoned.
J. Allen Asked if this was related to the hole being opened for a long time?
T. Saruhashi said these factors were considered, but all parameters, formation were thesame, but ROP was 1/10th of the 348 experience. MarE3 is considering the effects of
MW and fracseal on the drilling and low ROP. Fracseal could be an influence, but it did
have other effects, such as being screened out at the shakers. This was the first time
Fracseal had been used in ocean drilling, where mud temperatures were much lower thanin land-based drilling sites.
T. Saruhashi explained that expandable casing was used here in Japan for the first time.
Running and expansion worked as planned, but when the casing was drilled out, the BHA
became stuck and needed to be severed. This required a new sidetrack to continue.
B. Clement asked to confirm if the hole was 2 m in diameter?
T. Saruhashi confirmed this, and even with hole cleaning, the washout was huge in thissection. There were also issues with the BOP, the iron roughneck, and other equipment
on board. T. Saruhashi summarized the drilling for each window and each hole in the riser
hole. One main issue related to the inability to pass the full LWD BHA through the initial
Hole Q window. T. Saruhashi described how each attempt to drill deeper resulted in a
new sidetrack hole.
T. Saruhashi then discussed the operations in Hole R, Hole S and Hole T. Hole S is where
the C-Link parted and was lost with the RSS. Fishing was unsuccessful, and a new hole(T) was begun, coring with the SD-RCB, and was abandoned due to poor hole conditions.
T. Saruhashi summarized the failure points, and discussed the issues with holeenlargement, poor cement quality, and the constant creation of new unintentional
sidetracks. In contrast, during IODP Exp. 348, sidetracking and drilling worked well. T.
Saruhashi finished with a list of lessons learned from the Exp. 358 drilling experience at
Site C0002.
T. Saruhashi described how these lessons would be applied to a possible future attempt
to drill to the plate boundary target with a new hole. These lessons include casingplanning, and proper window placement and cutting.

22

The low ROP in comparison to Exp 348 was discussed, and T. Saruhashi shared somepossible causes, including “plastic shale”, drilling mud additives, mud weight, andpossible formation differences. Some solutions might include selecting different bit types.
T. Saruhashi stressed that the investigation here is only just beginning.
T. Saruhashi covered the various mechanicals issues, including the BOP pressure
switches and accumulator, dolly cylinder bursting, and iron roughneck problems.
J. Allen acknowledged the extremely impressive analysis so far. Documentation to thisdegree of detail is a great effort and extremely needed.
C. Neal stressed that the level of internal review is excellent; he also stressed that this is
not a failure and that the lessons learned were invaluable. S. Toczko presented some ofthe successes, and these should not be forgotten.
C. Tatsumi. Let’s return at 1610.
Break
C. Tatsumi asked Keir Becker for the TAT presentation.
11. TAT Report(16:11 h.)(Keir Becker)

Kier Becker presented on the TAT meeting, which was held 6–7 June 2019. Exp. 358 did
not come very close to the depth objective but it was an incredible learning opportunity
for future riser operation. MarE3 engineering and operation staffs brought lots of
information. K. Becker said they also had science leaders and David Castillo who wasbehind the real-time geomechanics (RTG) concept.
K. Becker emphasized that TAT is not a CIB or IODP committee, but advises MarE3
directly. He introduced four external members in the last TAT meeting. K. Becker said
they were himself, C. Neal, John Thorogood (who is incredibly experienced drillingengineering), and Yoshi Uemura currently from JAPEX, who used to work for CDEX andOSI for Exp. 348.
K. Becker mentioned that in principle they focused on 95% of their time in two days
meeting on reviewing Exp. 358 operations and five main recommendations for
implementing riser operation as follow.

23

1. Re implementing an even more rigorous risk assessment and contingency
planning for future Chikyu scientific riser operations
2. Re TAT overall assessment of Exp. 358 operational events
3. Re further MarE3 documentation of Exp. 358 operation reports
4. Re managing expectations for future Chikyu riser projects(Becker said this one is very important to all platforms.)
5. Re independent outside review of Exp. 358 operations(Becker mentioned that it would take at least one year process to review
what happened to the operation of Exp. 358.)
K. Becker said an additional action item is to revise TAT ToR and membership as needed
to provide advice to the new MarE3 which has been expanded scope of expert as well.
Next K. Becker introduced one important point that David Castillo made in his input to
TAT showing the diagram of the hole. It was that there was very little untouched formationin the actual operation of Exp. 358, since everything happened probably within 3 m fromthe original hole. Nearly all this was going on in the formation damaged by Exp. 348 andfurther damage by jarring, reaming, or everything else that has done by Exp. 358.
Then K. Becker read that preamble of TAT#5 recommendations regarding Exp. 358 as it
was beset by unanticipated operational issues and failed to achieve its ultimate scientificobjectives.
Based on the preamble, K. Becker stated the recommendation in details listed on theslide.
The first recommendation (0619-03) was risk evaluation and contingency planning. It saysthat the single most important lesson learned from the Expedition 358 experience is thata rigorous process of risk evaluation and contingency planning is essential for all future
Chikyu riser programs. It includes development of thorough risk registers and preexpedition adoption by all stakeholders, which is not only the people on board but people
on the beach, or people in upper management, for a clear decision-making process andcontingency options that provide for complete suspension of riser drilling if unanticipatedissue arise that are not included in the risk register. What arose in the Exp. 358 was notin the register of the list that planned before the expedition. TAT thinks the DWOP and
RTG procedures remain viable mechanisms to achieve this kind of preparation.
K. Becker read the next recommendation regarding initial assessment of Exp. 358
operations (0619-04). He stressed that if a clear decision-making process and more
extensive contingency options had been established before the expedition as specified in
24

TAT recommendation 0619-03, that might have triggered suspension of Exp. 358 riser
drilling at C0002 early in the expedition. K. Becker also mentioned that they have learned
that they’ve got to establish a decision-making tree before the expedition, sinceapparently, we would have a lot more time to spend on reaming, jarring, WOW, andpeople both on the ship and shore, and upper level people of management should try tocome to assessment, and let them study pre-plan for doing a major riser operation.
Regarding further MarE3 documentation of Exp. 358 operations (0619-05), K. Becker
added that it was quite specific on what should be done in with the post operations
analysis. Each major topic should be presented on as part of a detail technical written
report. He also mentioned that David Castillo is normally a TAT member behind the
RTG concept, and Kjell Ovrevik should be allowed an opportunity to review andcomment on the technical report within their specialties, on the potential impact of thedrill string on the formation, the low rate of penetration, and the BHA design and acomparative analysis of similar sections drilled during 348 and 358.
K. Becker first mentioned that expectation management (0619-06) was one of therecommendations authored by C. Neal. It was particularly important for Exp. 358, and it
was also applied the facility board to even form a level for planning all future complicateddrilling operations. Then Becker started to read the recommendation 0619-06. Similar tothe comment C. Neal made before the break, but as an official model for Exp. 358
megathrust or thrust is not appropriate.
C. Neal said that it was the thrust.
K. Becker agreed and still said that it does not define as a total failure because there werelots of important lessons to learn to make success future riser operation.
K. Becker said that Exp. 358 outside review (0619-07) is not a new suggestion from TAT,
but it was already in the plan and TAT suggested how it should be run. K. Becker shared
John Thorogood’s advice on dealing with outside review contractors:•••

Do not send outside contractors any early interpretation from MarE3,
Do send contractors the drilling plans, daily drilling instructions, daily drilling
reports, RTG daily reports, and all other relevant reports and data (including
raw data),
Ask them to review and report independently.

K. Becker lastly mentioned that the TAT action items, which are to revise the TAT termsof reference with MarE3 to reflect an expanded scope in advising on all MarE3 operations.
The revised terms will define two tiers of members of core group of permanent members

25and additional potential participants on as-needed basis depending on agendas of
specific TAT meetings.
External core members are introduced, K. Becker as chair, Toshi Uemura, C. Neal, J.
Thorogood, and David Castillo.
TAT acknowledged that the external constraints for 358 were extreme, and the scenario
lay beyond pre-drill risk assessment and mitigation measures. TAT recommends thateach major topic addressed be tackled with their own specific written report. D. Castillo
and Kjell Ovrevik should be allowed to review and comment on their specialties.
Expectation management should be applied to establish a minimum level of success, andavoid “all or nothing” approaches.
TAT recommends that a truly external and independent review of the operations, andsuggests that an experienced outside contractor recommended during the TAT review.
K. Becker ended with discussing the revision plans for the TAT, to expand and refine theirreview and coverage of MarE3 vessels. Finished, K. Becker asked for questions.
J. Allen asked if the TAT considered if some decision-making tree was a result of thebudget situation?
K. Becker said that TAT understood that this was a factor, but more was based on“megathrust or bust” approach, when a clearer and cooler evaluation may havesuggested different action.
Kiyoshi Suyehiro asked if the TAT only met for 2 days, since the outcomes are so well
written.
K. Becker said the meeting started and ended with an executive session, which reallyhelped clear the air.
C. Tatsumi acknowledged the end of the discussion and asked Gilbert Camoin to pleasego ahead with his presentations.
(continued) 7. Other FB, IODP Forum, and Agency Activities
7d. ECORD(Gilbert Camoin)*(16:29 h)*The order of these 3 agenda items (d. ECORD and e. ECORD Facility Board, and PROCEED) changed
from the original agenda due to the availability of the various presenters. These 3 sessions had been carriedout via ZOOM.

Gilbert Camoin connected by ZOOM to present the ECORD & PROCEED reports. He
summarized the current ECORD membership and MoU process for the EU nations &26

Canada. There are discussions with Greece, Belgium, Israel, and Poland. Gilbert updated
the membership of the various ECORD chairs and committee memberships.
ECORD support for JR remains at 7 M USD, but there will be 7 ECORD scientists, not 8
aboard each JR leg. Education officers, CCs, and outreach counted against berths.
For Chikyu, funding remains the same (1 M USD), and in contrast to JR, the CC, outreachand Ed officers do NOT count against berths.
G. Camoin listed the national contributions by the ECORD members, and the budget
breakdown, w/95% covering IODP expeditions. He also looked at future budgets andplanning until 2023. The plan is to commit to one expedition per year until the end of thecurrent IODP phase.
G. Camoin listed all upcoming ECORD & IODP meetings to 2020. He added thatpublications from ECORD, especially the annual report, were discussed. Everything isavailable online. ECORD has cofunded a special volume of Oceanography.
7c. ECORD Facility Board(16:42 h.)(Gilbert Camoin)*

Gilbert Camoin continued with the EFB report, presenting an outline of possible 2023 shipschedule. Only 2022 would have no expedition.
The Hawaiian drowned reefs expedition was rescheduled, and G. Camoin discussed thedetails of the discussion to work around the issue and get the expedition reinstated.
G. Camoin discussed the joint ECORD/MarE3 expedition to use Kaimei and Chikyu forpaleoseismicity off the Japan trench.
G. Camoin discussed ERB consensus items in some details. Arctic paleooceanography
is a key project, and ECORD is discussing how to revive this project if possible. The
current schedule has options for expeditions up to the end of the current IODP phase.
C. Neal asked about the costs of the Arctic expedition, and that they seem to be very
high; are costs or in-kind contributions being sought out to counter this?
G. Camoin was happy C. Neal asked, and said that they are looking to see if the current
onboard supporters are ready to assist. At the moment, none of these have been secured,
and we are negotiating with these entities to prepare this.
C. Neal asked if the Hawaiian reefs has been canceled or postponed.
G. Camoin said at the moment, it’s best to have this as postponed, with the earliest
possible time window in 2020.

27

C. Tatsumi. Wanted to confirm that Kaimei would be for GPC and Chikyu for the labs.
G. Camoin just confirmed that ESO/MarE3 discussion are working well, and everyone islooking forward to this expedition taking place.
N. Eguchi asked Gilbert Camoin to present on the PROCEED meeting now.
13b. PROCEED(16:57 h.)(Gilbert Camoin)*

Gilbert Camoin presented the results of the PROCEED meeting in Vienna Austria, justbefore EGU. He presented the organizing committee and the science committee. Therewas great balance in career level and gender balance. The key outcome would be todefine the new post 2023 science plan. There was an online survey sent out before themeeting.
There were about 140 people present, almost half in early-to-mid career. Gender balance
was not as good.
Breakout sessions were held and the results reported back to the general meeting.
There were some technologies used to help the meeting, pigeonhole helped focus
questions and interest in topics for the discussion. Gilbert presented the agenda andstructure of the meeting. Some of the outcomes were mentioned, particularly the need for
new big ideas for the science plans.
The structure of the science plan needs changes, especially to allow more integration andthinking outside the box. There was a feeling that exciting ideas are needed. Greatercollaboration with ICDP on ADPs was seen as required. The MSP platform model wasseen as required for the future of IODP. ECORD at the same time should find ways tolevel greater funding.
Attendees confirmed that ECORD is healthy and must continue to participate as a fullpartner with own facility.
The PROCEED report will be written over summer 2019 and presented to IODP Forum.
This will feed into the new science plan writing, by 2021, for an ECORD white paper,
G. Camoin reviewed the process for past science plans, and talked about the various
meetings that were held in support of those efforts. Thank you.
C. Tatsumi thanks for the report, and tomorrow we’ll hear from JDESC and ANZIC.
N. Eguchi. The reception starts in one hour.

28

C. Tatsumi. We’ll start with a discussion tomorrow morning on NanTroSEIZE.
The meeting was adjourned for the day.
Day-2

Wednesday, 12 June 2019

The Chair began the meeting and asked everyone to discuss NanTroSEIZE future plan
before the first agenda item #12 for Day 2.
New Item: NanTroSEIZE Future Plan
(09:15 h.)(Chair - Tatsumi)

This part was not clearly included in the original agenda, but discussed first.

C. Tatsumi discussed the letter sent to the CIB regarding the end of the NanTroSEIZE
project. He asked Taira-san to discuss his views on the entire project and final disposition.
Taira-san read the letter and began a discussion on the subject. As part of a large-scaledisaster mitigation project, including on-land facilities and observatories. As a core partof this effort to define the seismogenic zone and mega-earthquake nucleation. As part ofthe societal effort to mitigate the effects of large earthquake, we feel that this should beattempted to completion. Discussion with local and national governments, as well as
funding agencies, encourage us to keep this project.
K. Becker noted that as TAT chair, the external review would have 2 stages, the external
review would have an outside group to design a proper casing plan to completion, andstart a new hole. This will be expensive, what are the prospects for funding?
C. Tatsumi. The financial issue remains, and we need to confirm with JAMSTEC.
Ryo Anma felt that this sounds like a national project, not so much like IODP; should thisbe done within the IODP framework?
Asahiko Taira felt that whether this is done by IODP or the government, this is a large
NASA-type project, but we need the cooperation of IODP.
C. Neal saw that there are several IODP proposals at CIB. What will happen to them if
we go to finish NanTroSEIZE? What is the prospect for them to be drilled? Would they bedeactivated?
C. Tatsumi. We will discuss this in detail this afternoon. But that is an extremely important
point.
J. Allen said the scientific foundation for NanTroSEIZE is entwined within the IODP
Science Plan.

29

D. Goldberg commented that the CIB key question here is if this is a relevant program or
one that should be within IODP.
A. Taira said there have been new technological developments, but the base scientificquestion remains.
H. Kitazato said that NanTroSEIZE is a very important national program, and as Tairasan noted, the Japanese public understand the importance of this project. On the other
hand, working with Mie Pref. citizens, I’ve found that they don’t have a great amount ofinterest in this program. We need better outreach. Space missions have a great deal ofinterest, and we need to be able to capture this. What is the outreach plan?
A. Taira noted that publicity is important, but the main purpose is to save lives of thoseliving in the Nankai region. We have been working with schools, providing the data to the
local government, and there are also efforts to educate the people by the national
government. And this takes time.
D. Kroon. Added that this isn’t just for local people, this is for everyone. JAMSTEC are
the only ones who can do this and the eyes of the global science community are on us.
B. Ildefonse made several points. Comparing this to the space program is good, 62 M
USD is not much money, and we need to communicate this to the public. In thisperspective, this is cheap, and it needs to be clearly conveyed. As for NanTroSEIZE,
we’ve seen that some projects are being held for later completion by the JR. We don’t
need to revisit the science, we need to revisit the completion and strategy. Maybe aworkshop is the best way to work on this for the future.
C. Tatsumi. Reminded all that Keir also pointed to the costs involved. He wanted to hearfrom Kuramoto-san about funding this into the future.
S. Kuramoto. said that a mix of MEXT and commercial work, about 55 M USD for
operation, plus another 55 M USD for supporting fixed costs. For future mantle drilling,
we need money from the government. This FY, we have no carry-over funds. Any money
we get will need to be saved, combined with commercial work, maybe in 2 years we candrill this. As a national project, as Taira-san said, we should look to other agencies ofindustries to support this.
C. Tatsumi. Understood that these general comments underline that JAMSTEC will work
to secure these funds.
B. Ildefonse wondered how far can industry people get interested to the point that they
will financially support IODP, not merely NanTroSEIZE? We are ahead of industry interms of hard rock drilling, etc. Is there room for greater industry involvement?
S. Kuramoto answered that this is not a hydrocarbon reservoir zone, but we havedeveloped technology, like borehole observatories, that had greater interest.

30

C. Tatsumi. Understood, but wondered if we can keep this as a CIB proposal?
B. Ildefonse suggested that the reverse is true, why wouldn’t this be kept?
David. saw no reason to not keep it at CIB, but there should be some rationale, and CIB
consensus. There might be something related to the TAT outcomes.
C. Neal noted that this was a very complex project, and didn’t reach its’ target, but thishas greater applications to other projects, like mantle drilling. Therefore, these don’t move
forward in isolation.
C. Tatsumi said this is good and should be discussed later. He moved on to discuss the
proposals at CIB. Since he had a COI, he asked Keir to chair this discussion.
K. Becker agreed, but wanted to have guidance on expected outcomes. The previous
note said that Chikyu will NOT drill any riser proposals. Do we keep any of these? Isuggest we look at this.
C. Tatsumi. If we keep NanTroSEIZE, it will be difficult to drill any other riser operations,and asked Taira-san for clarifications. Taira agreed, that within the next 7 years, thiswould be difficult.
K. Becker noted that we also heard from Watanabe-san that the Japanese government
is marching on to mantle drilling. Taira said that any funds we get should be used for
mantle drilling. CPPs of course are always welcome.
C. Tatsumi noted that with the current funds, drilling 2 riser projects in the next 7 yrs isvery difficult. He said he can’t see any way to conduct 3 riser projects. At the last CIB, hereminded us that all the PIs were asked to revise their proposals, including himself, andthey did. He felt that a message needs to be shared with the PIs.
A. Taira said that the situation at the last meeting was focused on successfully completely
achieving the scientific targets. We haven’t done that.
B. Ildefonse reminded everyone that the situation now is different from last year. If there
is mantle drilling in included, he will be in COI.
R. Anma. It would be nice if we could see a clear exit, to know where we stop. We should
list some limits and conditions.
C. Tatsumi. said that riser drilling is very difficult.
Clive. If you hold these projects, you’re sending a message that no new riser proposals
are being accepted. We should say so directly.

31

N. Eguchi . we should let the proponents know what’s coming, drafted by the CIB.
C. Tatsumi. moved to the next discussion, and how to handle these riser projects. We
need to define our vision for the next stage.
K. Becker. just had one other questions, asking about ranking or identification. How
should we do so. When the PRL were solicited, should we rank the projects, and see
which gets priority as the next possible riser project.
David. G thought that we need to be clear and fair to the proponents, and that ranking isgood, but we don’t need to go to deactivation.
K. Becker asked if a fair option would be to keep all of these?
The Chair concluded to prepare consensus.
CIB_Consensus_0619-04: NanTroSEIZE.
The CIB reaffirms the importance of the scientific objectives and goals of IODP
Proposal 603C and recognizes the exceptional efforts by CDEX and the Chikyu
scientific and technical party to achieve them at Site C0002 during Expedition
358. The ongoing reviews of Expedition 358 operations will be critical tounderstanding the deep riser drilling operations at Site C0002 and the lessons
learned for planning deep riser drilling at any future sites. The CIB will therefore
ask the proponents of Proposal 603C and the PCT/MarE3 to update an
operational plan for consideration of future deep riser drilling at NanTroSEIZE,
based on Expedition 358 experiences and the pending reviews.
CIB_Consensus_0619-05: Three riser proposals.
CIB thanks the proponents of 537B-Full4 (CRISP), 698-Full3 (IBM), and 781BFull (Hikurangi) for being so responsive to our 2018 request for updates to theirriser drilling proposals. At our 2019 meeting, it became clear that the financial
constraints in the new JAMSTEC 7-year plan and renewed commitment to
NanTroSEIZE deep riser objectives mean it is unrealistic at this time to selectanother riser drilling program for the near-term future unless it is a CPP.
Therefore, CIB will hold these proposal updates for potential consideration at
future meetings if appropriate circumstances develop.
We also note that proposals 537B and 781B will likely involve similar technicalchallenges as completing NanTroSEIZE deep riser objectives. Therefore, theexperience gained in analyzing and addressing those challenges in renewed
NanTroSEIZE riser operations should be quite beneficial for potential future riser
drilling at CRISP or Hikurangi.
32

12. Chikyu Proposals (update)a.

Potential Chikyu Proposals at CIB and SEP (Chair-Tatsumi)(09:46 h.)

The Chair moved on to the next item, Chikyu proposal update. However, The Chair has
COI for this discussion, so K. Becker was asked to handle this discussion. Becker said
he previously agreed on this but he would like to get some clarification of expecting
outcome. In the letter there are 2 paragraphs which said “Chikyu cannot do any moreriser programs”. So, his question is “what is the context to and to what degree are we tomeet these PRLs?” They are not going to happen. It’s a better discussion what’s themessage we need to send the community, among all adviser of proposals. That is kind ofgetting into the purpose of agenda 14.
C. Tatsumi said if we keep NanTroSEIZE project in this CIB, and if we decide to go aheadon this project that means, considering the financial situation at the present stage of
JAMSTEC, it is very difficult to conduct another riser proposal.
A Taira commented that in next 7 year’s mid-term plan started from this April; if we do
NanTroSEIZE as a major riser operation, the budgetary situation will not allow us tosecond proposal.
K. Becker confirmed that Watanabe-san indicated that Japanese government is marchingon mantle drilling. So that if that is going to be in front in next 7 years, no other riser
program can be considered? The Chair said he understands so.
A Taira added that laying aside the mantle, NanTroSEIZE may be different. NanTroSEIZE
is really society relevant important issue for Japanese people. If any kind of commercial
fund raising is successful, JAMSTEC might use this additional money for mantle drilling
preparation. If we do drill in the seismogenic zone, it has to be dedicated to NanTroSEIZE,
since this is funded by government. Mantle CPP would be fine.
C. Tatsumi agreed that in the present situation it is very hard for JAMSTEC to conduct 2
riser projects within the next 7 years. We do need to think about the next phase and what
we have to recommend to JAMSTEC. It is almost impossible to do the 3 riser proposals,
CRISP, IBM and Hikurangi, in addition to the NanTroSEIZE project. At the last CIB
meeting the situation was different, and we asked the 3 riser proponents for addendum
or some updates. If we decide not to conduct these 3 riser proposals as IODP projects,
we have to notify the proponents.
C. Neal said if the proponents of these 3 proposals at CIB are told that they cannot drill,
you are telling the community to not submit any riser proposals for Chikyu. C. Tatsumi
agreed and said we should be clear about this, but also say we can accept CPP. B.
33

Ildefonse said that this was the consensus a couple years ago. N. Eguchi commented
that we did but we changed the wording a couple years ago. K. Becker pointed out that
this was only for new proposals. C. Tatsumi said we should not accept new riser projects.
Dave Goldberg commented he is fine with the discussion of keeping NanTroSEIZE in the
CIB, along with these 3 other proposals. D. Goldberg added that we don’t know theoutcome of TAT review, if it is going to be feasible to achieve the riser target. D.
Goldberg’s view is that we need to be fair and clear to proponents. He doesn’t see theranking or deactivation as being fair for proponents; these should be held to see how
things develop.
K. Becker asked if we needed to go through each PRL one by one; or should we instead
work on the consensus wording?
B. Ildefonse said we should keep them in case magic happens with money, that it has
been a long time with these proposals, we need to communicate with the PIs. Let themknow that it’s unlikely that any of these get drilled.
Jamie Allen noted that there was a proposal to examine human origins in Gulf of Aden,but because of safety issues, it was deactivated. J. Allen we should be clear with theproponents. Brad Clement noted that the Gulf of Aden is still at JRFB.
K. Becker said that we can make consensus that the financial and other realities preclude
any attempt at these projects for the next 7 years. We will not formally deactivate them,but we are just going to say we will not accept any more riser proposals; except CPPs.
David Goldberg agreed and worried about the proponent impact. What if the TAT
recommendations are difficult to achieve, or beyond JAMSTEC’s abilities. If no
NanTroSEIZE happens, would we drill another riser program? Should we have these in
the wings?
A Taira said that NanTroSEIZE will be implemented, so there is no need to imagine
needing other standby riser proposals, or to imagine nothing will be drilled.
Leanne Armand said this won’t help with her attempts to write up her renewal.
K. Becker agreed, but there is no other way to look at it.
Dirk Kroon began to worry about the lack of riser drilling in the new science plan.
Ryo Anma said that CRISP after 7 years would be 20 yrs old; implementing a 20 yr old
project might not be the best idea. R. Anma suggested in this case, offering the
proponents a workshop for them to update and revise their proposals?
N. Eguchi had Lisa McNeill add her opinion via online connection. As a Hikurangi coproponent she has some COI, but had some ideas. L. McNeill felt that deactivation would
34

send a negative message to the greater community; therefore, she agreed on keeping
them. L. McNeill also agreed with D. Kroon on the worrisome lack of riser drilling during
the new science plan.
Brad Clement looked to find a positive side to this. Both Hikurangi and CRISP probably
share some technical engineering issues similar to Nankai in terms of drilling. A goodmessage might be that the engineering needs to be solved here, and the lessons thenwill be applied to those projects.
Tatsuya Watanabe asked if we need to clarify that we will not accept any new riser
proposals, if so, when will we open the door again?
K. Becker agreed, and said we should separate this from the PRL review, since it’s ageneral question the CIB could participate in. With no further comments, K. Becker moved
to have himself assigned to write the consensus.
Coffee Break (10:25-10:45)
13. Scientific Ocean Drilling beyond 2023
13a. J-DESC Workshop(Harue Masuda)*(10:47 h.)*The presenter was changed from Saito to Masuda due to travel schedules.

C. Tatsumi restarted the discussion with Harue Masuda’s J-DESC report. H. Masudapresented the April 2-3 Beyond 2023 scientific drilling workshop results. There were 150
scientists, mostly young and early career scientists, in attendance. H. Masuda shared the
key questions discussed, mainly the relevance of IODP post 2023, the achievements ofthe science plan, and what can be achieved by IODP in the new program. Discussion
was divided into themes, and subdivided into focused talks. Climate and Ocean changes
discussion brought up the challenge of climate change and variability, and the factors
governing those changes. Biosphere Frontiers looked at big science, but also the needof bringing non-IODP people into the program. Microbio is a large part of this. Earth
Connections focused on the mantle, and promoting links with ICDP. LIPs,
serpentinization, subduction initiation, etc., were also challenges identified. Earth in
Motion looked at submarine landslides, slow-slip earthquakes, and monitoring withborehole observatories were seen as areas needing focus. H. Masuda said after
discussion, the themes of Earth in Motion and Earth Connections were combined into
one, “Solid Earth”. Discussion also looked at commonalities and influences & interactions
among and between these themes. H. Masuda discussed the crosslinks between these
themes, and the new focus these collaborations would have on developing a new scienceplan.
The combination of “Solid Earth” and “Climate/Ocean”: “deep carbon sequestration”, andthe carbon cycle are the keys to study interactions between solid earth and climate/ocean.

35For “Solid Earth” and “Biosphere Frontiers” the important constraints for life are energy,
fluid, and temperature. When we search the life in the deep earth, the key constraints
these kinds of physical factors.
H. Masuda said that people were invited to attend the workshop who were not directly
connected with IODP. One purpose was to learn about the technology, sample and data
treatment, and sampling methods from non-IODP programs. H. Masuda added that theJapanese science community expects Chikyu to lead these efforts and also start working
on drilling the MOHO.
H. Masuda shared the schedule of the white paper being prepared for the IODP Forumin September.
Leanne Armand asked if a white paper would be prepared – H. Masuda replied there was
no immediate plan, but probably would.
Dirk Kroon commented on the Mohole drilling in the J-DESC workshop thinking, and was
happy to see it. He was also interested in the statement that “pressure is not important,compared with temperature” for life. Where is this hypothesis from? H. Masuda said that
this was asked in the workshop, and it seems to be consensus among biologists.
Hiroshi Kitazato mentioned that the IODP-ICDP collaboration discussed may be looking
at different times. there may be a gap in between these 2 areas of investigation. He
brought up the ANZIC proposal discussed yesterday as an example of looking at theintermediate time frame, and asked if there was any such discussion at the workshop.
H. Masuda said the ICDP Oman project collaboration is an example of this, and expects
the collaboration to deepen in the future with other proposals, such as IBM.
H. Kitazato said the focus for these proposals & projects was on hard rock, but H. Masuda
said there was a strong life component, looking at young sediments as well.
H. Masuda was happy to see that the organizers of the workshop, and the task groupscientists were young, mid 30s to 40s, and that they will be the ones to run these projects
in the future.
C. Tatsumi thanked H. Masuda and moved to the next presentation.
13c. ANZIC Ocean Planet Workshop (Leanne Armand)(11:13 h.)Leanne Armand gave a quick update on ANZIC and also presented the ANZIC workshop
report. ANZIC includes 16 universities and four publicly funded research agencies in both
Australia and New Zealand. They are funded by Australian government and external fundthrough the Australian research council up until 2020.

36

The Ocean Planet Workshop was a 3-day event focusing on the existing four scienceobjectives in the current Science Plan and set up one more theme called “Ocean Healththrough Time”. There were 75 participants from Australia, NZ, Japan, and the US. There
were 5 research themes, examining the links between and among the themes. Attendees
included 45 early-career researcher (ECR) and mid-career researcher (MCR), whobrought fresh ideas to the table during the activity titled “early-mid career researcher day”
on Day 1. The attendees are now summarizing the discussions for a final report. Someof these were of particular interest to ANZIC. One focus is on “geohealth” which issomething that is becoming more relevant to ANZIC. Technology, including DNA
research, protocols, sea bed surveys, and ROV/AUV use, was a major focus of themeeting, like the J-DESC meeting. L. Armand presented the meeting timeline for the white
paper and follow-up meetings. Getting early & mid-career scientists involved is a primarygoal. Societal relevance is important for all the science themes.
C. Tatsumi asked if there were any questions, then moved on to the NEXT report from
Clive Neal.
13d. NEXT (Clive Neal)(11:26 h.)
Clive Neal gave a brief summary of a very intense 2-day workshop called the “NEXTmeeting: Scientific Ocean Drilling Beyond 2023”, which was held on 6–7 May 2019 in
Denver, Colorado. The main target is to get a program in place for the next 20 years,
maintaining a modernized international program and riserless platform. A survey andreading assignment before the meeting prepared the participants for the discussion. Clive
Neal described the meeting structure, which emphasized early & mid-career scientist
input. Senior level scientists w/PhD earned before 2000 comprised 61% of attendees.
NASA and ICDP members were also present, and used the Pigeonhole meeting commentand voting system. There were 5 breakout sessions with one day used by the steeringcommittee to digest the WS results.
Polling results showed extreme interest (93.8%) in a riserless JR-type vessel, following a
global research track at least once a decade (91.3%). A new Science Plan, highlighting
connections between key themes, is needed (96.8%), with a preference for 3 themes(72.9%).
A single structure came out, with connections, threads, and pathways, but no themes.
Proposed a new science plan title & mission statement. C. Neal presented the final
product in his slide showing the proposed new science plan structure, and finishedshowing the proposed 8 strategic objectives.
C. Tatsumi asked for questions.
Benoit Ildefonse mentioned how similar the PROCEED and NEXT discussions andoutcomes were to each other. They both saw the need to merge themes into a37

geodynamics zone, and he’s reassured that the community seems to be thinking thesame things.
C. Neal also said there was a need for a “fourth platform”: data management for big datasynthesis. This was discussed and is in the early stages. there seems to be a need forbringing the disparate databases together in some fashion. There could be a need toinclude ICDP data as well.
C. Tatsumi. Break until 1300 for lunch, and the group took a photo of the attendees.
LUNCH
14. Long Term Strategy for Future Chikyu Implementation(13:00 h.)(All)

C. Tatsumi restarted the meeting by discussing the morning’s talk about NanTroSEIZE
and the 3 PRLs at CIB; he then asked Shin’ichi Kuramoto to explain the Chikyu LongTerm schedule.
S. Kuramoto started with the draft schedule of Chikyu. In mid-July, the 358 coredescription party will be held aboard in Shimizu. There is hope to implement a SCORE
proposal this summer. Early next year will have a 15-yr maintenance inspection in
shipyard, lasting until September. From then in 2020, a window for either IODP CPP or
riserless drilling, or commercial work will run from then until the end of 2021;
supplementary MEXT budget covers the maintenance, but only CPP or riserless
operations can be considered. There is hope that GA will have approval to move ahead
with LHR from early 2022 into September of that year. 2022 will also have a 5-yr
mandatory inspection. S. Kuramoto expressed his hope that a new attempt for Nankai will
begin from January – June 2023, although there are no concrete plans. An
IODP/Commercial window runs until the end of 2024. Hopefully, a commercial contract
will help save money for IODP work. 2025 will have more mandated maintenance, until
Sept 2025. This is also the end of the JAMSTEC mid-term plan, so any money in the
Chikyu account will need to be spent or returned to the Japanese government.
If there is a problem getting enough money saved, the Nankai 2 window could run thefollowing year, in 2024. A scientific ocean drilling promotion office has been established
in JAMSTEC to support Chikyu scientific drilling. S. Kuramoto showed an outline of thisorganization and showed other JAMSTEC research groups and their research focii.
Keir Becker first asked about the possibility of any SIP projects for support; and thenasked what riserless proposal might make the second green window on the long-termschedule, would begin to request riserless proposals starting from when exactly.
S. Kuramoto mentioned that the JTRACK program might make the best fit in the green
window.
38

Clive Neal noted that the South China Sea riserless proposal and the Okinawa APL could
be transferred to Chikyu.
S. Kuramoto wasn’t very familiar with these proposals, but believed they could be looked
into.
Kiyoshi Suyehiro said that while watching S. Kuramoto’s presentation, he decided to
speak up and talk about the new Mantle Drilling promotion office. When A. Taira delivered
the news that Chikyu would be built, there was a stunned silence. This showed that the
Mohole dream was not dead. We need to try and go for riser-targeted objectives, but weneed the team.
C. Tatsumi agreed, but reminded everyone that a lot of money is needed for the riser
mantle drilling program, so what are the prospects of doing this? K. Suyehiro noted that
according to the Sloan Foundation estimate, this is a 500M USD effort, and the new groupis determined to search out new sources of income/revenue.
Dirk Kroon said this needs to be considered within the new science plan; we’ve had agood15 yr run with the current model. We need to know if there is a chance that this gets
into the plan, since it will be needed to get the new program launched.
Clive Neal reminded everyone that the NEXT meeting talked about projects lasting longer
than 15 years.
Kiyoshi Suyehiro said the NSF had asked IODP-MI if mantle drilling was implementable,
which is why the Sloan Foundation made their project estimate.
D. Kroon said the Sloan estimate is good to show that this is a feasible project; and there
is a platform available – the main issue is money.
David Goldberg asked if there were any implementation challenges. If there was a chanceof getting a good commercial contract in 2021, how could this affect the overall schedule?
S. Kuramoto replied that the exact amount of a commercial contract is unclear at this time;
JAMSTEC’s feeling is to use these funds towards a NanTroSEIZE expedition, so otherriser proposals might not make the selection. There may be a better chance for riserless
proposals, however.
Michiko Yamamoto asked about the riser proposals at SEP, would the CIB want to senda message to SEP? She added that the Umino M2M proposal could be forwarded to the
CIB if desired.
Clive Neal said that mantle drilling is part of the current plan.

39

C. Tatsumi said that the riser proposals now in the system should be maintained, andthere should be no change.
Jamie Allen suggested that the proponents be told that there is no funding now to
implement these other riser proposals; we should be honest with the proponents, and letthem know about the realities of funding a riser expedition.
Benoit Ildefonse left as he is a lead PI on M2M.
C. Tatsumi felt that the proposals in the system should not be killed; it’s hard to accept
more, but they are there now, and we should keep them. K. Becker agreed.
C. Neal said that the message might go to the SEP cochairs, and let them set the policy
themselves. If after 5 years and no drilling, deactivate. They could share this update withthe proponents.
D. Kroon agreed with being honest with the proponents. Let them know.
Lisa McNeil agreed that there should be clear and open communication with theproponents.
C. Tatsumi concluded that the CIB should send a message to SEP, explaining thesituation, and let them contact the PIs. He asked about the option for accepting new
proposals, or closing the call for riser proposals; given the unlikelihood of funding a riser
proposal in the next 7 years.
K. Becker recalled that CIB stated the need for 5 years to develop a riser proposal. We
should make a statement of not submitting riser proposals until there is a new scienceplan.
Asahiko Taira said that we should prepare in advance, if we want to drill. Maybe somekind of mantle proposal. We could propose setting up a workshop sometime in 2023-2024
to develop this.
CIB_Consensus_0619-06: Overall Seismogenic zone workshop.
The CIB suggests that JAMSTEC organizes an international workshop, including
the NanTroSEIZE scientists as well as other seismogenic zone proponent
groups, for future seismogenic zone deep riser drilling projects using D/V Chikyu.

C. Tatsumi asked if we should encourage the community to develop an attractive proposal
for mantle drilling?

40

A.Taira said the efforts of proponents in developing riser proposals are needed; it would
be helpful to have something available as preparation for the new science plan.
C. Tatsumi said we will soon have a new science plan. However, if we encourage people
to submit new riser proposals, the timing might not be the best. We should have aworkshop, but there is only one mantle riser proposal in the system.
Kiyoshi Suyehiro mentioned that the proposal work flow is well defined for JR, but not for
Chikyu; proponents need to contact JAMSTEC for details. Otherwise, JAMSTEC could
refine their needs and relay those to the CIB.
Shigemi Naganawa said he had proposed 2 proposals in 2 different categories during the
Chikyu+10 WS. Flagship projects (long term) and Discovery projects (short term). S.
Naganawa recommended having another Flagship project in the new science plan.
David Goldberg thought we were looking at wording for the proponents. Another separate
issue of requesting new initiatives from the new science plan.
C. Tatsumi asked if there were any other comments.
L. McNeill asked about sending a message saying “no new riser proposals for X years”,
what impact would that have on proposal pressure? L. McNeill also understood the idea
behind not encouraging proposals that won’t be drilled.
Jamie Allen felt that one important lesson learned was that we can’t allow anyone topropose any kind of proposal at all. They will need to work very closely with JAMSTEC
on developing any new riser proposals. The PIs should work hard to understand the wholeriser planning pathway and development.
L. McNeill agreed.
Clive Neal reminded everyone that it’s not the new proposals, it’s the ones already therethat are in the system, that need to be addressed. C. Neal felt that not many riser
proposals will be coming in, so maybe there is no need to state “CIB won’t accept any
new riser proposals”?
K. Suyehiro said CIB needs to clearly explain this situation to the community.
C. Tatsumi said this means CIB won’t accept new riser proposals?
C. Neal said we need to send a message to the SEP co-chairs about the drilling realities,
and say nothing else. Let the SEP CCs inform the proponents.
Keir said this doesn’t match his consensus language. He read the memo:
It became clear at this meeting that no new Chikyu riser programs can bescheduled for the current phase of IODP. Therefore, the CIB suggests that the41

next IODP call for proposals include the following wording: “As no new riser
programs can be implemented until the post-2023 phase of scientific ocean drilling,
the CIB recommends that proponents for new riser programs do not submit new
proposals until the new science plan for the post-2023 program.”Everyone agreed and felt that the language is clear and honest; C. Tatsumi concluded
that with no more comments, the CIB will send a consensus note to the SEP-co-Chair.
David Goldberg said that the SEP message should include the fact that there is CPP andriserless activity space available.
Lisa McNeill was concerned that the 2023 science plan might not be the best wait point.
The start of the new science plan might have an impact on the proposal development.
Jamie Allen said that the science plan view point for NSF is that the scheduling of thescience plan will take time to work out, especially regarding the structure and the needsof each program.
C. Tatsumi thinks that one option might be to state “after the new science plan is active”.
Dirk Kroon thought that this means the new program.
Keir Becker revised the statement to read: “…until the publication of the post 2023 scienceplan”.

CIB_Consensus_0619-07: Wording for the Next IODP Call for Proposals.
It became clear at this meeting that no new Chikyu riser projects can bescheduled for the current phase of IODP. Therefore, the CIB suggests that thenext IODP call for proposals include the following wording: “As no new riser
projects (other than CPPs) can be implemented until the post-2023 phase ofscientific ocean drilling, the CIB recommends that proponents for completely new
riser projects do not submit new proposals until the publication of a new scienceplan for the post-2023 program.”

C. Tatsumi moved to cover the Chikyu outreach activities.
15. Chikyu Outreach Activities(14:10 h.)(Nobu Eguchi)

N. Eguchi presented the outreach presentation. N. Eguchi described the media outreachfor IODP Exp 358 before and during the expedition. There was a lot of anticipation for42

success, and JAMSTEC made great efforts to maintain openness and transparency. He
described the publications and media events aboard ship and in public venues and social
media.
N. Eguchi explained the media activity to fulfill JAMSTEC’s responsibility to inform thepublic, local governments, to promote favorable relations with related local governments,
and to international stake holders, raising international awareness of the expedition. N.
Eguchi said the campaign started from July 18, meeting with journalists and media. On
27 September, JAMSTEC held a press conference in Osaka, and had a press release on
the start of IODP Exp. 358. N. Eguchi related that several media briefings and press
releases were held during the operation. In early February, JAMSTEC held a media
briefing and announced that IODP Exp. 358 would not reach the intended plate boundary
fault target. On 1 March, a report was released on the end of operations at the Site C0002
deep riser hole and move to riserless operations in the Nankai region and held a press
conference. In April, we had a media briefing onboard Chikyu to present the results ofExp. 358.
As with other expeditions, JAMSTEC used an official expedition website and used social
media like twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. There were also seminars and a livestream
event at the National Museum of Nature and Science.
N. Eguchi described the renewal of the Chikyu/CDEX website last year, although it needs
to be renewed again because of the merger of MARITEC and CDEX. A book about the“Deep Ocean” was also recently published, highlighting JAMSTEC.
N. Eguchi described the visitors to Chikyu in the port of Shimizu, including politicians andstudents. Exhibition booths were put up at JpGU, AGU, EGU, the Geological Society ofJapan, and others scientific conferences showcasing our activities. JAMSTEC worked
with USSSP to hold a town hall meeting at AGU.
C. Tatsumi asked Clive to talk about IODP policies and guidelines.
16. IODP Policies and Guidelines(14:22 h.)(Clive Neal)

Clive Neal described the recently updated policies and talked about specific issues witheach. For sample and data policy, the end of expedition is different for each platform.
Educators and outreach now need to document their activities for the expedition
bibliography and materials. Post moratorium sample requestors have 3 yrs to perform or
return the samples. They also need to document what have been done with the samples
and sample materials. Direct scientist-to-scientist sample transfer is prohibited unlessdetailed written permission from the curator is received.

43

The maximum moratorium period is also tightly described. COI for CAB members is also
described.
C. Neal talked about the site survey data, and issues with confidentiality policy, and theterm “publicly available”. C. Neal noted that the meaning of this phrase was revised tomatch the original intent. There is still an issue with restricted data sets or files. A minimum
data package needs to be published. If restricted data are use, a minimum data package
will be made available as normal. The site characterization data policy language was
updated as well. The key is to maximize the science returns from these expeditions.
Dirk Kroon asked about “restricted” about industry seismic lines - what if the company
doesn’t want another subset made available?
C. Neal said those data won’t be used.
Jamie said NSF will require any data for their own protection. If these are data for an
expedition that are restricted, then they cannot be used for the expedition, and it will not
be scheduled.
Clive said that this policy will remind proponents of the limitations of these kinds of dataand prevent their use in the SSDB.
CIB_Consensus_0619-08: IODP Policy and Guidelines.
The CIB accepts changes to ”IODP Sample, Data and Obligations Policy and
Implementation” , “Standard IODP Confidentiality Policy”, and “Guidelines for Site
Characterization Data” as explained by the JRFB chair at the meeting.

The Chair called for a coffee break for 30 min at 14:40 hrs.
Coffee Break (14:40-15:10)
17. Review of Consensus Statements and Action Items(15:25 h.)(All)

After the break, the consensus items were reviewed, and were accepted after somerevisions.

44CIB_Consensus_0619-09: Farewell to Yoshiyuki Tatsumi.
Professor Yoshiyuki Tatsumi has been an outstanding Chairman for the Chikyu
IODP Board for the past four years, a critical time in terms of scheduling Chikyu
IODP operations under difficult financial constraints. His patience and sense ofhumor in drawing out relevant details and potential conflicts to guide CIB to
productive over-arching decisions was especially important. We greatly
appreciate his agreement to double his term of service, and we have thoroughly
enjoyed coming to Kobe for CIB meetings once every four years. We don’t wantto say sayonara now, but instead we really hope to see Tatsumi-san remain very
active in IODP and the post-2023 program of scientific ocean drilling.

CIB_Consensus_0619-10: Farewell to Hiroshi Kitazato.
The Chikyu IODP board expresses its sincere thanks to Prof. Hiroshi Kitazato forhis service as a member of the CIB. He has been an active member adding
enthusiasm and perspectives to his scientific expertise as a eukaryotic
microbiologist.
The CIB would like to send its best wishes for his future even-more successfulcareer. We have no doubt that he will stay present in IODP community, guiding
and helping us with his vast knowledge to his expertise and his gentle attitude.

CIB_Consensus_0619-11: Farewell to Benoit Ildefonse.
Benoit Ildefonse will be stepping down as the ECORD member on CIB and wewish to offer our fullest appreciation of his steady and thoughtful contributions to
Chikyu programs over this time. Benoit has been an active scientist in IODP
and continental drilling programs for many years and there is little doubt that hewill remain close to deep crustal drilling as this research progresses over the
next phases of the program. We will greatly miss his joyful participation at board
meetings, but equally look forward to the new and fascinating science the he will
surely propose in the future.

45

CIB_Consensus_0619-12: Farewell to Keir Becker.
The CIB wishes to express its deep gratitude to Keir Becker for his tirelessservice as a US-based board member for the past three years. Keir has been
instrumental in advising on Chikyu activities and providing clear insights from thedeck, from the lab, the conference table, and the beer pub. His vast experience
with IODP and clear view of the most important goals in scientific ocean drilling
will be sorely missed, but we look forward to hearing more from him as the TAT
committee chair in the near future. Thank you, Keir!

18. Next CIB meeting(15:25 h.)(Chair-Tatsumi)

C. Tatsumi after discussion, announced that the next CIB meeting be set for early Marchof 2020. The detailed dates and place will be shared soon; this also depends on theavailability of the next chair.
19. Any Other Business(15:52 h.)(Chair-Tatsumi)

The Chair checked for final comments. Nothing was raised, and the Chair thanked all theattendees, and closed the meeting at 15:53 h.
Meeting adjourned

46