#4 Chikyu IODP Board Meeting
23-24 March, 2016
Kobe, Japan
Agenda book ver.2.0

#4 CIB Meetingg Agendaa Book ver.2.0 reevision su
ummaryA
AgendaItemm

Sub Ittem

A
Actiontaken
nMaterrial

2

1

R
Revision

Meetiing Logistics ver. 2.0

2R
RevisionRoste
er ver. 2.0

3R
Revision

Draft Agenda verr. 1.7

6

R
Revision

Changed Action Item 3 statu
us

8R
Revision

Cover title and BookmarkBna
ame to the agendaa-2

Insertion

ADP implementa
ation proced
dures drafthInsertion

J-DES
SC proposa
al for Chikyu
u-STP

R
Revision

Cover title and BookmarkBna
ame to the agenda

Insertion

Otherr Projectionn Coordinattion Team andarelevan
nt

9
b

conse
ensus itemssb-2’

Insertion

NanT
TroSEIZE Sccience Matrrix

111InsertionCDEX
X TAT Meeting Agendaa112Insertion

JAMS
STEC Budget and Mid--term Plan-1
1

1
15

R
Revision

Cover title and BookmarkBna
ame to the agendaa-2

Insertion

Chikyyu Proposal Flowa-3

Insertion

LHR ScienceS
Woorkshop Summary Rep
port final

a-4

Insertion

Letterr for CIB Me
eetinga-5

Insertion

Updated on Hiku
urangi for CIB Meeting1
16

Insertion

Chikyyu Outreachh and Educa
ation report JPY 2015

1
19

R
Revision

Cover title and BookmarkBna
ame to the agenda

R
Reverse

Safetyy Review Committee
C
U
Update ver. 2.0

Agenda Item 1
Welcome Remarks

Agenda Item 2
Introductions and Logistics
Welcome and meeting logistics
1. Meeting Logistics
2. Attendee RosterChikyu IODP Board #4 Meeting Logistics
23 – 24 March 2016
Kobe, JAPANMEETING DATES & TIMES:
23 March 09:00 ‐ 17:00 CIB Meeting: Takikawa Memorial Hall, Kobe University
18:30 ‐ 20:30 Reception: ANA CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL
24 March 09:00 ‐ 15:45 CIB Meeting: Takikawa Memorial Hall, Kobe University
MEETING LOCATION: Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) will take place at:
Takikawa Memorial Hall, Kobe University
Access: http://www.kobe‐u.ac.jp/en/access/rokko/kansai‐international‐airport.html
SOCIAL EVENT *Details will be released later.
1) Icebreaker: 18:30‐20:30, 22 March: ANA CROWN PLAZA KOBE
Restaurant & Bar LEVEL 36, Hiroba(36th floor of the Hotel)

2) Reception:

http://www.anacrowneplaza‐kobe.jp/en/restaurants/lev36/
Free of charge(Drinks and Snacks ONLY)
18:30‐20:30, 23 March: ANA CROWN PLAZA KOBE
Lavender(9th floor of the Hotel)
http://www.anacrowneplaza‐kobe.jp/en/banquet/space/medium/
Free of charge

CHIKYU TOUR (Optional)
25 March: Shimizu port (Tour for all applicants) detailed information will be provided later* There is a possibility that inclement weather or operation status could cancel the tour.
RECOMMENDED HOTEL AND MAKING LODGING RESERVATIONS(Important Deadline Information):
There is a block of rooms at “ANA CROWNE PLAZA KOBE” at a rate of ¥15,120 per night. Please send
your hotel reservation form via e‐mail to CDEX office, no later than 19 February 2016.
E‐mail: cib‐info@jamstec.go.jp*E‐mail subject should contain the key‐words,”(your name) CIB hotel booking.”
ANA CROWNE PLAZA KOBE
Address: 1‐Chome, Kitano‐cho Chuo‐ku Kobe, 650‐0002 JAPAN
Phone: +81 78 291 1121, Hotel Fax: +81 78 291 1154
Website: http://www.anacrowneplaza‐kobe.jp/en/

Access to & from the venue
Our Staff will escort you from the hotel to the venue by shuttle bus (a ~30 min trip) during themeeting. Please come to the hotel lobby at 8:15.
For those who will stay at another hotel, please send us the name of the hotel andcheck‐in/check‐out dates to the above e‐mail address.

TRAVEL INFORMATION●From Kansai/Osaka/Kobe
airport, see the appendix 1●From Narita/Haneda, seeth appendix
thedi 2 andd3

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

Kansai International Airport(KIX)High Speed Ferry& Monorail

AirportLimousine Bus

approx. 30min
¥1850

②

③

Osaka International Airport
AirportLimousine Bus

Kobe Airport

approx. 65min¥1950(normal traffic situation)
approx. 18min¥330④

approx. 40min¥1050(normal traffic situation)

Sannomiya Station
SubwayTaxi

approx. 2min
¥210
(one stop away)

approx. 10min¥1,000(normal traffic situation)

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

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

Narita Airport (NRT)

Airport Limousine Bus
http://www.limousinebus.co.jp/en/⑥

Narita Express (NEX)

Haneda Airport (HND)
Approx. 90 min; 3,390 Yen

Approx. 105 min; 3,100 Yen

Keikyu Line
Approx. 15 min; 410 Yen

Shinagawa Station
http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/stations/e788.html
Nozomi Shinkansen
Approx. 3 hours; ca. 15,000 Yen(unreserved seat)⑦

Shin-Kobe Station
Approx. 3 min walk

ANA CROWNE PLAZA KOBE
⑤ From Narita Airport: take the Narita Express (NEX) or Limousine bus to Shinagawa station.
At Shinagawa Station, follow the signs to the JR bullet train (Shinkansen) gate and buy "Nozomi”
tickets for Shin‐Kobe station (reserved seats cost additional 6,010 Yen).

⑥ FromF
H
Hanedad Airport:
Ait taket k theth Keikyu
K ik LineLi tot Shinagawa
Shi
St
Station.
ti
At Shinagawa
Shi
St
Stationti taket k
the Shinkansen and get off at Shin‐Kobe station.

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

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

Narita Airport(NRT)

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

approx 90min
approx.

Haneda Airport(HND)
approx. 100min
approx 70min
approx.
approx. 75minapprox. 85min

Osaka Airport
Kansai International Airport(KIX)

Go to Appendix1 ①

Kobe Airport

Go toAppendix1 ③
Go to
Appendix ②

ANA CROWNE PLAZA KOBE

1-Chome, Kitano-cho Chuo-ku Kobe, 650-0002 JAPANHotel Front Desk: +81 78 291 1121
Hotel Fax: +81 78 291 1154

Directions by train

Please take the bridge connecting the Shin-Kobe Station (JR Shinkansen, Kobe-city subway) to the hotel.
We are one station away from JR Sannomiya station(Hanshin, Hankyu, JR, Port Liner), by the Kobe-city subway.

Approximately 70 minutes from Kansai International Airport to Sannomiya.
Approximately 18 minutes from Kobe Airport to Sannomiya.

Access from Shinkobe Shinkansen (bullet train) Station
From the ticket area, walk straight to the end of the concourse and cross the connecting bridge on the left.

7#4 Chikyu IODP Board Meeting Roster
Name
Members
Ben
GilbertHodakaShin'ichi
Casey
Jim
Eisho
Yoshiyuki
Heinrich

Institution
A van der Pluijm
CamoinKawahata
Kuramoto
Moore
Mori
Sato
TatsumiVillinger

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor, USA
ECORD Managing Agency (EMA), CEREGE, France
The University of Tokyo, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
University of California, Santa Cruz, USA
Kyoto University, Japan
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), JapanCIB Chair - Kobe University, Japan
University of Bremen, Germany

Liaisons
James
Keir
Brad
Holly
TsuyoshiAnthonyDavid

AustinBeckerClement
Given
Ishikawa
Koppers
Mallinson

IODP Forum chair - University of Texas, Austin, USA
TAT chair - University of Miami, USA
JR Science Operator (JRSO), USA
IODP Science Support Office - Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA
Kochi Core Center (KCC) - JAMSTEC, Japan
JR Facility Board Chair - Oregon State University, USA
SEP Co-chair - East Carolina University, USA

Observers
Naokazu
Ryo
WataruKazumaYumi
Nobuhisa
LallanNadineAndrew
Satoshi
Hitoshi
Fumio
ThomasGaku
Masanori
ShigemiEigo
Masafumi
ShigemiTaisei
Hiroshi
Mika
Ryoko
Ikuo
Kiyoshi
Sean
Shouting
Kazuyasu
Nan
Yasuhiro
Michiko
Ayumi

Ahagon
Anma
Azuma
Doi
EbashiEguchi
Gupta
Hallmann
Heap
HiranoHotta
Inagaki
Janecek
KimuraKyo
MatsudaMiyazaki
Murayama
Naganawa
Nakamura
Nishi
Saido
Sato
SawadaSuyehiro
Toczko
Tuo
Wada
Xiao
YamadaYamamoto
Yoshimatsu

Kochi Core Center (KCC) - JAMSTEC, Japan
JRFB, Tsukuba University, Japan
JAMSTEC, Japan
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Kochi Core Center (KCC) - JAMSTEC, JapanECORD Managing Agency (EMA), CEREGE, France
Geoscience Australia, Australia
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
JAMSTEC, JapanECORD FB, Kochi Core Center (KCC) - JAMSTEC, Japan
National Science Foundation, USA
Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J-DESC) - The University of Tokyo, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Kochi University, JapanThe University of Tokyo, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J-DESC) - Tohoku University, Japan
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Laboratory of Ocean-Earth Life Evolution Research, JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
IODP-China Office, Tongji University, China
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Kochi Core Center (KCC) - JAMSTEC, Japan
Research and Development Center for Ocean Drilling Science (ODS), JAMSTEC, Japan
IODP Science Support Office - Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan

Agenda Item 3
Approval of Agenda

Chikyu IODP Board #4 meeting
23 – 24 March 2016
Kobe University Takikawa Memorial Hall
Draft Agenda ver. 1.7
Day-1

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

0900-0905

1. Welcome Remarks(Hotta)0905-0915

2. Introductions and Logistics(Kuramoto/Matsuda)

0915-0920

3. Approval of Agenda(Tatsumi)

0920-0930

4. Approval of Last Meeting Minutes(Tatsumi)

0930-0940

5. CIB Decisions since Last Meeting(Tatsumi)

0940-0950

6. CIB Action Item Status(Tatsumi)

Coffee Break
1030-1100

7. Chikyu 5-year inspection and refurbishment report

1100-1230

8. Other FB, IODP Forum, and Agency Activities
a. IODP Forumb. JR Facility Board
c. ECORD Facility Board
d. ECORD
e. MEXT
f. NSFg. ANZIC
h. PMOs(CDEX)(Austin)(Kopper)(Camoin)(Camoin)(Sato)(Janecek)(Heap)(as needed)

LUNCH

1330-1400

9. Chikyu Operation/status Update(CDEX)

a. IODP Exp. 365 updateb. PCT report
1. Nankai Trough T-Limits PCT report
2. NanTroSEIZE PCT report

1400-1445

10. JR Advisory Panels Report/Proposal Overview
a. Science Support Officeb. Science Evaluation Panel(Given)(Mallinson)

Coffee Break
1515-1545

11. TAT Report(Becker)

1545-1615

12. JAMSTEC Budget and Mid-term Plan -1(Kuramoto)

1615-1700 13. Exploring the deep-biosphere frontiers through scientificocean drilling(Inagaki)
1830-

Reception1Day-20900-1000

Thursday, 24 March 2016
14. JAMSTEC Budget and Mid-term Plan -2(Kuramoto)

Coffee Break
1030-1200

15. Chikyu Proposals (update and discussion)(Tatsumi)a. Potential Chikyu Proposals at CIB and SEP
b. Recommendation for Future Chikyu IODP Window
c. Feed-back to Chikyu Proposal Proponents
d. Bend-Fault Serpentinization (Proposal 876) Workshop

LUNCH

1300-1330

16. Chikyu Outreach Activities(Eguchi)

1330-1350

17. KCC Report(Ishikawa)

1350-1410

18. Access and Benefit-sharing (ABS) update(Xiao)

1410-1430

19. Safety Review Committee Update(Naganawa/Matsuda)

Coffee Break
1500-1515

20. Review of Consensus Statements and Action Items

1515-1530

21. Next CIB meeting

1530-1545

22. Any Other Business
Adjourn meeting2

Agenda Item 4
Approval of Last Meeting Minutes
1. List of Participants
2. List of Consensus Items
3. Last CIB Meeting Minutes

#3 Chikyu IODP Board Meeting
30 - 31 March, 2015

List of Participants
Name
Members
GilbertHodakaGaku
YuzuruShin'ichi
Casey
KennethHeinrich
Yoshiyuki

CamoinKawahata
KimuraKimuraKuramoto
Moore
NealsonVillinger
Tatsumi *European Managing Agency (EMA), CEREGE, France
The University of Tokyo, JapanCIB Chair - The University of Tokyo, Japan
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
University of California, Santa Cruz, USA
University of Southern California, USA
University of Bremen, Germany
Kobe University, Japan

Liaisons
Keir
Brad
Robert
Holly
Karsten
Susan
Barry
Masa
Dick
David
Takeshi

BeckerClements *Gatliff *
Given
Gohl
Humphris
Katz *
Kinoshita
Kroon *
Malinson
Tsuji

IODP Forum chair - University of Miami, USA
US Implementing Organization (USIO) - Consortium for Ocean Leadership, USA
European Science Operator (ESO), British Geological Survey, UK
IODP Science Support Office Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA
ECORD Facility Board Chair - Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany
JR Facility Board Chair - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA
EPSP Chair - Chevron Corporation, Houston, TX, USA
Kochi Core Center (KCC), JapanSEP Co-chair - The University of Edinburgh, UK
SEP Co-chair - East Carolina University, USA
EPSP member - Kyusyu University, Japan

Observers
Naokazu
YoshitoRyo
MichelNobu
Shinnya
LallanNadineMasakuniAndrew
Nishi
HitoshiThomasHiroyukiHajimuTakashiShomei
Nori
Guido
ShigemiRyo
Eigo
ShigemiTom
Yoko
TamanoKentaro
Mika
Ryoko
Ikuo
Toshikatsu
Kazuhiro
Sean
Shouting
Kazuyasu
Yasuhiro
MasaokiHelen Eri
Ayumi

AhagonAndo
Anma
Diament
Eguchi
Goto
Gupta
Hallmann
HanadaHeap
Hiroshi
Hotta
Janecek
KikutaKinoshita
KiyouraKobayashi
Kyo
Luniger
MatsudaMatsumoto
Miyazaki
Naganawa
NawateOkamoto
Omata
Saeki
Saido
Sato
SawadaSugawara
Sugiyama
ToczkoTuo
Wada
YamadaYamao
Yamasaki
Yoshimatsu

Kochi Core Center (KCC), Japan
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
Tsukuba University
European Managing Agency (EMA), Council Chair, CEREGE, FranceCenter for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Kochi Core Center (KCC), Japan
European Managing Agency (EMA), CEREGE, FranceCenter for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Geoscience Australia, Australia
Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J-DESC) - Tohoku University, Japan
JAMSTEC, Japan
National Science Foundation, USA
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J-DESC), Japan
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, JapanECORD Council Chair
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Meiji University, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, JapanThe University of Tokyo, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
IODP-China Office, Tongji University, China
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Research and Development Center for Ocean Drilling Science (ODS), JAMSTEC, Japan
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan
Marine Works Japan, Ltd.
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, Japan* - unable to attend

Institution

Chikyu IODP Board #3 meeting30-31 March 2015
Miyoshi Memorial Auditorium
JAMSTEC Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences (YES)
List of Consensus and Action Items (draft)

CIB_Consensus_0315-01: The CIB approved the #3 meeting agenda as it is.
CIB_Consensus_0315-02: The CIB approved the last meeting’s minutes withno modification.
CIB_Consensus_0315-03: The CIB appreciates SEP’s review of Chikyu
drilling proposals. The SEP is likely to have members with a wide range ofbackgrounds that can provide insightful perspective on the strengths andnecessary improvements of the proposals.
CIB_Consensus_0315-04: The CIB strongly supports the creation ofAmphibious Drilling Proposals (ADP) under the umbrella of IODP and ICDP
and the proposed joint evaluation process of ADPs. The CIB recommends that after the completion of an ADP detailed reports of both drilling
campaigns (onshore and offshore) will be published that the data collected during the expedition will be made publicallyavailable after a moratorium period of one year that samples from onshore and offshore drill holes will be stored at
appropriate core repositories and made available to both scientific parties.
CIB_Consensus_0315-05: The CIB supports NanTroSEIZE operations forthe projected IODP time slots in JFY 2015-2018. We encourage theinstallation of the observatory components for the unique data they may
provide. For operational decisions and contingency planning, a summary
science target matrix should be prepared by the PCT for each step of these
operations. The CIB anticipates that this will complete the current phase of
the NanTroSEIZE project. The CIB also recognizes that C0002 can likely bepreserved for possible future deepening, observatory installation, andcontinued investigations.
CIB_Consensus_0315-06: The following sentence will be posted on IODP
proposal solicitation announcement. “Due to current proposal pressure, theCIB actively invites only CPPs (Complementary Project Proposals) for Chikyu
IODP Riser operation”.
CIB_Consensus_0315-07: The CIB will keep three riser project/proposal(537B, Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project Phase B; 698, Izu-Bonin-Mariana
Arc Middle Crust; 781B, Hikurangi: Riser) without any priority. The CIB will notsupport PCT activities until an appropriate window of Chikyu opens.

CIB_Consensus_0315-08: The CIB established a riserless Project
Coordination Team for IODP Proposal 865, Nankai Trough T Limits, forscoping detailed implementation plan and preparation for its implementation in
the future riserless operation window of D/V Chikyu. The CIB recommends
Kai-Uwe Hinrichs (Chief Project Scientist; CPS), Fumio Inagaki (CPS), Masa
Kinoshita (member), TBN (member) and Ikuo Sawada (CDEX), Nori Kyo(CDEX), Nobu Eguchi (CDEX) and Yusuke Kubo (CDEX).
CIB_Consensus_0315-09: The CIB reviewed IODP Proposal 871-Pre “LordHowe Rise Crustal Evolution” with its SEP January 2015 review andrecognized the importance of this CPP project. The CIB endorsed its scientificobjectives and agreed with the SEP reviews to develop 871-Pre to a full
proposal. The CIB invited a “Full-proposal development workshop” proposal
for PIs of this proposal with submission deadline of 30 April 2015.
CIB_Consensus_0315-10: The CIB approved “Chikyu Staffing Procedures”,“Chikyu Onboard Measurements Guidelines”, “Chikyu 3rd Party Tools andInstruments Policy” and “Chikyu 2nd Post Expedition Meeting Guidelines”.
CIB_Consensus_0315-11: The CIB approved revised version of “IODP
Proposal Confidentiality Policy” and “IODP Site Survey Data Confidentiality
Policy”.
CIB_Consensus_0315-12: The CIB recognized the importance of Nagoya
protocol and its potential effects on the future Chikyu IODP operations.
CIB_Consensus_0315-13: The CIB chose its next meeting February-March
2016 in Kobe. Potential time window will be provided after a consultation withthe upcoming CIB chair, Yoshi Tatsumi.
CIB_Consensus_0315-14: Thanks to Gaku Kimura for not only service ashead of Chikyu IODP Board, but for a long-term commitment ocean drilling
and the study of subduction zones. In so doing he has showed well the
personality necessary to forge our unified opinions.
CIB_Consensus_0315-15: We appreciate the influence of Ken Nealson on
the Chikyu IODP Board. He planted the concept of investigation of thetemperature limits of life at the Chiyku + 10 meeting and it has come to reality
through a highly rated drilling proposal.

Note, although the below consensus were made after the meeting, we keep those here as arecord.

CIB_Consensus_0315-16: The CIB reviewed Full proposal development
Workshop proposal for IODP Proposal 871-Pre and endorsed its
implementation. The CIB also endorsed to create a Proposal Advisory Team
(PAT) for this workshop. The team members comprise Yasu Yamada

(JAMSTEC; Earth), Clinton Foster (Geoscience Australia; Oceans & Climate),
Marco Coolen (Curtin Univ.; Life), Ikuo Sawada (CDEX), Nori Kyo (CDEX),
Nobu Eguchi (CDEX), and Andrew Heap (Geoscience Australia).
CIB_Consensus_0315-17: The CIB reviewed IODP Proposal 876-Pre“Bend-Fault Serpentinization” along with its’ January 2015 SEP review
and recognized the importance of this project. The CIB endorsed its scientificobjectives and agreed with the SEP reviews to develop 876-Pre to a full
proposal. The CIB invited a “ Full-proposal development workshop ”
proposal for PIs of this proposal with submission deadline of 31 January 2016.

CIB_ActionItem_0315-01: The CIB reviews and approves/disapproves three
new Curatorial Advisory Board members, once the list is provided.
CIB_ActionItem_0315-02: The CDEX works together with the TAT regarding“Full Crustal Penetration drilling” and reports back to the CIB at its next
meeting.
CIB_ActionItem_0315-03: CDEX will provide the policy updates to the CIB.

Chikyu IODP Board #3 meeting
30 – 31 March 2015
Miyoshi Memorial Auditorium
JAMSTEC Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences (YES)

Day-1

Monday, 30 March 2015

Agenda Items
1. Welcome Remarks(Hotta)(09:07 h.)
Chair G. Kimura welcomed the CIB members, liaisons and observers. He confirmed theabsence of Yoshi Tatsumi (for the entire meeting) and Masa Kinoshita (Day 1 only). He
asked the JAMSTEC Executive director and CDEX Director General Hitoshi Hotta to deliver
the opening remarks. H. Hotta mentioned that the group would understand CDEX’s efforts
since the last meeting, and hear presentations on the budget and other, Chikyu-related
operations. He mentioned that Chikyu is currently working on a commercial drilling project in
the Indian Ocean, which would likely last until the end of August, after which Chikyu will
require formal maintenance in dry dock. He stated that IODP scientific drilling would most
likely be conducted near the end of the coming Japanese fiscal year. He said it is importantto remember the contributions that Chikyu can make to the science community. Even though
there are still some difficulties, he looked forward to the participants having a vigorous
discussion and producing good suggestions.
The participants’ self-introduction started at 09:10 h.

2. Introductions and Logistics(Kuramoto/Eguchi)(09:17 h)
Chair G. Kimura began Item #2 with a few instructions to the group about speaking during
the meeting, such as having one person speak at a time after being called on by the chair,and that speakers should talk slowly and clearly. The CDEX science operation manager,
Nobuhisa Eguchi, asked the participants if the Internet connection was working for them.
Next, he gave a brief description about the emergency escape route and instructions
showing the floor map of the venue. He also briefed the group on the reception starting at
18:00 h this evening in the Guest House, daily coffee breaks at 10:00 and 15:00 h, andlunch possibilities in the cafeteria or outside.
H. Villinger wanted to state a possible conflict of interest, since he is a co-proponent of IODP
proposal 876-Pre, which was on the agenda.
Chair G. Kimura gave a brief explanation on the general rules for making a CIB decision bycommon consensus.

3. Approval of Agenda(Chair - Kimura)(09:21 h.)
Chair G. Kimura shared the present agenda with the group, and it was approved with nomajor changes.

1

CIB_Consensus_0315-01: The CIB approved the #3 meeting agenda as it is.

4. Introduce New CIB Members(Yamada)(09:22 h.)
Yasuhiro Yamada, the CIB nomination committee Chair and the Director of JAMSTEC’s
Research and Development Center for Ocean Drilling Science, explained the three positions
on the CIB that would need to fill over the next two years (Japanese fiscal year term). He
mentioned that the selection procedure started with a call for nominations on 15 December
2014, and after discussion, selected the following replacements: as Chair, Yoshiyuki Tatsumi
from Kobe University; as US Science Community Representative, Ben van der Pluijm fromthe University of Michigan-Ann Arbor; and for the Japanese Science Community
Representative, James J. Mori from Kyoto University. H. Given asked who was rotating off tobe replaced. N. Eguchi answered that G. Kimura and K. Nealson would leave, and that Y.
Tatsumi would return as a chair. C. Moore and H. Villinger also confirmed that their terms
would be expiring. N. Eguchi agreed, but added that their positions would expire at the endof March 2016. S. Kuramoto informed the group that Y. Tatsumi was in hospital although notserious.

5. Approval of Last Meeting Minutes(Chair - Kimura)(09:29 h.)
Chair G. Kimura asked the group if they have any comments or questions about the last
meeting’s minutes. N. Eguchi added a comment that the newest agenda book included two
new Action Items, and that one consensus had been reached since the last meeting. Chair
G. Kimura asked the group if they would approve the agenda, and they approved.
CIB_Consensus_0315-02: The CIB approved the last meeting’s minutes with nomodification.

6. CIB Decisions since Last Meeting(Chair - Kimura)(09:31 h.)
Chair G. Kimura began with Agenda item #6 by advising the participants to look at AgendaBook page 54. N. Eguchi explained that CIB_Consensus_0714-13 was made regarding the
IODP Proposal 857-MDP “DREAM: Mediterranean Salt Giant” and 857A-Pre “DREAM:
Deep-Surface Connection”. G. Camoin asked a question if there was a context from the
proponent regarding this consensus with the actual potential certainty. N. Eguchi answeredthat he had communicated with them and they would submit their full proposal as suggestedby the deadline on 1 April. G. Camoin asked if that full proposal would be a regular proposal
or intended for CPP. N. Eguchi answered that he had not yet heard about for which,although SEP and CIB recommended them to prepare for CPP.

7. CIB Action Item Status(Chair - Kimura)(09:32 h.)
Chair G. Kimura described the CIB Action Item status. Three CIB Action Items had been
confirmed during the previous meeting, and two CIB Action Items were added later, 02 and05. CIB Action Items 02 to 04 were completed as discussed. CIB Action Items 01 and 05
should be discussed during this meeting.

2

CIB_Action Item_0714-01: The CIB to review the JRFB panel activities and will give
feedback to the JRFB before its’ next meeting.
To be discussed at this meeting.
The following questions were forwarded to the CIB by the JRFB chair:
Does the advice provided by the SEP meet the needs of the CIB? Are there additional
items that the CIB would like SEP to comment on?
Has the CIB used the EPSP for advice on non-riser drilling since the start of the new
IODP? If so, did the advice provided by EPSP meet CIB needs?
Are there any suggestions for improvements in (i) the type of advice being given byeither SEP or EPSP, or (ii) the communication of that advice to the CIB?
CIB_Action Item_0714-02: The CIB to review the “Call for Proposal” wording presented
by SSO and make appropriate changes.
Completed.
CIB_Action Item_0714-03: The following message should be provided to the community.
Drilling equipment and Ship Maintenance: In view of the coming dry dock andoverhaul of the Chikyu’s BOP, riser drilling will be restricted in 2014 and unlikely tohappen in 2015. Riser drilling is scheduled to resume in 2016 and 2017 at NanTroSEIZE
Site C0002. Proponents seeking to utilize the Chikyu should be aware that operations will
be delayed by the above items.
Completed as below.
CIB_Action Item_0714-04: The CIB will comment on Proposal 857A and DREAM WS
report (electronically) within the next 2 months.
Completed by providing to the proponents on 29 October 2014.
CIB_Action Item_0714-05: CDEX will send the following Chikyu-related documents to
the CIB members for their review. “Chikyu Staffing Procedure”, “Chikyu Onboard
Measurements Guidelines”, “Chikyu Third Party Tool Guidelines”, and “Chikyu Second
Post Expedition Meeting Guidelines”
To be discussed at this meeting.
Chair G. Kimura asked if there were any suggestions to advise SEP or EPSP regarding item
#1. C. Moore mentioned that comments provided by SEP on proposals were really good,very constructive, and valuable. D. Mallinson was happy, asking if there was anything elsethey could provide. He also mentioned that they were still feeling their way with the newconsolidation of panels. He added that it would be beneficial for SEP to know how to help
proponents. C. Moore asked about cases where proposals needed rewrites. If time iscompressed, can things be fast-tracked? D. Mallinson agreed, saying that they will work
closely with the watchdogs. He added that SEP has the capability to do that with fast-track
external review, and extra outside meeting (normally e-meeting), if necessary. Depending on
the window of opportunity, and where the ship was going to be, they look at what the
proposal was urging in that area, and they try to contact the proponent to wrap it up forexternal review, and get the data outside of normal pathways. C. Moore clarified by asking
about giving feedback to the proponent, would SEP send out for review or do it internally? D.
Mallinson responded that all communication, including response letter from the proponents,
are distributed to the watchdogs, and also recorded by the SSO.

3

Chair G. Kimura asked C. Moore to draft the consensus statement for this item.
T. Tsuji asked if EPSP advises Chikyu even for riserless operations. Chair G. Kimura said
Chikyu riserless operation project uses the EPSP just as the JR does.
Chair G. Kimura stated that CIB Action Item 0714-02 was completed. He also stated that
CIB Action Item 0714-03 would inform & advise the community regarding Chikyu
maintenance plans; also that there would be no riser operation before 2016. One
NanTroSEIZE riserless operation will be conducted at Site C0010 in 2016. He continued toconfirm the other CIB Action Items, 0714-04 and 0714-05.
G. Kimura covered CIB consensus items 0714-05 (support Mantle Drilling Working Group)and 0714-07 (establish IBM PCT).
H. Villinger asked when the IBM PCT would be invited. S. Kuramoto answered that CDEX
had already initiated IBM planning; however, realistic plans are on hold since funds are notavailable while CDEX focuses on completing NanTroSEIZE. H. Kawahata commented thatsituation was understandable, however, the community would like to know about the futureschedule for IBM. S. Kuramoto replied that there are no plans for IBM in the next five years.
H. Kawahata said that the community would be disappointed to hear that information. Y.
Kimura suggested that S. Kuramoto explain more about the IBM situation to the community
since he knows how difficult it is to fix the future schedule these days. S. Kuramoto said that
this is a topic for tomorrow morning to talk more on. D. Mallinson confirmed if proposal 698
was the IBM proposal, and then said it was a shame because it was a ready-to-go proposal.
Chair G. Kimura concluded that the group should discuss this in more detail during the nextmorning’s session covering Agenda Item 16. In the meantime, he also asked the participants
to think about this IBM issue. C. Moore commented that we should manage expectations
with riser drilling. Chair G. Kimura said that the CIB will be informed on how many operations
Chikyu can perform within this phase of IODP - until 2023 - and also how we should
approach the IBM proposal issue.
Y. Kimura asked for an exact list of CIB membership replacement, to clearly identify new CIB
members since Y. Yamada’s explanation was a little vague. Chair G. Kimura confirmed that
CDEX staff would provide that shortly.
CIB_Consensus_0315-03: The CIB appreciates SEP’s review of Chikyu drilling

proposals. The SEP is likely to have members with a wide range of backgrounds
that can provide insightful perspective on the strengths and necessary improvementsof the proposals.
8. Chikyu Operation/status Update(Kuramoto)Current Status(9:52 h.)S. Kuramoto presented the Chikyu schedule for JFY2014 and JFY2015: Chikyu is currently
performing non-IODP/commercial drilling in India. This is a JDC contract with ONGC, asemi-governmental organization in India. Due to delays in beginning this commercial drilling,
the schedules for non-IODP/science (Cross-ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion
Program: SIP) and IODP operations (in mid-March 2015) were pushed back. Since 2015 is4Chikyu’s 10-year anniversary, a legally required five-year heavy maintenance period in dry
dock (4.5 months) is scheduled. For safety requirements, several pieces of equipment, suchas the DCIS, must be replaced.
Y. Kimura added that this is bad timing; JAMSTEC has to renew planning and clear all
budget accounts to fulfill its’ requirements as a Japanese government independent agency
every five years. The current budget surplus cannot be carried over after this five-year period.
Additionally, a commercial drilling contract was canceled at the end of JFY2013. Initially, theIndian project was due to start much earlier, in Sept 2014, and Chikyu would have had time
for other operations. However, the negotiations were extremely protracted, and significantly
delayed. So the SIP operation was also put on hold, and then shifted to the next FY.
G. Camoin asked if IODP drilling will definitely occur. S. Kuramoto answered that Chikyu
currently has commercial work; the money obtained will be used for IODP science
operations. H. Given asked for general details about SIP operation (I.e. drilling target), and if
it’s a riserless operation? S. Kuramoto explained that it is riserless and drills the same area
as IODP Expedition 331. S. Toczko added that IODP Expedition 331 drilled the exact same
area as the SIP and recommended H. Given check the expedition reports if she wasinterested in the science. C. Moore wondered if the data from the SIP would open to public
afterwards. S. Toczko was not sure. S. Kuramoto added that a scientific paper will be
published. H. Given asked why the SIP needs to be in this time window; was it mostly
because of financial issues? S. Kuramoto confirmed this. S. Humphris asked whether this is
for riser or riserless operations, and if there are any limitations in the March 2016 IODP
science operation window. S. Kuramoto replied that he recommends the Site C0010
observatory operation, which will replace the already installed temporary observatory with along-term borehole monitoring system (LTBMS). S. Humphris confirmed that this is ariserless operation and a NanTroSEIZE project.
N. Eguchi reminded the group of CIB_Consensus_0714-09: The CIB had recommended“NanTroSEIZE riserless observatory” operations for the JFY 2014/2015 riserless expedition
option. CDEX almost scheduled the expedition at the end of JFY2014, but it was delayed
because of the Indian project. G. Camoin asked about the duration of the IODP expedition. S.
Kuramoto answered that the expedition is about 30 days; he commented that NanTroSEIZE
status will be updated later, including deepening C0002 site. N. Eguchi mentioned that the
Site C0010 expedition already has IODP expedition number 365.
Y. Kimura explained that the SIP is a new type of science program, a cross-ministerial
program. Chair G. Kimura clarified that “cross-ministerial” means not only MEXT but also
other ministries. He asked confirmation that the budget has to be cleared every five years
and if it will happen again after the next 5-year period. Y. Kimura commented that he was not
sure about that because JAMSTEC will change its’ status to a “national researchorganization” in next JFY (starting from 1 April 2015). However, the described budgetarysystem will most likely be applied to the new organization. H. Hotta commented that the newbudgetary system would be more severe than the current one. Chair G. Kimura confirmedthat the budget cannot be carried out over into the next five years. H. Hotta, agreed, andadded that JAMSTEC cannot change the budget from one item to another. S. Kuramotocommented that the system was confusing, especially for people outside of Japan. At theend of the fifth fiscal year of this five year window, extra monies cannot be carried over into
the next five year phase; expect that this would occur again between JFY 2018 and 2019. H.

5

Nishi asked if two months operation for SIP this year was already decided. S. Kuramotoanswered that it depends on the budget. Unfortunately, the operation was divided into twoparts although there would be two-month worth budgets now (combined last year and thisyear fund). The 1st part was finished; the 2nd part will be this year.
Chair G. Kimura called a coffee break at 10:16 hrs, and the meeting reconvened at 10:45 hrs.
NanTroSEIZE Update
NanTroSEIZE PCT reports(Eguchi)(10:46 h.)
N. Eguchi briefly introduced the NanTroSEIZE PCT members, including newly added
members (Kyuichi Kanagawa, Michael Strasser, and Yasuhiro Yamada), and mentioned thetwo meetings held so far, in Sapporo (July 2014) and San Francisco (December 2014). The
agenda/minutes are included in the agenda book.
H. Villinger asked if the matrix previously mentioned is available anywhere. N. Eguchi
answered that the matrix is still in development, and describes targets on the way to the final
deep drilling target, the plate boundary fault. Currently, we’ve reached down to just past
3000 mbsf. The matrix lists possible achievements that can be reached along the way to theplate boundary somewhere around 5200 mbsf; there’s a possibility that we may finish
somewhere in between, due to technical issues. The PCT has been discussing this, buthave not yet finished. H. Villinger confirmed that the matrix would help sell deepening thehole. D. Mallinson asked if the main target is just the plate boundary fault. N. Eguchi
answered that plans are to go 200 m below it. G. Kimura explained that with detailed 3D
seismic data, the PCT decided that the previously identified the megasplay fault is actually
the plate boundary fault. Therefore, the PCT members agreed to focus on that.
C. Moore added that deeper drilling is difficult; a lot of learning is going on. N. Eguchi agreed.
D. Mallinson made sure that the 3D seismic data are not in the data bank; any new datagoes into databank has automatic trigger to review by SEP. N. Eguchi answered it wasreviewed very long time ago and the data may not in the data bank. H. Given corrected D.
Mallinson and others that there is no automatic trigger. N. Eguchi commented that the 1st
review was back in October 2001 (proposal 603). C. Moore asked about reprocessing
seismic data. N. Eguchi that this is in the PCT agenda. The NanTroSEIZE PCT is working
with Greg Moore on reprocessing the 3D data. Data processing software/techniques havesignificantly improved in the last 10 years, so the PCT expects to see more details in the
deeper part of the formation.
CDEX C0002 Task Force update(Sawada)(10:54 h.)
I. Sawada provided an update on the CDEX C0002 Task Force. They have been meeting
regularly to discuss plans for drilling deeper and the causes of hole instability in Hole
C0002N/P during Expedition 348. Several potential causes of hole instability have alreadybeen identified: steeply dipping formations, bottom assembly caving due to vibration,
insufficient hole cleaning, etc. I. Sawada said that changing the casing design, mud chemical
properties, and mud density would be the main countermeasures. In addition, heemphasized more precise real-time data monitoring from the formation while drilling,
mitigating vibration, mud pressure stabilizing techniques, and more advice from experts (e.g.,safety advisory team) would be necessary.

6I. Sawada presented operation guidelines, expandable casing, investigating mud property,
non-stop drilling, 6-inch wireline coring system, and mitigating drill string vibration. I. Sawada
discussed the revised casing plan, using expandable casing, etc. CDEX will re-enter the holeand take a temperature survey. Then CDEX will drill out cement at the casing shoe, conduct
an extended leak-off test (XLOT), run a cement bond log (CBL) test, and confirm the cement
conditions around the casing. After this, CDEX will conduct a 3D-VSP. If conditions are good,
the plan is to drill ahead; otherwise, CDEX plans to set a whipstock and start a sidetrack
hole. Expandable casing, a special type of casing, is required to reach the target. No one inJapan has experience working with expandable casing, so outside experts will need to becontracted.
Drilling fluid properties also need review, and CDEX contractors are currently testing an
improved mix of additives. Particle sizes between 10-300 microns may be mixed in the
drilling fluid. The CDEX Drilling Safety Sub-committee suggested using nano-sized particles(nano sealer); however, no such product is commercially available. Non-stop drilling, alreadysuccessfully used during the Okinawa cruise last year, was also introduced. A smaller size
(6-inch) wireline core system (NOV slimhole express) was briefly explained, and is similar incore size (ID) to current coring tools. To mitigate drill string vibration, stabilizers can be
added to the drill string. Drilling parameter data shows vibrations downhole steadily weakens
when they are used.
Chair G. Kimura asked the group if there were any questions. C. Moore asked if the six-inchhole would allow installation of the proposed instruments at the bottom. I. Sawada answeredthat it may require an instrument re-design, since the original design was based on an 8-1/2inch hole. T. Tsuji asked about LWD and coring of the plate boundary fault since so many
scientists are interested in that zone. I. Sawada answered that six-inch LWD tools areavailable. I. Sawada answered that in the 9-3/8-inch hole section, CDEX can use the regularcoring tools. For the 6-inch hole, the NOV coring tools need to be used. T. Tsuji asked if theissue with steeply dipping formations is a problem expected all the way to the fault zone. I.
Sawada said CDEX expects that it will be, but the 3D seismic reprocessing planned this year
will help clarify the situation. Chair G. Kimura asked if there is enough time for the
reprocessing for the VSP and drilling plans. I. Sawada answered that he hopes the time wehave to reprocess the data is enough. G. Kimura confirmed that there were no morequestions.
C0010 Observatory (Exp. 365 Summary)

I. Sawada went on to explain the Site C0010 observatory operation plans. G. Kimura asked
the group if there are any questions or comments. C. Moore asked about the Site C0006
LTBMS. I. Sawada answered that the configuration for the Site C0006 LTBMS is same asthat for C0010; however, the seafloor at C0006 is beyond reach of the ROV so the UWTV
will be used for LTBMS installation. H. Given confirmed that this operation plan is for Site
C0010; she asked if this would occur at the end of March and how many days are necessary
for the operation. N. Eguchi confirmed this and said the operation will take 30 days. G.
Camoin asked how many scientists would be onboard. N. Eguchi responded that this is
more like a technical expedition, with not much need for scientists. S. Toczko added that
CDEX does plan on having some scientists onboard. D. Mallinson asked what scientists
CDEX would expect to be onboard. S. Toczko answered “observatory specialists,

7

microbiologists, and geochemists”. Chair G. Kimura confirmed there were no morecomments or questions.

9. Chikyu 5-year inspection and refurbishment plan (Kyo)
Shipyard and Sea Trial Schedule(11:24 h.)
N. Kyo presented the Chikyu 5-year inspection and refurbishment plan. This inspection
process would take 4.5 months this year (2015). Dry dock would start in the beginning of
September soon after Chikyu returned from India, and other repair and maintenance work
would be conducted in the same shipyard. CDEX plans to have a 10th anniversary event inNovember. After that event, other repair and maintenance work would be continued at thePort of Shimizu. After that, almost one month would be needed for a shakedown cruise inJanuary 2016.
He continued to explain the sub-sea instruments or equipment needing replacement (e.g.
R&M, BOP, riser tensioner) or upgrades (e.g. drilling control instrumentation system (DCIS),
integrated automation system (IAS)). The BOP components are now in Singapore, and arealmost finished with inspection; they would arrive in Japan in the end of September or in
October after the completion of some remaining repair work. The BOP components andRiser tensioners function tests would be completed by the end of January 2016. He also said
that the Riser pipes’ flanges will be replaced with new ones starting from May to August at
shipyard in Yokohama, which is the same place where BOP loading is planned. He addedthat tensioner maintenance was already finished.
N. Kyo explained that budget limitations forced CDEX to prioritize legally required work items.
Class NK/ABS required items are scheduled. Other items include 5-year certification forindustry work. The riser and BOP require this certification, especially for commercial drilling.
He added that the riser pipes had already been off loaded and were ready to begin repair
work; the BOP is also in Singapore as was mentioned earlier.
Major Work Items

N. Kyo updated the group with some developments that CDEX has been working on for
future projects, although they were not listed in the agenda book:1) Ultra-deep water drill pipe required a fatigue test and analysis since there was notenough technical data to CDEX for deep-water operations. CDEX succeeded incollecting good data from J-FAST in 7,000 m water depth with 850 mbsf penetration.
This experience showed that CDEX needs 8,000 m or more of drill pipe in total.
2) Turbine driven coring system (TDCS) is an improved coring system based on
TAMU’s MDCB. N. Kyo confirmed that this design is close to final after prototype
trials.
3) Carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) riser. CFRP is a new material for lighter andstronger riser pipes to drill in 4,000 m or deeper water. CDEX conducted a model test
this year to evaluate if this new material was applicable for our riser system or not.
4) Long-term borehole monitoring system (LTBMS) for the future NanTroSEIZE C0002
deep borehole. The estimated formation temperature at the target zone is around
150ºC; therefore, CDEX had to develop heat-resistant electronic optical models.
Currently CDEX is evaluating some optical borehole telemetry systems.

85) High voltage pulse drilling. This technology already exists for recovering rare earths,
but only in the lab. CDEX has just started a feasibility study examining the possibilityof applying this technology at the end of the drilling assembly.
6) Chikyu under water TV camera system ROV (CU-ROV). This is new for Chikyu andis the same as the VIT system on JR. This ROV launches and is recovered like VIT.
We have 20 m cable, so if we deploy the platform with this under water TV camera
system, this could go below the platform to see the borehole wellhead
Lab improvements(Igarashi)

C. Igarashi from CDEX presented the Chikyu laboratory KAIZEN plan, especially regarding
layouts for future Chikyu operations. After collecting feedback from past expeditions, a
concrete concept was developed, centered around three lab layout themes: 1) optimization
for deep riser drilling, 2) flexibility for lab operations, and 3) a safer and more comfortable
work environment. Based on these concepts, she explained CDEX’s vision for layout
modifications. 1) Improve the efficiency of cuttings treatment by making space on the core
processing deck. 2) Improve use of space in the lab by creating space for instruments in thecore sampling room. For this, a wall will be removed. 3) Install new microbiologicalequipment (e.g. the Cell-Alive system and table KOACH) as proposed by the STP two years
ago. An HEPA filter would also be placed inside the air ducts to reduce dust in the
microbiology room, to be installed in other rooms later. She briefly explained the new lablayout design: 1) Separate and increased workspace for each WH and AH. 2) X-ray
instruments are now located on two different floors, so all the X-ray related instruments will
be consolidated in the off-time space. 3) A new layout for the PP and Geochemistry labs,
and a new GC lab is under preparation. More display monitors for drill floor operations andreal-time data will be installed. The library will be remodeled with more desks and chairs forindividual scientists.
CDEX sent a survey on the modification plan to 275 scientists from past Chikyu expeditions,and received 40 replies. Most replies seemed happy with the new plan, or had no strong
opinion. The lab modifications should be finished before the next IODP operation.

10. Chikyu Membership Status(Kuramoto)

Update since the last meeting(11:51 h.)
S. Kuramoto presented the Chikyu membership status. Current regular members are
ECORD and ANZIC (unchanged from last CIB meeting) with an annual contribution of 1 M
USD and 300 K USD, respectively. CDEX received a letter of interest from Taiwan, who wasinvited in March 2014. Taiwan suffered the loss of a new research ship (with fatalities) andsince then communication has been suspended. CDEX will try to resume communication.
China has been contacted through Yuzuru Kimura of MEXT. A meeting had been planned in
Beijing but it was postponed. Communication will continue.
Other countries JAMSTEC is currently negotiating with are Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam,
Indonesia, and the Philippines, and JAMSTEC continues to discuss possible membershipwith these countries. A delegation from Vietnam visited KCC last year to examine KCC
facilities and core storage. They were also interested in drilling operations. Theirmembership is still under negotiation.
CDEX was invited to visit a Philippines university; CDEX also contacted the Philippine
Minister of Science and Technology. The Philippines are interested in membership and9invited CDEX to the annual meeting of their geological society. CDEX will present general
information about Chikyu operations that meeting.
G. Camoin asked how funds provided by the members has been used, since there were no
IODP expeditions last year. S. Kuramoto said these details will be covered on the second
day of the meeting (Agenda Item #19), but he explained that the money received frommembers is handled separately within JAMSTEC. Basically, the money is in a separate
account for IODP science operations, similar to the previous IODP SOC (Science operation
costs) money from the previous IODP phase for science services and operation. If no
operations are executed, the money can be carried to the next fiscal year, at least within afive-year term.
There were no further questions.
G. Kimura mentioned that Agenda Item #19 will be discussed on the second day and closed
the meeting for a lunch break at 12:15 h; the meeting would be reconvened at 13:25 h.
LUNCH

11. Other FB, IODP Forum, and Agency Activities
JR Facility Board(Humphris)(13:26 h.)S. Humphris reported on the activities of the JOIDES Resolution Facility Board (JRFB).
There have not been any JRFB meetings since the last CIB meeting (CIB #2). S. Humphris
reported on what has happened in the meantime and gave some feedback (similar to
ECORD meeting).
The JRFB schedules the JR, so the function of the FB is very similar to the CIB, but in
addition, they run the advisory panels. One responsibility is to make sure the advisory panels
are effectively feeding information to the CIB for good decision-making. There have been 3
meetings since the JRFB was set up; the next one is scheduled for 12–13 May. That
meeting will finalize specific issues after input from the CIB and the ECORD FB.
There have been 5 JR IODP expeditions since the last CIB meeting (CIB #2) in July 2014.
The Bengal fan expedition is in its final days and a number of other expeditions arescheduled, particularly in the Indian Ocean, West Pacific, and nearby seas. An ancillary
project originally included in Exp. 359 (IODP Proposal 849-APL) planned to collect a highresolution record of Cenozoic climate change during pre-monsoon and monsoon climates for
the Indian peninsula. It was removed related to issues surrounding Exp. 353 (the Indian
Monsoon expedition) involving significant problems getting Indian research clearances.
Significant effort from Texas A&M, NSF, and finally intervention at the highest levels ofgovernment was needed to perform that project. Therefore, drilling in Indian waters was
postponed; it also involved the ship undergoing Indian navy inspection prior to drilling.
Because of the level of effort and the expenses involved in getting the clearance for the Exp.
353, the JRFB made the decision to remove the ancillary project from the monsoon cruise.
JRFB also provides information to the community about the future long-term JOIDES
Resolution cruise track, which S. Humphris showed in a slide for 2014. The plan is to finish
projects in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans, and then head to the Atlantic across the10Southern Ocean sometime in the 2018-2019 time frame. The FB will revisit this at their next
meeting, and based on proposal pressure, will try to project forward how to schedule
expeditions for the proposals already at the FB.
There have been some board membership changes. It was decided to increase the scientificmembership to six (three from USA, incl. the chair, and one each from ANZIC, ECORD andJAPAN. (JRFB Chair S. Humphris was due to be replaced by Rick Murray, but since he took
a position at NSF, she agreed to stay on for on additional year and will be replaced this fall).
Other membership changes included: three members rotating off the JRFB, and Brad
Clement is now the representative from the JR Science Operator (JRSO). There is a newmember of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, Qing Sun, and a new member
from ANZIC, Mike Coffin.
She asked for special attention for this meeting. First there is feedback from the advisory
panel. She confirmed that C. Moore is going to write the consensus statement. And there are
two documents that she would like feedback on and also the approval of the CIB. The JRFB
made some revisions to the proposal and site survey data confidentiality policies. This is inreaction to some issues raised by the SSO, in relation to the use of industry data and the
proprietary nature of the data. This will create some reassurance that there is a good
confidentiality policy. We tried to clarify how we handle these data. She announced that H.
Given would probably talk about that in a few minutes.
There are also some new guidelines for amphibious proposals; these are joint projects
between ICDP and IODP. Looking at continent-to-ocean transitions is something that should
be done together in an integrated way. We should work to see that the proponents do nothave to submit different proposals to different organizations that handle them differently. The
IODP forum set up a small subcommittee to look into and try developing these proceduresand guidelines. S. Humphris announced that K. Becker would talk more about this. She
asked for feedback, comments, and suggestion about these policies.
Other things that came up last week at the ECORD FB (EFB #3) meeting; three members
are rotating off the curatorial advisory board, which is dealing with sample curation issues.
These people are Heinrich Villinger from ECORD, David Smith from the US and Masa
Yamamoto from Japan. S. Humphris will take the lead on contacting the curators and asking
for nominations of individuals and hand them around to all the FBs for approval. This she will
do after the CIB meeting, but before September this year.
CIB_ActionItem_0315-01: The CIB reviews and approves/disapproves three new Curatorial
Advisory Board members, once the list is provided.
Another question that came up at the ECORD meeting was when should a proposal beretired from the system after it has been inactive? She would like to clear this issue, because
there are still some proposals that have not been worked on for many years. She would
appreciate any thoughts or advice considering these proposals.
H. Given wanted to clarify that the proposals S. Humphris mentioned are those that are
sitting in the system in review (SEP) and not at the FBs. S. Humphris confirmed that theseare proposals that have not yet made it to the facility boards, but nobody seems to take any
interest in them.

11

ECORD Facility Board(Gohl)(13:36 h.)
K. Gohl presented the newest updates of the ECORD facility board (EFB), including news,
decisions on consensus and Action Items from last week’s #3 ECORD facility board meeting(25-26 March 2015).
There are seven proposals at the EFB. Two of them were scheduled last year and are bothadvancing well.
Exp. 357 “Atlantis Massif” is scheduled for late 2015. This expedition is going to make use of
the seabed drilling system MeBo70 and another seabed drilling system, the BGS Rockdrill-2.
This will be a relatively low-cost expedition on the UK research vessel James Cook (around4 M USD) as an in-kind contribution from the UK.
In early 2016, Exp. 364 “Chicxulub Crater” can most probably be organized within the limits
set by the EFB. 8.5 M USD will be contributed by ECORD, 1 M USD by the ICDP (there is
still some discussion, related to the use/purpose of this money within the expedition) and apossible contribution from Mexico. This is a requested contribution to provide a supply
vessel. The plan is to drill one hole to a maximum depth of 1500 mbsf using a jack-up rig.
Two more expeditions were decided on. Proposal 813 “Antarctic Paleoclimate” wasreconsidered due to increasing costs (mainly ship costs). Most likely the vessel Nathaniel B.
Palmer, run by NSF and equipped with the BGS Rockdrill-2, will be used on the East
Antarctic shelf. ECORD was asked to pay part of the ship costs, making the costs higher
than originally expected. The limit has now been set to 9 M USD and ESO will negotiate with
the NSF to reduce ship costs. The expedition is scheduled for 2018 and not for 2017 as
originally planned. Therefore there will be no expeditions in 2017, but instead it’s very likely
there will be two in 2018, a “polar year”, since there will be another expedition during theArctic summer.
The second expedition (Proposal 708 “Arctic Paleoceanography”), with one site in the Arctic,
will use a drill ship similar to the ACEX in 2004 (Exp. 302), but with deeper water andpenetration depths. The EFB has limited their contribution to 15 M USD with an ice-breakersupport as IKC, but of course the primary objectives should be achieved.
There are still three proposals (581, 637 and 716) in the EFB holding bin since last year.
They will not be removed, because two of them can be done with seabed or geotech drillingat a relatively low cost. These proposals will be considered for scheduling after 2018.
K. Gohl presented a graph showing an overview of the updated schedule to 2018. Following
after that (until 2023) is important, with respect to an annual budget of 7.5 M USD for
expedition costs only (fixed costs not included). ESO has a strategy to run a number of low
cost expeditions, and save for other mid- and high-cost expeditions. With this plan, ESO
probably can better schedule new incoming proposals.
K. Gohl announced some membership changes. The EFB consists of a science board(currently five members) and other organizations. The science board will increase its

12membership to six; three from ECORD (including the chair), one from IODP-JR (USA), one
from IODP-JR (non-US country) and one from IODP-Chikyu. Two science board members(Antonio Cattaneo from France and Marta Torres from the US) will rotate off at the end of2015 and three new members will join; Gilles Lericolais (France), Stephen Gallagher(Australia), and Fumio Inagaki (Japan). K. Gohl will also rotate off as chair at the end of thisyear, with Gilles Lericolais elected to become chair in his place. There will also be a newvice chair, Dominique Weis (Canada). This is not as an extra position but to ease travel
requirements that the chair normally has.
Other issues are:
 For Mission Specific Platforms a new third party tools policy was developed. It was
accepted by the EFB and it will be posted on the IODP website.
 S. Humphris already mentioned the amphibious proposals; this was discussed last
week and some changes were suggested. K. Gohl also said that K. Becker would
talk about this. ECORD welcomed this new proposal category very much, since it isvery likely that most of these amphibious proposals will be MSP-related projects.
 The next EFB meeting will be held in early April 2016 (dates not fixed yet), probably
in Brussels, Belgium.
H. Given clarified the term “holding bin”. This EFB holding bin that K. Gohl mentioned isdifferent from the SEP holding bin, where the SEP is waiting for further site survey data tocome in. The ECORD holding bin is for proposals that have been passed to the EFB andthat are waiting to be scheduled.
No other questions arose.
IODP Forum(Becker)(13:51 h.)
K. Becker began stating that the IODP forum has not met since the last CIB meeting (CIB#2). He provided some updates, presented progress on the science plan, scheduled IODP
expeditions, announced a couple of updated forum issues, and also explained some details
about the new amphibious proposals. As K. Gohl mentioned, these are likely to involve themission specific platform. Some proposals may also include deep drilling using Chikyu.
K. Becker presented overview charts with the current status of expedition proposals related
to each of the IODP themes (the color code in the charts displays which platform will beused).
The main message here is that there is good proposal pressure across most of thechallenges and all the themes. Now the challenge is to achieve some of this potential interms of having completed the science plan after ten years of the new IODP.
There are four challenge themes and K. Becker focused on Chikyu-relevant proposals.
Challenges in Climate and Ocean Change:
ACEX2 708: ACEX in the Antarctic Cenozoic is moving to the “done & scheduled” column(not relevant to Chikyu but K. Becker just pointed out that there was progress here).

13East Asian Monsoon 618: K. Becker had a question; this expedition has a deep riser
component offshore Vietnam, which is not being considered because of political issues inthese waters? S. Kuramoto replied that Chikyu will not be able to operate in any disputed
waters and since one of the site of this proposal located in such an area, the CIB will not beable to consider this proposal as a potential Chikyu project.
The MDP DREAM set of proposals (IODP Proposals 857-MDP and 857A) address a lot ofchallenges.
Challenges in Biosphere Frontiers
There are two good options for Chikyu: the Mariana forearc (505), which is still in the realmof JRFB, but it could be moved to the Chikyu’s schedule; and the Nankai T limit (865), which
will be discussed later (Agenda item #16).
Challenges in Earth Connections
Here the Chikyu deep drilling capabilities can make a big contribution. The M2M, MDP
proposal (805) had a consensus at the last CIB meeting (CIB #2) to create a mantle-drillingtechnology working group. This will be revisited in Agenda Item #17.
The IBM drilling to the middle crust (698) has great potential for Chikyu in support of IODP
achieving this particular deep challenge, now that the JR has successfully accomplished thethree shallower components of this proposal (Exps 350, 351 & 352). The formation of a
Project Coordination Team (PCT) has been approved, but it has not yet been active.
Challenges in Earth in Motion
Here again there is strong potential for Chikyu towards achieving the programs’ science plan,
especially Challenge #12 (control of earthquakes landslides, and tsunamis). These include
NanTroSEIZE (603-CDP), CRISP (537B), and Hikurangi (782B). However, it could takemore than 20 years of drilling to complete all these operations. This is the other challenge for
the CIB; there is already a huge amount of drilling with strong scientific potential on the table,
but at some point a choice has to be made.
K. Becker announced that he is going to be replaced as forum chair. The original plan was toname the new candidate by 31 March, but more time is needed to make the selection, which
K. Becker interprets as a good sign that there are several strong candidates, making it
difficult to choose one.
The next IODP forum meeting in July in Canberra will focus on two things. First, the IODP 2
science results, which are all coming from JR in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean.
Secondly, there will be a review of education and outreach activities across the program. K.
Becker emphasized that Japan will also be represented.
K. Becker mentioned the special session on IODP at the AOGS meeting in Singapore thiscoming August, which could be a good opportunity to build potential partnerships among
Asian countries.
K. Becker asked if there were any questions and since there were none, he moved to thenext subject, the Amphibious Drilling Proposals (ADP).

14

The IODP forum recommended forming a small ICDP-IODP committee to discuss joint
evaluations of proposals that span across the shoreline. The ICDP executive committee
endorsed that. The members of this small committee are: K. Miller, P. Francus, F. Anselmetti,
J. Erbacher, S. Gulick, all experienced in both programs. They reported as of the January
2015 SEP meeting. K. Becker emphasized that the committee’s duty is only the joint
evaluation of ADP and it is not in their mandate to consider (once the proposals are
accepted) how the two programs would share the implementation. This would be a next step
between the FBs and ICDP.
The IODP forum is now following a timeline that will hopefully lead to the adoption of thisADP evaluation process in time, so that it can be implemented before October 2015. The
report was presented and conceptually endorsed at the January 2015 SEP meeting. K.
Becker presented this at the ECORD FB (#3 EFB) meeting this March, with somemodification for today’s meeting. If necessary, it will be modified again for the JRFB meetingin May 2015. If this is adopted it is going to involve essentially accepting a new category of
proposals which will be something that the science support office will have to handle (theJRFB oversees the science support office). Thus, the process at the May JRFB meeting willbe especially important, in terms of accepting this whole concept and process. Assumingthat it is accepted at the JRFB, it has to be endorsed by the ICDP executive committee
meeting in June and receive its final endorsement at the July forum meeting. If this all
happens then it should be implemented in time to accept proposals for the IODP 1 Octoberdeadline and the annual ICDP proposal deadline in 15 Jan 2016.
One of the controversial aspects at the last EFB meeting was that some members did not
like the original definition of ADPs as presented by the ICDP-IODP ADP committee (original
definition in the agenda book: “Amphibious drilling proposals are those in which the scientificobjectives can only be accomplished by drilling both onshore and offshore. They are
differentiated from proposals where both onshore and offshore drilling is desirable, butwhere either onshore or offshore drilling is scientifically viable by itself.”) It was not clear
what purpose the second sentence served. Also the process would involve sending the
proposals to two organizations, the IODP evaluation panel and ICDP advisory panel. Then it
would be up to each of them if the proposal fits that definition. So, K. Becker modified thewords and just deleted the second sentence:“Amphibious drilling proposals are those in which the scientific drilling at both onshore andoffshore sites is required for full completion of the scientific objectives.”
Chikyu could be involved in some of these proposals for full completion of the scientificobjectives. K. Becker asked for comments, and there were none.
K. Becker explained three basic principles for the coordinated IODP/ICDP evaluation ofthese ADPs.
(1) Adopt a general ICDP procedure for workshop to develop an ADP, using the regular
ICDP workshop proposal deadline (Jan 15) and coordinate workshop proposal submissions
with IODP national/consortium funding sources. Exceptions can be made for proponents
who are already prepared to submit a full ADP.
(2) Adopt IODP procedures for SEP evaluation of full proposals with external reviews, using:15

the regular IODP fall proposal deadline (Oct 1) for potential January SEP decision for
external review; and co-submission to ICDP at its regular Jan 15 deadline for evaluation at
the regular spring SAG meeting.
(3) Flexibility in dealing with procedures in both IODP and ICDP.
(K. Becker said that it occurred to him that the CIB has a workshop process while SEP likes
riser-drilling pre-proposals. He thinks this process can coordinate well with that.)
K. Becker showed a flow chart illustrating the workshop proposal submission process andevaluation. The original version is in the agenda book there; it was redrawn and simplified at
the #3 EFB meeting.
ADP’s generally should involve workshops bringing together members of the IODP and
ICDP communities and justify the scientific need for both onshore and offshore drill sites.
Workshop proposals will be submitted for the ICDP Jan 15 deadline, and co-funding
proposals should be submitted to either national or consortium IODP programs (e.g.
MagellanPlus, USSSP, JDESC). The Jan 15 ICDP submission will be reviewed by the ICDP
SAG/EC and the IODP SEP (SEP review similar to pre-proposals) with possible advice fromnational/consortium IODP programs. Workshop funds will be provided by ICDP and possibly
co-funds provided by IODP (national or consortium) committees (e.g. ECORD, USSAC,JDESC, etc.). Another important item is involving drillers (IODP platform operators, ICDP
OSG, commercial drillers) at this stage to help develop cost estimates.
K. Becker showed another flow diagram from the report to illustrate the full proposal
submission and evaluation process.
Full proposals will be submitted for the 1 Oct IODP deadline and co-submitted for the 15 Jan
ICDP deadline. If a full ADP is positively reviewed at the January IODP SEP meeting, the
IODP science support office will fast track the external review in time for the spring ICDP
SAG meeting. Following external review, the full ADP will be evaluated at both the spring
SAG meeting and the June SEP meeting. So, essentially no changes to procedures in either
program. The big contribution of this integrated process comes after those two meetings,
when the chairs/co-chairs will organize a joint evaluation to create one single integrated
review document representing both programs. The motivation to develop this came fromexamples of separate contrasting review documents in the past.
H. Villinger asked if there was any discussion about what will happen to the ADP data andreports? Since ICDP does not have initial reports or a database that is publically available,
he recommends this to be discussed. K. Becker answered that these issues had not been
discussed; the ICDP-IODP ADP committee was assigned only to discuss having an
integrated evaluation of the proposals, and not about any details of what happens if they are
actually implemented. K. Becker’s first reaction is that no IODP policy should be violated. H.
Villinger is not sure if ICDP will agree. K. Becker mentioned that there will be other issues
related to the implementation, e.g. in ICDP, often the country where the drilling takes place,wants to archive the cores. But such issues were beyond the authority of the ADP working
group. K. Gohl does not think this would be a major problem although it certainly has to be
discussed further. In terms on treating data/cores if the countries have these requirements(mentioned above), it could be decided that the cores/data collected offshore will be handledaccording to IODP standards and policies and cores/data from shore will be treated16

according to ICDP standards. In the end what counts is the added value of the science thatis gained by integrating both programs in an ADP. H. Villinger disagreed with that, because
ICDP does not have any real policy regarding data availability like IODP. K. Gohl mentionedthat then this could be an encouragement for ICDP.
C. Moore asked if the ICDP had descriptions of cores and things like that. H. Villinger said
that no, nor is there a report. It is necessary to go to the individual principal investigator (PI),which can be very time consuming. He also mentioned the legacy aspect; information can belost if the PIs change jobs. Since there will be drilling on land and at sea you need to have tohave access to both datasets.
K. Becker said this could be very useful if the CIB could make some kind of recommendation
regarding this.
Chair G. Kimura agrees. ICDP has a responsibility for data core archiving and they areseparated from IODP. Scientifically it is a very good idea to combine the two programs. The
question is how to solve the problem with ICDP. G. Kimura suggested that since ICDP
cannot do this, IODP could take everything (data, cores, and repository system), which
would be effective but would also require money. The main issue is how to realize this.
K. Becker encouraged the attendees to make a formal consensus along these lines.
CIB_Consensus_0315-04: The CIB strongly supports the creation of Amphibious

Drilling Proposals (ADP) under the umbrella of IODP and ICDP and the proposed
joint evaluation process of ADPs. The CIB recommends that after the completion of an ADP detailed reports of both drilling campaigns(onshore and offshore) will be published that the data collected during the expedition will be made publically available aftera moratorium period of one year that samples from onshore and offshore drill holes will be stored at appropriate
core repositories and made available to both scientific parties.

MEXT(Kimura)(14:18 h.)
Y. Kimura first announced that he will be replaced by Eisho Sato at the start of JapaneseFiscal Year 2015. He continued, presenting JAMSTEC’s budget situation. Around 100 M
USD equivalent is allocated by MEXT to JAMSTEC for science drilling and within that about
70-80 M USD is allocated for Chikyu operations (to make calculation easier, use 1 USD =100 JPY). The Japanese government is committed to supporting ocean drilling using Chikyu
and to operating joint IODP activities. However, the total amount of JAMSTEC’s budget
decreases by around 1-2% year by year. This is due to Ministry of Finance (MoF) policy;
they are open to cross-ministerial budgets though, for example, the SIP project in Okinawa.
Sometimes MEXT can apply for supplementary budgets. E.g. after the 2011 earthquake, theJapanese government provided a huge supplementary budget, which included repair workon Chikyu. So, the costs are around 100 M USD equivalent, with some supplementarybudget for fiscal year 2014, some of which will be implemented during fiscal year 2015
(because SIP II has been postponed). The Japanese government tries to keep this level ofbudget for Chikyu.

17

MoF-evaluated science drilling projects
MEXT applied for a budget (100 M USD as mentioned above) under the national “deep sea
drilling program”, a national drilling program for using Chikyu. Last year (in spring 2014) the
MoF selected this program for their special evaluation, and Y. Kimura was occupied with thisevaluation for three months. Finally the MoF submitted a report of the evaluation andrecommended several actions for improved contract procedures. Now they are following up
their activities of the contract.
G. Kimura asked if there were any supplemental budgets available this year? Y. Kimuraclarified that “this year” means FY 2014. This year there is supplementary budget, but he is
not sure about next year (FY 2015).
No other questions arose.
NSF(Janecek)(14:25 h.)
T. Janecek did not present anything. He said that he is attending strictly as an observer;
therefore he had no formal presentation, but is willing to take any questions. There were noquestions.
ECORD(Camoin)(14:25 h.)
G. Camoin presented an updated ECORD membership status, provided some news
regarding ECORD procedures, and also presented their educational outreach.
Currently ECORD has 17 members. The financial contribution of each country was shown inthe slides. The contributions cover quite a wide range from 30,000 USD from countries like
Poland and Israel, up to 5 M USD from Germany, France and a little bit less from the UK.
These three countries are the major contributors; providing about 80% of the total budget.
The annual overall budget is roughly 19 M USD. 2 M USD is allocated for fixed costs for thefunctioning of ECORD entities, but also for maintaining partnerships, e.g. they provide 7 M to
NSF and 1 M USD to JAMSTEC. This means that ECORD has an annual budget of 7.8 M
USD to run MSP expeditions. This budget must be considered as minimum budget, since
there are some additional contributions, such as in-kind contributions.
News after the last CIB meeting (CIB #2) is that there may be a new contract with Spain, andthey may rejoin ECORD soon. There are other potential newcomers to ECORD, e.g. Russia
as an accessing member, which means that they will pay a minimum amount to get accessto educational programs (they cannot send scientists at the moment). ECORD now has
more contacts at different levels in Russia and they are optimistic about getting Russia on
board within the next 2-3 years. ECORD has contact with other countries, such as
Luxemburg, the Czech Republic, and especially Turkey. There are meetings planned during
the EGU assembly where ECORD will work to convince them to join the program. The
Turkish Ministry is also positive about an ECORD membership.
The annual report for fiscal year 2014 is now on the ECORD website, and hardcopies will
come out in the next few weeks. This will be a summary of all activities during 2014, incl.
science, operations, management, education, and outreach.

18

G. Camoin said that ECORD would most probably play a crucial role in the development of
ADPs. For example, he mentioned the combination of the 796-Full proposal on Ligurian
landslides and the NADIR ICDP proposal; this could be the first real amphibious proposal in
the system.
G. Camoin noted that the in-kind contributions (IKC) mentioned before are crucial to save as
much money as possible so that as many MSP expeditions can be run as possible. Potential
IKCs include providing drilling platforms and systems, providing support vessels, andessential scientific services, hazard site surveys, onshore facilities near the drill site, ice
management, remote logistics and assistance, or anything the operator would have to pay
for to implement an MSP expedition.
ECORD recently adopted the procedure for IKCs. The three major items are:1) Any IODP member and non-member country can propose IKCs following an open
call,2) All IKCs will first be evaluated by the operator and the ECORD council would
review/approve the proposed cash value, and
3) IKCs will be rewarded with extra science party positions on the relevant MSP
expedition as compensation.
Referring to K. Gohls talk, four out of five MSP proposals in the system are using IKCs. So,
this system is already in place, even though the procedure has just now been adopted.
G. Camoin provided some news regarding ECORDs’ educational program of. He showed
what is run on a regular yearly basis. There are some programs directed to young scientists(summer schools, scholarships…) and other programs for teachers at sea. All countries andentities of ECORD can participate in these programs.
G. Camoin mentioned a program funded by both ICDP and ECORD; this program involves
workshops for developing proposals for any IODP platform. In 2014, there have alreadybeen 6 workshops implemented; they were very diverse in regards to suggested platforms.
One of them was addressing general procedures for all the platforms. In 2015 there are four
workshops planned (two dealing with JR drilling, one could be more general adapted for anyof these platforms concerning mantle, water, and life. The last focuses on submarine
bioseismology, maybe for MSP.) What is new about this program is to initiate the submissionof ADPs. ICDP and ECORD have decided to provide EUR 20,000 annually to support
workshops developing these ADPs (about EUR 10K each).
Next G. Camoin announced four summer schools coming up this year, including aninternational foraminifera school and the virtual drill ship experience. He finished withannouncing the next annual ECORD council and ESSAC meeting, to be held in Napoli, atthe end of Oct 2015.
H. Kawahata wondered that with so many counties joining ECORD activities, how does eachnation decide their level of contribution? G. Camoin answered that the contributions arenegotiated between each country and ECORD. There is no fixed amount (there is aminimum of USD 30K), but the contract is for five years. Most of the current member
countries are committed until fiscal year 2018, some of them for 2016, and one for 2015.

19

Most of the countries have to renew their contributions, and ECORD has to convince them tocontinue funding. When ECORD tries to restart the negotiation it is on a several years basis;
usually the budget stays the same for five years.
H. Kawahata asked why the European Commission doesn’t provide money to ECORD. G.
Camoin said that they are not ready to fund ECORD. They might fund the science, but they
do not want to give money and not know where it will be put. So they still follow the way ofthe previous program in mind. They prefer project-based funding.
G. Kimura was interested in the ADP. If MARUMs’ Achim Kopf is working on both ICDP and
IODP, maybe the archiving and data set issues are already solved. G. Camoin said that if
they submit these ADPs and if the SEP recognizes them as ADPs and they are implemented,
he thinks that this problem will be minor.
N. Eguchi asked for confirmation on the EC providing money for scientific projects. Is it
therefore possible that EC could provide money to the Mediterranean operations? G.
Camoin said all you need to do is convince the EC. For instance I think there is room forsomething, at least for the (some type of project). For the DREAM type proposal it is not in
the ECORD’s hands. It is in the hands of the proponents. The EC will fund on a project basis,but they are not prepared to fund an annual contribution.
No more questions.
ANZIC(Heap)(14:41 h.)
A. Heap gave a verbal update on ANZIC. ANZIC’s funding for the membership expires within
the 2015-2016 financial year and they are now planning for the next 5 years. ANZIC
membership comprises two Australian government research organizations (the largest inAustralia) and 15 universities. The New Zealand component is comprised of one government
agency (the national geoscience agency) and two universities. The new consortium will besimilar in number of members, with some universities leaving and some joining. The
membership is still strong. While the Australian government contributes the majority of themembership fee, the other ANZIC members contribute about AUS 800K annually (committed
for the life of the membership).
The ANCIZ membership will be the same as last time, joining the Chikyu, JR, and ECORD
platforms at USD 1.5M to US/ECORD and USD 0.3M to Japan. We’ve been asked toprovide an assessment by the Australian government about a reduction in the contribution
by ANZIC. There is pressure on the Australian federal budget, so the current funding levels
will need to be justified and reviewed. We should know the outcome by the July IODP forum.
Hopefully, there will be some official approval by September/October 2015.
ANZIC is providing world-class scientists to different IODP legs (e.g. for Exp. 353, Exp. 354,
Exp. 365) and is continuing to develop good proposals. There are two ongoing proposals for
Chikyu. First is the Hikurangi margin in a slow-slip fracture zone, and we are waiting for final
outcome on that. The Lord Howe Rise proposal was submitted last year and the SEP
recommended going for a full proposal. JAMSTEC and Geoscience Australia will hold ascience development workshop in Sydney to discuss this potential CPP very soon. Funding20

from the Australian government has been secured for the site survey. So, the work with
JAMSTEC will continue in order to finalize this project.
A. Heap announced the IODP forum meeting and welcomed everyone to Canberra thissummer.
H. Given asked if the scientists who compete to go on an IODP expedition have to comefrom one of the institutions or universities comprising ANZIC. A. Heap responded thatscientists could come from anywhere, any university.
K. Gohl asked if A. Heap could say anything about the annual contribution to IODP after the
renewal for the next five years; he wanted to clarify if in fact that was the AUS 785K. A. Heap
answered that the AUS 785K comes only from the universities and publically funded
research organizations. The rest comes from the Australian government. We have beenasked by the government to look at what would happen if funding were reduced.
K. Gohl wanted to know if there are any chances of funding being increased, to which A.
Heap replied as being rather unlikely. But ANZIC is asking everybody for assessment of their
reduced funding, which does not necessarily mean that the contributions will in fact be
reduced.
There were no further questions.

12. Chikyu Safety Review Committee Report
Chikyu Safety Review Update(Matsuda)(14:49 h.)
Shigemi Matsuda briefly reviewed recent activities by the Chikyu Safety Review Committee
and sub-committees, and also introduced the committee structure: two sub-committees
supporting the committee. During the Drilling safety sub-committee held last March after Exp.
348, borehole instability problems were discussed, including what actually happened andwhat CDEX can do to overcome the problems. Based on the analysis, five technicalsuggestions and one management-related suggestion were made. Those were brought up to
the committee meeting in June and were already introduced at the 2nd CIB meeting.
The second sub-committee meeting was held to review CDEX’s Action Item progress; andadditional recommendations were made. Those will be discussed together with theupcoming Site C0010 IODP operations at the next committee meeting this coming summer.
Later this year, the Geo-hazard prevention sub-committee plans to be activated to solicit
advice from additional experts.
H. Given asked if the committee members are all from CDEX. S. Matsuda answered no; they
are from outside CDEX and JAMSTEC (e.g., professors, oil company employee).
Chikyu Safety Review Sub-committee Update(Nakagawa)(14:55 h.)
S. Naganawa, Chair of Drilling Safety Sub-committee, summarized the Drilling Safety Subcommittee activities. The 2nd meeting was held on 13 March 2015, and they reviewed the
CDEX report and the future NanTroSEIZE operation plan. The major problem during IODPExp 348 was borehole collapse. The meetings’ discussions focused on:211) Interpretation of the breakout mechanism,2) Drilling fluid management, and
3) Developing a new drilling program.
According to the iGM report (a consultant service company), formations with steeply dipping
bedding planes, formations with potential weak planes, and anisotropic borehole breakouts
were present. Prof. Morita, a sub-committee member, provided supplemental comments on
the breakout mechanism. There were three contributing factors: stress, shale swelling, andtemperature, all caused drill pipe sticking and borehole breakouts.
Regarding the management of drilling fluid suggested by Prof. Morita, the sub-committee
members agreed: Nano-sealant is recommended as a drilling fluid additive. Maximizing mudweight as much as practically possible is also recommended.
The new drilling plan and casing program from CDEX included three new drilling plans. CaseA – deepening the existing hole with sidetrack would be the most realistic plan, the subcommittee notes. However, the sub-committee would suggest reducing time spent forunderreaming and manage the risk of using expandable casing, by drilling 1000 m in one
interval (two casing + one contingency) while the CDEX proposal was to drill fast and set
casing immediately at every 650 ±m interval (three casing + one contingency) with a 6-inchhole to be drilled through the plate boundary fault target.
Chair G. Kimura confirmed that there were no questions, and moved to break for coffee at
15:00 hrs.

Coffee Break
13. JR Advisory Panels Report/Proposal Overview
Science Support Office(Given)(15:30 h.)
H. Given gave a brief explanation about the IODP science support office, located at the
Scripps Institute of Oceanography and funded by the NSF. Their budget for this year was 1M
USD and 87% of it is for personnel costs. They have four main tasks for the program:
1) Support JRFB and its science evaluation panel (SEP), environmental protection andsafety panel (EPSP),
2) Oversee the proposal process for all of IODP,
3) Manage the site survey data bank (SSDB), which had been in Scripps prior to thescience support office moving there, and
4) Maintain the IODP website (www.iodp.org) for the program.
H. Given said what holds IODP together are the science plan, memorandums on platform
funding and staffing, common policies, common proposal process, expeditions, publication
relations, workshops, discoveries, publications, and other outcomes.
She showed a graph of proposal submission status, with submission activity pretty much thesame as before, and healthy, reminding the group that the new program started in October
2013. She gave more details, and describing the: percentage of active proposals, their target
ocean, active proposal status by review stage, and lead proponent’s affiliation. 17% of the22

active proposals involved Chikyu operation, and 12 proposals were uniquely for Chikyu. Also,that there are 1300 unique proponents.
She stressed that IODP proposal submissions must be made via the website(www.proposals.iodp.org); nothing else is accepted. The proposal submission guidelines
document is continuously modified, so she recommended that proponents follow the current
rules, at the following link (www.iodp.org/program-documents). Proposals would becontinued to be refined at the facility boards (see detailed diagram on the p. 147 in the
Agenda Book).
Some important policies (e.g. IODP proposal confidentiality policy and IODP site survey data
confidentiality) are under revision (www.iodp.org/program-documents). H. Given will also
redesign the webpage to add Chikyu- or MSP-specific policies as needed.
Call for proposals language was needed in early July to make the EOS AGU publishingdeadline in December, and she requested that the CIB members inform her if any
modifications would be needed. The group should check the wording related to Chikyu on
the IODP website submitting proposal page, in the call for proposals, and respond with any
comments.
H. Villinger commented that the PI for proposal 537B:CRISP is now in Spain. H. Given
answered that she confirmed this affiliation, and it reflects the PI base at the time ofsubmission. N. Eguchi commented that 835: JTRACK would be a riserless Chikyu operation.
D. Mallinson also added a comment that 835: JTRACK had been waiting for the revision. H.
Nishi asked if proposal 871: Lord Howe Rise Crustal Evolution was a full proposal. In
response, H. Given explained that it was pre-proposal and the SEP recommended that it be
developed into a full proposal. There will be a workshop, and then it will be developed into afull proposal.
No further questions.
Science Evaluation Panel(Mallinson)(15:48 h.)
D. Mallinson presented the SEP update and reviewed the status of 16 proposals, including
proposed sites and objectives. He mentioned that some of them are at CIB, a couple of them
are at JRFB, and many of them are still at SEP.
(505 Full5) This Mariana project could be a riserless proposal for Chikyu even though its’
potential sites are very shallow (150 or 250 m depth).
(537B-Full 4) CRISP-Stage 2 now has 3-D seismic data collected and processed in theworkshop, which was held at UT Austin last year as SPC noted in 2011.
(603C-Full): As suggested by SSP in 2005, the proponents prepared 3-D seismic data. This
would be a good option for the riser drilling in 2017. C. Moore commented that this is thehole being drilled and cased at Site C0002 now.

23

(618-Add5): East Asia Margin, this one is at JRFB, but also possible for Chikyu in riserlessmode. There are two possible sites, which are almost ready to go. The main issue here is
the problem of the proposed drill sites located in disputed waters in the South China Sea.
(698-Full3): IBM proposal is also ready to implement as PEP stated in 2011.
(781B-Full): Hikurangi subduction margin, which is the proposal for deep riser drilling with
6000 m of penetration. SEP reviewed and then forwarded to CIB with an “excellent” rating,so this project should be discussed at this meeting. N. Eguchi mentioned that the CIB
received this proposal last time on Hikurangi, and they didn’t take any action. The CIB will
discuss this tomorrow as listed in the agenda.
(782-Pre): Kanto Asperity Project: This one is still at SEP.
(800-MDP) This one is scheduled for its first expedition by JRFB for November, and one of
the three potential sites would need riser operation by Chikyu.
(805-MDP): Mohole to Mantle (M2M), there are 3 proposed areas, and one very close to the
CRISP site. There still remain the great technical challenges of high temperature and deepwater operations. SEP recommended the proponents to submit revised proposal.
(835-Full) J-TRACK, this is potentially a Chikyu proposal due to the water depths of the sites.
SEP recommended the submission of a revised full proposal.
(857-MDP) DREAM umbrella proposal of deep-sea records of Mediterranean events.
(857A-pre) DREAM-GOLD project has the listed SEP comments to improve the proposals.
SEP recommended the proponents develop this as a CPP with industry and submit a full
proposal.
(865-Full) Nankai trough deep biosphere; constraining the temperature limits of the microbial
deep biosphere in the Nankai Trough subseafloor. This proposal has been forwarded to the
CIB with “excellent” rating and will be discussed later during this meeting.
H. Villinger asked two questions. He commented if the borehole cap means a CORK in the
response letter, and if so, that would be very expensive. D. Mallinson said that he was notaware of that himself, but they mentioned that a borehole cap with temperature and pressuregauge, so it seems like not a real CORK. H. Villinger continued asking what EMS was, which
was described in the part “down-hole logging with tools like EMS to provide high resolution
temperature”. M. Kyaw described the EMS (The Environmental Measurement Sonde), as
something like a temperature measurement instrument with only 0.1ºC precision; cheap butvery reliable. He also mentioned that EMS is used only for borehole readings, not for
sediment. C. Moore mentioned that it’s possible to correct this for the sediment. N. Eguchi
reminded C. Moore that this was something much like they used for JFAST. D. Mallinson
asked if this matter would be discussed the following day. N. Eguchi told the group that they
could discuss it tomorrow during Agenda Item #16.
(871-Pre): Lord Howe Rise crustal evolution, 6 proposed sites, with contextual framework, a
CPP (complementary project proposals). Science meeting will be held in Sydney the24following week. The proponent would like to drill 1 primary site and a few others from theother potential five sites if operational time allows. SEP recommended submission as a full
proposal. D. Mallinson confirmed that the 3-D survey grid was funded by the response of A.
Heap. Chair G. Kimura responded that the group would discuss this proposal tomorrow.
(876-Pre) The proposed sites are located offshore Nicaragua, in which there are four sites;
1a, 1b, 1c (deepest), and 1d. Drilling at this proposed water depth is beyond Chikyu’spresent capability. WDs’ recommendation is to develop full proposal.
(880-APL): IMTB proposal is not clear on its experimental design. This needs a better
explanation with details and diagrams. Many issues and recommendations are provided.
Many of these will be discussed tomorrow at this meeting. No further questions arose.
H. Nishi asked if the 876-Pre proposal conclusion was that drilling there is beyond Chikyu’s
capability. In response, D. Mallinson said that the watchdogs said that would be beyond 10
km. H. Nishi asked if this is possible to implement with the current Chikyu capability.
N. Eguchi said that this issue is similar to the M2M proposal, that Chikyu cannot reach thetarget at this moment. H. Nishi commented that this was a very interesting and good
proposal, so he wants to know if this is within Chikyu’s capability. D. Mallinson alsocommented that this proposal is every bit as interesting as the M2M proposal.

21. Outreach Activities (10th anniversary activities – moved from day two)
(16:47 h.)(Omata)Tamano Omata presented an update of CDEX/JAMSTEC outreach activity from the last CIB
meeting. This includes IODP booths at the AGU fall meeting, AOGS, and the UN worldconference on disaster risk reduction 2015 in Sendai, Japan, collaboration with media, list ofactivities, website renewal, and Chikyu 10th anniversary plans.
Website renewal plans include a complete overhaul (new design), aiming to provide thepublic and scientists with easier navigation and more information. This will also be easier for
CDEX staff to update. It will be launched in April 2015, with two main sections: Chikyu and
CDEX scientific drilling. An IODP page will focus on Japanese scientists for postcruise study,
feasibility study, and funding info.
For the Chikyu 10th anniversary, she emphasized the CDEX/JAMSTEC would send the
public a strong message that they continue to pursue ocean drilling research. There will beseveral events: a memorial symposium, an open ship in Yokohama, workshops and local
activities with Chikyu sister cities (e.g., Hachinohe, Shingu), an anniversary report (inJapanese), and collaboration with media (e.g., National Geographic Japan).
Y. Kimura commented on the website renewal; it would be better if it is consistent with other
IODP community web sites (so that the new website is user-friendly). H. Given mentionedthat the iodp.org website is out of date, and some parts were just taken over from theprevious IODP-MI website. This is a good opportunity to simplify it. T. Omata commented

25

that the new website is based on a clean simple format, with the same blue used widely
among the IODP community, so there should be some kind of consistency maintained.

14. Chikyu Scientific Highlight (NanTroSEIZE)(Chair - Kimura)(17:00 h)
G. Kimura presented the present status of NanTroSEIZE, which has continued for more than
7 years, and is now nearing completion in its’ most important phase – reaching and sampling
the plate boundary. Some of the relevant points:
 2 million years of activity
 What controls the rupture area? An evolved upper plate; possibly also the subducting
plate and plate interface.
 Shallow localized seismic slip (to trench, like Tohoku)?
 C7 & C4 thin fault gouge band
 Vitrinite reflectance layers in these bands at these sites (C4 & C7).
 Suggests high velocity slip, right near the trench edge
 Only now is slip considered to propagate all the way to the trench.
 Dynamic rupturing may cause rapid weakening.
G. Kimura presented the current stress state at Nankai. If the in-situ stress state can be
defined, the danger level can also better defined. The very important difference here is that
NanTroSEIZE is drilling and sampling the in situ environment before the next megaearthquake. This can help define the danger in other subduction zones.
There were no more questions.
G. Kimura mentioned that riser proposals at other seismogenic zones are coming along. If
observatory systems can be set up around the world, this will be a very important step
forward in earthquake monitoring and tsunami warning. It’s not clear how this could beconnected to earthquake prediction, but the information gained will be very valuable.
G. Kimura declared the end of business for the day, and moved that everyone move to theplanned reception.

Reception
Day-2
15. Chikyu Long-term Ops models

Tuesday, 31 March 2015
(Kuramoto)(08:59 h.)
Chair G. Kimura greeted the group, briefly mentioned that the day will be a busy one, andreturned to Agenda Item #15.
Outlook for Future Operation Windows(S. Goto)(09:00 h.)
S. Goto explained the 3-year plan for Chikyu ops. There was a long standby period, due tothe long delays in negotiation for the India contract during this fiscal year. But now the26

project has started and is planned to be completed by the end of July. At that time Chikyu
will return to Japan by the end of August. Once Chikyu is back, dry dock begins. We
proposed last year to have an IODP expedition at the border of FY 2014-2015. However,that was cancelled by the abovementioned commercial contract delays. We now hope tohave some IODP expeditions at the end of 2015, and again in 2016.
S. Goto presented the Chikyu funding structure this year. Base costs are covered bycommercial drilling and by Japanese government funds. More will come from the commercial
work offshore India. This gives us some carry forward funds from savings in day rates. We
have USD 33M for shipyard work, due to JPY depreciation. Therefore some dockside items
will be dropped or postponed from the original shipyard plans.
We are looking forward to more non-IODP and IODP work for the JFY 2015. We will have
USD 99M for 2015. If dockyard work were not needed, we would have USD 33M, equivalent
to 3 months riser drilling. But the dockyard work is required for the legally mandated 5-year
ship inspection. We are now looking at riser drilling in 2018, with chances for 2 non-riser
IODP operations between now and then. CDEX is always looking for more commercial work
to offset the monies needed to expand operations.
H. Kawahata asked if CDEX asked the Indian contractor for the lost costs since CDEX wasforced to wait for 6 months. S. Goto answered that this was very difficult to negotiate, and weare not considering negotiating with India on this matter. C. Moore asked where the shipyard
work would be performed. S. Goto answered that the shipyard would be in Japan; payment
on it is Japanese yen, but BOP maintenance etc. would be paid in USD. S. Kuramoto added
to the S. Goto’s comments, that, since there was no official letter from the Indian government,
we cannot make any claims for money lost from waiting from September to February.
Potentials for New External Funding Sources(S. Kuramoto)(09:15 h.)
S. Kuramoto began by introducing the Chikyu implementation policy, and then the Chikyu
working plan, which essentially includes five months for science operations, five months forother/non-science operation, and two months for maintenance, per JP FY. This was alreadyintroduced at the Chikyu+10 international workshop in 2013 and during the last CIB meeting(#2 CIB). The Chikyu implementation policy aims at maximizing science output and outcome(by increasing IODP operations window, flexible adaptation of other sources of drilling, CPPlike projects, and building a robust funding structure). Since commercial work is not always
available, the current funding structure is not that stable; it requires some changes tostabilize.
S. Kuramoto reviewed Chikyu’s IODP long-term scheduling plans (presented at the last CIB)
and also reviewed the last 10 years of Chikyu operations, including the theme categorization
at the Chikyu+10 international workshop.
G. Camoin wanted to clarify if, after the Site C002 riser, three more riser expeditions (atmaximum) could be drilled in the best case by the end of the program, He reminded thegroup that this is something the CIB should keep in mind. J. Mori asked about the costdifferent between riser and riserless operation. S. Kuramoto answered that riser operation
cost is almost twice as that of riserless (basic cost is same). H. Villinger pointed out if we27

would like to keep 30% usage for IODP; there is already a problem with the 17% Chikyu
usage in 2014. S. Kuramoto agreed with H. Villinger that there is always money issue.
G. Kimura asked about the IODP (IODP Exp. 331) Okinawa operation and another operation
under the SIP (not open internationally). If these operation styles are applied to otheroperations whose scientific objectives are very similar, perhaps a kind of CPP operation
could be created, depending on funding. He wondered if JAMSTEC could do this kind ofoperation. S. Kuramoto answered that basically this is possible but in the case of SIP might
be difficult. H. Hotta also commented that JAMSTEC data are basically open to the public,
but this might not always be true for specific projects and their data obligations. G. Kimura
pointed out that if SEP agrees with the rule; it sounds possible (SEP now understands what
CPP types of proposals are). H. Hotta replied to G. Kimura that up to now, JAMSTEC has
never thought about this possibility; JAMSTEC will need to examine this carefully.
H. Nishi asked about the distribution of the maintenance window, which is generally twomonths long and slightly distributed to over the years. S. Kuramoto answered that the law
requires two to three months maintenance every year and major dock period every five
years; he also explained that the maintenance period appearing in the presentation includes
a “tie-up” period.
A. Heap asked what opportunities (for the membership countries) are available, looking at
IODP window for next three to four years. S. Humphris followed up on A. Heap’s commentand said that we should not raise expectations in the community, regarding the next call for
proposals. No more riser proposals would be necessary at this time. G. Camoin suggested
that the CIB has to tell the community that proposals would be prioritized soon so that their
expectations are not raised too high. H. Villinger agreed, saying that so many proposals are
already here for Chikyu; he noted that Chikyu will be busy until 2020, given 6 months per
year for science operations. He continued to add that he would also discourage sending thecommunity the signal to send more proposals for Chikyu. N. Eguchi understood H. Villinger,
but he asked if the MSP has the same situation as Chikyu. K. Gohl answered that it would
be good to have a choice with variation of lower cost to higher cost. He commented that CIB
should do the same as the MSP does. A. Heap asked to clarify how much opportunity isavailable (not to increase expectations in the community). N. Eguchi commented that it isalready a CIB Action Item to check the call for proposal wording, which was mentioned by H.
Given on Day 1, and H. Given again put up the Call for Proposals on the screen.
H. Villinger suggested stating that this year would focus on ship maintenance, but we haveto discuss what will come after that for the next two years. H. Given agreed, but also addedthat the community does not see the severity of the situation and what happens over the
next several years should be information open to all. H. Villinger commented that
NanTroSEIZE not being finished is one of the problems; since Hole C0002F/N/P needs atleast 300 days to complete. I. Sawada confirmed that this is not a fixed operational
requirement, but it would at minimum need more than 200 days, in total.
G. Camoin pointed out that Chikyu has four multi-phases projects (not single expeditions); if
the CIB compares their situation to the MSP. K. Gohl asked what would be the implications
in discussions with MEXT, and also asked if it is “calling for more proposals”. Y. Kimura
commented that MEXT is slightly decreasing the budget for scientific ocean drilling as S.

28

Goto mentioned. However, at the same time, they consider Chikyu a national program, sothey are committed to Chikyu and will welcome international science projects.
K. Gohl commented there would be high interest in scientific community; asked if there isalready enough proposal pressure or not. J. Mori said that the pressure may already be
more than enough, but at the same time he would not use “the CIB does not want to see
new proposals” wording. He continued that the CIB has to convey the reality of the situation,
but the system should be open, since a brilliant scientific idea might pop up in the future. Y.
Kimura commented that riser drilling is special in terms of long-term preparations that makeit difficult to set up an annual budget. On the other hand, good proposal pressure is a good
way for MEXT to set up the budget.
Chair G. Kimura replied that it is very difficult to make comments here because he is deeply
involved in the NanTroSEIZE project. He continued to mention there have been manydifficulties, which were not foreseen in the proposals, not only NanTroSEIZE but also forother projects. If we successfully finish NanTroSEIZE, the experiences compiled (withdifficult riser drilling) can be used to encourage all kinds of riser proposals. N. Eguchi
expressed concern regarding G. Kimura’s possible CoI here as a NanTroSEIZE PI. Y.
Kimura emphasized that MEXT recognizes Chikyu operations as a national program. S.
Humphris suggested scheduling simple drilling operations before completing the
NanTroSEIZE Site C0002 plan, by which time the budgetary situation might be better.
Chair G. Kimura suggested that the CIB make some statement to the NanTroSEIZE PCT
thinking about the project completion, considering that the Japanese people are aware ofNankai region earthquake and tsunami possibilities and therefore can bring taxpayer
pressure to complete the project.
C. Moore asked if the presently installed genius plug is similar to what will go into the hole. J.
Mori talked about observatory objectives, and making hard decisions on how much time canbe scheduled and how the extra information would be important. H. Villinger commented that
the CIB should encourage the NanTroSEIZE PCT to make a decision and come up with thesolution, considering the last PCT meeting minutes, of writing selling points for deepening
the hole and the matrix. J. Mori suggested an external review if it is a critical decision for the
program.
Chair G. Kimura paused the meeting for a coffee break at 10:15 hrs, and asked the CIB
members and other facility board chairs and CDEX representatives to join a closed session
and the meeting reconvened at 11:09 hrs.
CIB members returned to the meeting. Chair G. Kimura thanked the group for waiting; hesummarized the CIB member discussion during the coffee break: there would be one more
attempt for riser drilling; the NanTroSEIZE PCT has to think about how to finish the project
within a five-month drilling schedule. “CPP riser proposals would be welcomed” would besent out as the message to the community, regarding Chikyu riser proposals (“Call for
Chikyu Proposal – Due to proposal pressure, we are requesting only CPP proposals for the
Chikyu). H. Given asked if the CIB would make a consensus on this and clarify what CPP
means in the statement. A. Heap appreciated the CIB making a statement regarding futureriser drilling.

29

K. Baker asked if the CIB allows a one time five-month window. J. Mori answered it limits
NanTroSEIZE to completion within 2017-2018 and then maybe return in the future. K. Gohl
said he realizes the importance of this project, but asked if there was a realistic approach tothe ministry for funding to complete the project. Chair G. Kimura answered that getting any
extra funding will not be easy. Y. Kimura added it would be difficult to apply for additional
non-IODP budgetary funds for the Nankai project. S. Kuramoto also added scientists canapply for extra funds for observatory, sensors, etc., but getting sufficient funds for operations
is more difficult.
S. Kuramoto stated that more effort on his part needs to be made in approaching Japaneseindustry groups for funding. This could include in-kind contributions, such as tools,
equipment, and engineering.
Chair G. Kimura confirmed that there were no more questions/comments and moved to thenext topic, External funding sources.
CIB_Consensus_0315-05: The CIB supports NanTroSEIZE operations for the projected
IODP time slots in JFY 2015-2018. We encourage the installation of the observatorycomponents for the unique data they may provide. For operational decisions andcontingency planning, a summary science target matrix should be prepared by the PCT foreach step of these operations. The CIB anticipates that this will complete the current phaseof the NanTroSEIZE project. The CIB also recognizes that C0002 can likely be preserved forpossible future deepening, observatory installation, and continued investigations.
CIB_Consensus_0315-06: The following sentence will be posted on IODP proposal
solicitation announcement. “Due to current proposal pressure, the CIB actively invites only
CPPs (Complementary Project Proposals) for IODP Chikyu Riser operation”.
(11:16 h.)
Chair G. Kimura sent out a message regarding external funding sources homework. Projectbase approach (e.g., Mantle Drilling proposal, DREAM/GOLD), in-kind contributions inengineering development (e.g., deep water riser, high–temperature) and new materials(carbon fiber) are needed. He continued to talk about technology-wise, not money-wise
contributions, and that welcoming more contributions is encouraged. Chair G. Kimura
concluded that the SIP type of operations is one such possibility; he would ask CDEX andJAMSTEC to consider this more.
G. Kimura asked for other ideas from the CIB members. SIP-type of operations might beimportant for IODP. Moved on to Agenda Item #16.

16. Chikyu Proposals (update and discussion)(Chair - Kimura)

Chikyu Project Update (CRISP, IBM)New Proposals from SEP
G. Kimura stated that the CIB has endorsed forming a PCT for NanTroSEIZE, CRISP, andIBM-4, but not for Hikurangi. What should the CIB do with these? Activate their PCTs? Putthem into the CIB 'Holding Bin"? Deactivate? N. Eguchi reminded everyone that a CRISP
PCT was held in Dec 2013 at AGU. There was a site selection meeting and seismic data
meeting, but that is all. For IBM, the CIB consensus was to create a PCT, but CDEX hasn't

30

sent out invitations yet. NanTroSEIZE is up and running. No PCT for Hikurangi has been set
yet.
H. Villinger asked how much lead-time CDEX would need if IBM drilling took place after
2018. S. Kuramoto mentioned the need for site survey data and then possibly 2 years from
that. The operation time estimate was over 450 days (divided into 3 years). He also said that
CDEX has ocean current data (1 yr worth) and are still collecting detailed bathymetry data
via AUV. Additionally, the PCT members have not officially started. There are somenecessary technology developments underway, and some other operational aspects need tobe considered. However, the work is within Chikyu’s current capabilities. Funding is still very
unclear.
G. Kimura said a clear message needs to be sent to the IBM PCT from the CIB. H. Villinger
and C. Moore agreed that there was no pressing need for the CIB to take any action now. K.
Becker suggested that any CIB message be accompanied with a note that the next riser
project has been scheduled. G. Kimura and C. Moore suggested that the IBM and CRISP
PCTs be placed “on hold” until an opportune window opens for their projects to move
forward. There is no CIB “Holding Bin”, so these PCTs will be on hold, for the near term. The
group also agreed upon there will be no priority ranking made among the three proposals
currently at the CIB stage, and the following consensus was made.
CIB_Consensus_0315-07: The CIB will keep three riser projects/proposals (537B, Costa
Rica Seismogenesis Project Phase B; 698, Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc Middle Crust; 781B,
Hikurangi: Riser) without any stated priority. The CIB will not support PCT activities until anappropriate window of Chikyu opens.
865-Full: Nankai Trough T Limit
The CIB understood the scientific importance of this proposal and endorsed its
implementation. The discussion focused on whether to proceed with establishing a PCT for
this proposal.
H. Givens asked to confirm if a PCT can be established for a riserless drilling expedition, andN. Eguchi confirmed it depends on the complexity of operation but this proposal needs one.
G. Kimura confirmed the need to establish the PCT, and then began thinking aboutscheduling. There should be a CIB priority discussion between NanTroSEIZE C6 LTBMS
and this proposal for JFY 2016 riserless operation window. The JFY 2015 window will beoccupied by the IODP NanTroSEIZE C10 LTBMS operation.
CIB_Consensus_0315-08: The CIB established a riserless Project Coordination Team for
IODP Proposal 865, Nankai Trough T Limits, for scoping detailed implementation plan andpreparation for its implementation in the future riserless operation window of D/V Chikyu.
The CIB recommends Kai Uwe Hinrichs (Chief Project Scientist; CPS), Fumio Inagaki(CPS), Masa Kinoshita (member), TBN (member) and Ikuo Sawada (CDEX), Nori Kyo(CDEX), Nobu Eguchi (CDEX) and Yusuke Kubo (CDEX).
Note, the forth slot for the science member will be determine later.
871-Pre: Lord Howe Rise Crustal Evolution
N. Eguchi described the pathway for riser proposals. Based on the SEP results, the new preproposals come to the CIB, and then the CIB encourages workshops (WS) to develop full
proposals. If needed, a PAT can be established with CDEX, with TAT advice. Currently, the31

pre-proposals are at this stage. H. Givens pointed out that the LHR already has a WS
scheduled, and stated that she was asked by JAMSTEC to state that this is a joint WS. Y.
Kawamura stated that the PIs had wanted to request funds from the CIB, but the deadlines
left little time for planning WS scheduling. If this is a feasible proposal, they'd like the CIB tohelp with a 2nd WS this summer. Chair G. Kimura asked the group if there was consensus
for having a 2nd workshop, when N. Eguchi reminded him that the WS & proposal
proponents need to submit a WS proposal to the CIB. D. Mallinson asked if this was all for
LHR? He had information that the Bend Fault group are organizing a WS this summer aswell. C. Moore noted that they are looking at sites off Nicaragua, to which N. Eguchi noted
were beyond Chikyu’s current capabilities.
G. Kimura proposed including the bend fault with the M2M-class proposals. And therefore
the CIB will only take on the LHR now. He then called a lunch break until 1300 h.
CIB_Consensus_0315-09: The CIB reviewed IODP Proposal 871-Pre “Lord Howe Rise
Crustal Evolution” along with its’ January 2015 SEP review and recognized the importanceof this CPP project. The CIB endorsed its scientific objectives and agreed with the SEP
reviews to develop 871-Pre to a full proposal. The CIB invited a “Full-proposal development
workshop” proposal for PIs of this proposal with submission deadline of 30 April 2015.
Note, although the below consensus was made after the meeting, we keep this here as a record.
CDEX received “Full-proposal development workshop” proposal from 871-Pre PIs by 30 April 2015
and discussed among the group. The following consensus was made on 7 June 2015, after the CIB
member reviewed the workshop proposal.
CIB_Consensus_0315-16: The CIB reviewed ‘Full proposal development Workshop’ proposal for
IODP Proposal 871-Pre. The CIB endorsed implementation of the workshop and formation of a
Proposal Advisory Team (PAT) for the workshop. The team members comprise Yasu Yamada(JAMSTEC; Earth), Clinton Foster (Geoscience Australia; Oceans & Climate), Marco Coolen (Curtin
Univ.; Life), Ikuo Sawada (CDEX), Nori Kyo (CDEX), Nobu Eguchi (CDEX), and Andrew Heap
(Geoscience Australia).

Lunch Break
876-Pre: Bend-Fault Serpentinization
Note, although the below consensus was made after the meeting, we keep this here as a record.

Although the CIB did not discussed this agenda item during the #3 meeting, e-maildiscussion took place in fall 2015 and the following consensus was made. The consensus
sent to the proponent on 28 December 2015 and CDEX received a workshop proposal by 31
January 2016 and it will discuss among the CIB during its #4 meeting.
CIB_Consensus_0315-17: The CIB reviewed IODP Proposal 876-Pre “Bend-Fault
Serpentinization” along with its’ January 2015 SEP review and recognized the importance of
this project. The CIB endorsed its scientific objectives and agreed with the SEP reviews todevelop 876-Pre to a full proposal. The CIB invited a “Full-proposal development workshop”
proposal for PIs of this proposal with submission deadline of 31 January 2016.

Coffee Break
17. Mantle Drilling Working Group(Chair - Kimura)(13:03 h.)

32

S. Kuramoto reviewed CIB consensus 0714-05: formation of a working group to support
existing proposals for full crustal penetration to the mantle, the draft Terms of Reference
extracted from the Agenda, BEAM (Borehole into Earth’s Mantle) activities in IODP (~2013),
and steps into the next level of project approach in terms of science, engineeringdevelopment, funding, outreach/PR. This requires a specific site survey to update the M2M
proposal in the system; right now there are three possible sites: Hawaii, Costa Rica, andMexico. JAMSTEC and the University of Hawaii are currently preparing for a site survey off
Hawaii. Permission over the last two years was not received due to concerns about marine
mammal protection. Engineering development is at very primitive state (deep water, deep
penetration and high temperature tools required). Funding perspectives include approaching
governments, inter-government organizations, and private funding. Outreach needs toaddress the importance of having the understanding of the taxpayers. He continued to
explain JAMSTEC’s current engineering approach to this project: new materials for deep
riser system (e.g. carbon fiber), long-lasting drill bits, turbine motor, small scale CFRP riser
pipe test, and new drill pipe (DP). Discussion on these has not progressed far within
JAMSTEC; there hasn’t been much progress since the last two workshops and the proposal
had been sent for review.
H. Nishi asked who submitted the proposal to the program. S. Kuramoto answered Prof.
Umino (Shizuoka Univ.) already submitted the M2M proposal (IODP Proposal 805-MDP). G.
Kimura asked if Costa Rica is a candidate site; they include new pre-proposal in theworkshop in the discussion. H. Nishi asked if new submission of either pre-proposal orothers is necessary. S. Kuramoto answered that new proposals were not necessary, what isneeded is more discussion on science, engineering, funding, and outreach. Establishing aworking group is not recommended at this stage, he mentioned. K. Becker asked for more
precise information about the specific site and site characterization. S. Kuramoto replied
there are three sites, and if TAT needs more experts on engineering/drilling it is a good idea
to invite more people. K. Becker commented that the three sites are necessary to transmit to
TAT for discussion. TAT is not allowed to even look closer at the proposal. H. Givencommented that the proposal is still at SEP. No specific site was discussed, and SEP
commented they looked good, but different groups within the proponents favor different sites.
S. Humphris commented that three sites information should be available to TAT because
their sites are already defined; H. Given agreed. G. Kimura commented that the CIB alreadyrecommended the establishment of working group at the last meeting, and asked the CIB
members about their thoughts. C. Moore commented that he worried that the proponents
think only theoretically about the whole system. N. Eguchi added that large funding andtechnical issues are in the way. Currently, CDEX is working on this project domestically with
TAT. S. Kuramoto commented that more knowledge about ultra-deep ocean drilling isneeded. N. Eguchi commented that TAT already made recommendations to create aworking group. S. Kuramoto commented that an additional working group is not necessary at
this level; at another level, establishing another technology-focused working group would beneeded. K. Becker said the TAT needs the site characteristics to provide sufficient advice. H.
Given suspects that the PIs want to revise the proposal until the site survey data madeavailable. D. Mallinson guessed, looking at the SEP review, to bring in some other people
such as Dean Liver at the Jet Propulsion Lab might help improve the proposal.
H. Given wondered that the proposal reviews were not going to be available to theimplementer. G. Kimura summarized that the CIB recommends that the CDEX working
group keep going; the CIB will look at the record of communication with CDEX and TAT next33

meeting. H. Villinger commented that the site survey data looked good for the Cocos plate
location. H. Given commented that no one is pushing this one, and H. Villinger commented
that he is not sure the site survey helps decide the location according to the pros and cons
tables of technology challenges. He also mentioned that the target is 7000 m below seafloor;that would be a challenge in any location. D. Mallinson commented that the proponents
seemed to favor Cocos in the proposal. S. Humphris stated that their favorite is Hawaii
because the temperature gradient is lower, compared to the other sites, referring to thetechnical report. She added that temperature gradient is a limiting factor for the Cocos
location. D. Mallinson emphasized that they favor Cocos (but not technically). H. Villinger
commented that he would not wait until the site survey data comes out. D. Mallinson
commented that it would be based on technical aspects. G. Kimura commented that weshould wait and see by the next CIB meeting.
CIB_ActionItem_0315-02: The CDEX will work together with the TAT regarding “FullCrustal Penetration drilling” and will report back to the CIB at the next meeting.

18. Usage of Membership Fee (ECORD and ANZIC)(Kuramoto)(13:37 h.)
S. Kuramoto briefly mentioned how membership fees from ECORD and ANZIC are used andmaintained. The membership fee is collected annually, and it is directly placed in a new
secure account created separately from regular JAMSTEC accounts (Specific Contribution
account). The secured money is kept in the account for 5 years. If the fee was not usedwithin the mid-term project period, it can be carried over to the next fiscal year. In principle,
all the money kept in this account should be used for scientific operation, much like a SOC
from the previous IODP structure.

19. Chikyu Facility Procedures, Guidelines and Policies (Chair - Kimura)
Chikyu Staffing Procedures
Chikyu Onboard Measurements Guidelines
Chikyu 3rd Party Tools and Instruments Policy
Chikyu 2nd Post Expedition Meeting Guidelines
IODP Proposal Confidentiality Policy
IODP Site Survey Data Confidentiality Policy
H. Given noted that the “IODP Proposal Confidentiality Policy” and “IODP Site Survey Data
Confidentiality Policy” are all primarily products of review and revision from the old program
policies, and have already been approved by the other FBs, with no major changes from theprevious versions. One issue that S. Humphris pointed out was that the language of thesepolicies was improved. H. Villinger asked that safety requirements should be noted in the 3rdparty tools and instruments policy. S. Toczko answered that this information is (will be)
provided via the Chikyu wiki on the web site. There were no additional discussion/questions
regarding these policies, procedures, and guidelines, CIB approved four Chikyu specificprocedures, guidelines and policies and two IODP policies as they are.
CIB_Consensus_0315-10: The CIB approved “Chikyu Staffing Procedures”, “Chikyu
Onboard Measurements Guidelines”, “Chikyu 3rd Party Tools and Instruments Policy” and“Chikyu 2nd Post Expedition Meeting Guidelines”.

34CIB_Consensus_0315-11: The CIB approved the revised version of “IODP Proposal
Confidentiality Policy” and “IODP Site Survey Data Confidentiality Policy”.
CIB_ActionItem_0315-03: CDEX will provide the policy updates to the CIB.

Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing: Implications for IODP (Morono)
Yuki Morono from KCC made a presentation and discussed how this can affect future
expeditions. Since there hasn’t been a specific policy created for IODP, this has the potential
to cause issues for non-biologically focused expeditions. H. Villinger asked if this would
apply to non-biological core samples that were later used for biological study. Y. Morono
said that in that case, an application for permission would need to be submitted. A. Heap
asked who would take this responsibility, the lead proponent? He noted that these samples
could be around for years. H. Givens noted that the USIO’s M. Malone is of the opinion thateach IO should create their own policy. G. Kimura asked if this could affect the proposed
Nankai temperature limit project, and Y. Morono said it would. However, in that case, thepresence of Japanese scientists should make this less of an issue.
CIB_Consensus_0315-12: The CIB recognized the importance of the Nagoya protocol andits potential effects on future Chikyu IODP operations.

20. KCC report(Kinoshita)(14:15 h.)
M. Kinoshita presented KCC’s major roles and responsibilities, which include curation of
legacy and IODP core samples, maintaining the Chikyu lab mirror site, encourage intensive
use of core and related information, curation-specific researches, and facilitate access toanalytical facilities of KCC for IODP core study. KCC has upgraded advanced equipment
and measurements with funds from JAMSTEC. He noted that the total amount of coresamples reached 105 km by the end of January 2015 (including 5% of new IODP cores) in
the repository since JR began operating in the KCC repository area in 2014. KCC maintains
the IODP sample data & obligation policy. KCC also has other samples such as liquid
nitrogen, 300 DeepBIOS samples, and some cuttings from Chikyu riser drilling. There havebeen many sample requests in 2014 with new JR cores from IODP Exp. 323 and 346. He
mentioned that KCC is still developing a virtual core viewer, a CT analytical facility for IODP
researchers, using iPhone or iPad. Educational outreach activities include pre-cruise
meetings and a yearly J-DESC core school.
This fiscal year, KCC invited 10 young carrier scientists from China, Taiwan, South Korea,
Indonesia, and Vietnam as a new activity, the Sakura Science School, to spend 10 days
learning and training at the basic core school. The Japan Science and Technology Agency(JST) provided funds for this school. This outreach activity should continue for the next fiscal
year (2015). New cores and sampling parties are planned for KCC in 2015, during which
there will have been five expeditions from JR, and maybe one from Chikyu. He alsomentioned that Kochi University has finished building a new core repository just before
accepting more core samples. He stated that KCC has financial support from NSF USD
400K/year for maintenance and service for legacy cores (18,000 km worth) and samples.

35

Contract for the legacy and JR cores is in the process of approval between Ocean
Leadership and IODP/TAMU. M. Kinoshita will be leaving KCC soon to return to Yokohama.
The new director of KCC will be Dr. Tsuyoshi Ishikawa, group leader of the isotope
geochemistry group at KCC.

22. Next CIB meeting (originally item #23)
(14:30 h.)
Chair G. Kimura raised a question regarding the scheduling of the next CIB meeting. S.
Kuramoto suggested that it would be better to hold it before JFY 2016, considering a
possible conflict with ECORD-FB, but also to avoid the end of fiscal year. K. Gohl answered
they will shift their next meeting to early summer, probably to the end of May or early June,
so there would be no conflict. S. Kuramoto mentioned that the next CIB Chair, Y. Tatsumi, isbased in Kobe, so one idea would be to hold the next CIB meeting there. However, S.
Kuramoto should first ask Tatsumi if he could secure a venue. Chair G. Kimura confirmedthat next February to March, which is not really the end of the JFY, would be good timing forthe next CIB.
CIB_Consensus_0315-13: The CIB decided to hold its’ next meeting in February-March
2016 in Kobe. A potential time window will be provided after consultation with the upcoming
CIB chair, Yoshi Tatsumi.

Chair G. Kimura closed the meeting for coffee break at 14:34 h, and the meeting reconvened
at 15:01 h.

23. Review of Consensus Statements and Action Items (originally item #24)
(15:02 h.)N. Eguchi read out the list of consensus items, including 13 consensus and three Action
Items, and opened each consensus/ Action Item for questions and discussion.
Regarding CIB_Consensus_0315-4, H. Villinger explained there were two versions: astrong statement and nicer recommendation that he would suggest we use. Chair G. Kimura
asked J. Mori if there are any comments regarding the nicer version. J. Mori replied that it isokay with him. S. Humphris asked about the “data during the expedition” in the second bullet.
Her question asked if it includes “data obtained post expedition”. H. Villinger answered that
this needs to be clarified that it refers to “data collected during the expedition”.
Regarding CIB_Consensus_0315-5, H. Given asked what the “summary science target”
means; she was concerned that while it’s understood what that means now, it may be notunderstood so easily years from now. H. Villinger answered that PC members should know
the meaning (so that is okay).
Regarding CIB_Consensus_0315-6, H. Given mentioned that right now, the proposal
guidelines defining CPP are for JR operations, so “contact CDEX” should be mentioned
regarding Chikyu operations. N. Eguchi made sure that this is for riser operations (although
CDEX can accept CPP riserless proposals). H. Given pointed out that Chikyu does not haveroom for it. S. Humphris asked if the CIB would like to only accept CPP types of proposal
because it is financially helpful. H. Villinger commented that it should include both riser and36riserless. S. Humphris added that the CIB has more than enough riser proposals to last until
the end of the program. Y. Kimura commented that the CIB does not want to limit CPP
proposals for riserless operation. H. Villinger agreed that any CPP proposals are helpful. S.
Kuramoto also agreed that riser operation is especially financially difficult, but CPP riserless
proposals are also welcome. K. Gohl mentioned that the funding situation could change andthis can be revised every year, so it is good to put this limit for now. K. Becker suggested
adding “existing” or “current” before proposal pressure to make it clearer (this was added).
Regarding CIB_Consensus_0315-7, D. Mallinson suggested switching semicolons tocommas (changed).
Regarding CIB_Consensus_0315-9, H. Given asked if TBD part will be filled out by email. N.
Eguchi answered yes.
Regarding CIB_Consensus_0315-10, H. Given asked if the approved policies need to beposted on the iodp.org website. S. Toczko answered that the renewed CDEX website will
have them. H. Given confirmed that she will post them at the iodp.org website as well.
Regarding CIB_Consensus_0315-12, A. Heap asked about the JRFB case. S. Humphrisanswered that JRFB has not yet discussed that, but the ECORD FB discussed it last week.
A. Heap said this should be consistent.
Chair G. Kimura ensured that no other questions and comments remained regarding the CIB
consensus and Action Items.
C. Moore acknowledged CIB Chair G. Kimura for his efforts and contributions to studying
subduction zones since 1995. The group met C. Moore’s words with applause.
CIB_Consensus_0315-14: Thanks to Gaku Kimura for not only service as head of the
Chikyu IODP Board, but for a long-term commitment to ocean drilling and the study of
subduction zones. In so doing he has showed well the personality necessary to forge ourunified opinions.
CIB_Consensus_0315-15: We appreciate the influence of Ken Nealson on the Chikyu
IODP Board. He planted the concept of investigating the temperature limits of life at the
Chiyku+10 meeting and it has come to reality through a highly rated drilling proposal.

24. Other Business(Chair - Kimura)(15:10 h.)
Chair G. Kimura moved to the last Item.
N. Eguchi announced that he made a reservation at a Shabu shabu restaurant; he asked thegroup to let him know if they would like to join the dinner starting at 19:00 hrs.
Chair G. Kimura appreciated the group for all their contributions to the meeting andmentioned that he has one more year left until retiring. He said that he will continue
supporting IODP after his retirement.
Chair G. Kimura called the meeting to a close at 15:26 hrs.

37

Meeting adjourned

38

Agenda Item 5
CIB Decisions since Last Meeting

The following consensus items were made after #3 CIB meeting inMarch 2015

CIB_Consensus_0315-16: The CIB reviewed Full proposal development
Workshop proposal for IODP Proposal 871-Pre and endorsed its
implementation. The CIB also endorsed to create a Proposal Advisory Team
(PAT) for this workshop. The team members comprise Yasu Yamada(JAMSTEC; Earth), Clinton Foster (Geoscience Australia; Oceans & Climate),
Marco Coolen (Curtin Univ.; Life), Ikuo Sawada (CDEX), Nori Kyo (CDEX),
Nobu Eguchi (CDEX), and Andrew Heap (Geoscience Australia).
Sent out to the proponent on 7 June 2015.
Workshop was held in 25 – 28 August 2015.
Full proposal was submitted by 1 October 2015 submission deadline.
January 2016 SEP reviewed Full proposal.

CIB_Consensus_0315-17: The CIB reviewed IODP Proposal 876-Pre“Bend-Fault Serpentinization” along with its’ January 2015 SEP review
and recognized the importance of this project. The CIB endorsed its scientificobjectives and agreed with the SEP reviews to develop 876-Pre to a full
proposal. The CIB invited a “ Full-proposal development workshop ”
proposal for PIs of this proposal with submission deadline of 31 January 2016.
Sent out to the proponent on 28 December 2015.
Workshop proposal was submitted by 31 January 2016 (circulated separately
to CIB members).
Workshop will be held on 18 – 21 June 2016 in London.

Agenda Item 6
CIB Action Item Status

Status of CIB action items since the last meeting

CIB_ActionItem_0315-01: The CIB reviews and approves/disapproves three
new Curatorial Advisory Board members, once the list is provided.
New potential member list was provided from JRFB chair on 25 July 2015.
CIB nomination list was submitted to JRFB chair on 10 August 2015.
JRFB chair asked to approve three final candidates (Mike Lovell, Hideyoshi
Yoshioka, Elisabetta Erba) based on the FBs’ choices on 13 August 2015.
CIB approved those candidates on 20 August 2015.

CIB_ActionItem_0315-02: The CDEX works together with the TAT regarding“Full Crustal Penetration drilling” and reports back to the CIB at its next
meeting.
This item will be discussed at the upcoming TAT meeting (a week prior to the#4 CIB meeting) and will be reported in this CIB meeting.
CIB_ActionItem_0315-03: CDEX will provide the policy updates to the CIB.
No update since the last meeting.

Agenda Item 7
Chikyu 5-year inspection and refurbishment reportS h d l
Schedule
2015
Shipyard maintenance@MHI, Yokohama

Sep

Oct
Dry dock

Nov

Dec
Seatrial

Wharf

Wharf repair work
@Shimizu port

Jan

DCIS

Seatrial

Shake down cruise
BOP R&M@MHI, Yokohama

R&M (‐ 2014Sep)@Singapore,

Loading

Riser R&M
R&M*
@MHI, Yokohama
Tensioner R&M@MHI, Yokohama

Assemble / Stack up / Function test
Loading

Maintenance*Riser R&M is planned in May – August, 2014

LoadingM j WorkMajor
W k ItItem• Classification Society required inspections &maintenances– 6,600 V high voltage instruments– Navigation instruments, Radio– Dynamic Positioning System– Explosion proof instruments– Water tight door/hatch– Azimuth
A i th ththrustert– Ship construction– Main generator– Mooring gear
– Ballast tank
– Life boat
– Crane– Elevator– DerrickM j WorkMajor
W k ItItem• 5 year certification works– PowerswivelPi l– Crown Mount Compensator– Riser– Tensioner– BOP

M j WorkMajor
W k ItItem• Replacement of deterioration instruments– IntakeI t k exhausth t ffacilities
iliti– Air conditioning facilities(some packaged air conditioners)– Pump– DCIS(Drilling Control Instrumentation System)– IAS (Integrated Automation System)– Rader/ECDIS– Laboraory
L bReplacement work of Under Water TV
FY28；Mount of Store winch and traction winch at Shimizu port.
Improvement of winch system.
※ Replacement
R l
off winches
h is studied,d d we changehtheh directiondoff theh storewinch 90 , then conversion sheve is only one. Addition of safety measures.

Traction winch

Improved placement plan5-year special survey
and recertification of BOP

Adapter spool (Cameron)
Annular (NOV)

Replaced with new one

Repaired

Double body (Cameron)Replaced with new ones - SSR

Triple body (Cameron)Replaced with new ones
- Main Body
- Ram Cylinder- Parts of Locking Devices

Wellhead connector (GE)RepairedMaintenance of Riser Joints• Replacement of corroded
riser main flanges• Replacementpof damagedgbox/pin ends of auxiliary
line pipes• Replacement of damaged
buoyancy modules

Maintenance of Riser Tensioner• Disassemblingg and cleaninggof tensioner cylinders• Replacementpof seals forpistons and cylinder heads• Two cracks were foundon tensioner rings.
• Cracked parts weredismantled for repair.

CHIKYU Lab
R fi and
Refit
dR
RenovationiLab Modification Conceptsp
For next 10 year program operation plan
STEP 1
Shakedown

STEP 2Development

STEP 3Contribution

1 Optimi
1.
Optimizee Lab facility
facilit for Deep Riser Drilling
1.1 Efficient treatment for Cuttings work line
1.2 Deepp Drillingg Samplesp((Lithified and igneousgrocks))
1.3 Deep Drilling Samples (Limit of Life)
2 M
2.
More Fl
Flexibility
ibilit tto L
Lab
bO
Operationti
2.1 Simple Path of Samples
2.2 Efficient Layoutyin Each Area
2.3 Spare Space for layout customization and Third Party Tool in each
Expedition
3. Safe and Comfortable Work Environment and instrument tools

Core Processing Deck
New instrument(ex. Fume hoods)

After * Layout modified upon request
Physical Properties

MSCL‐C/‐I
MSCL
C/ I

Core Cutters

Working half Archive halfCore LabXRF‐CL

Sink

Paleomagnetics
Lab
Core Flow
Cuttings Flow

Flexible in layout

Curator’s
OfficeCold Core
Storage

GC
Lab

Fume
Hood
Micro‐biology
Lab
l
Glove
Core
Box
SplittingCAS
Room
MSCL‐W

X‐ray CT
ScannerLab（New removal tables，Open space in Core Lab）

Simple path of Core and Cuttings（Removed Core Splitting Machine，Installed large sink for Cuttigns treatment）

Lab Street Deck
Layout change for efficient work
（Layout change in Geochemistry Lab/Off-time Space，New working tables）

Geochemistry Lab
Off--time Space
OffLab Management Deck
Adopted requests from the scientists（Library, Lounge, Data Integration
Center Co
Center,
Co-Chief
Chief Scientist Office）

Library: 22 individual desks and chairs

Lounge： New furniture and carpet

LoungeLibrary

CCO: New furniture andcarpet
DIC: New working tables
Data Integration Center

Co--Chief OfficeCo

Results and Action items for near Future
Done by 2015
Items

Total

Done

Canceled

Incomplete

General

8

1

2

5

Core Cutting Area

7

1

0

6

Core Processing Deck

120

77

9

34

Lab Street Deck

50

17

0

33

Lab Management
g
Deck

19

8

0

11

Other

4

0

0

4

Total

208

104

11

93

F nextt 10 year program operationForti planl
STEP 1
Shakedown

STEP 2Development

STEP 3Contribution

Agenda Item 8
Other FB, IODP Forum, and Agency Activities
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

IODP Forum
JR Facility Board
ECORD Facility Board
ECORD
MEXT
NSF
ANZIC
PMOs

IODP Forum:U d t ffor theUpdateth Chikyu
Chik IODP B
BoarddJames A. Austin, Jr. ‐ IODP Forum Chair
Senior Research Scientist/Associate Director, International Relations
University of Texas/Austin,
Texas/Austin Jackson School of Geosciences,
Geosciences Institutefor Geophysics

CIB – Kobe, Japan
March 23, 2016

General Purpose
The IODP Forum is the custodian of the Science Plan and is a venue forexchanging ideas and views on the scientific progress of the program. The
Forum will also provide advice to IODP Facility Boards on Platform Provider
activity.
• No budget; attendance by representatives of partner countries/consortia
at scheduled meetings is voluntary and is supported by those members• Philosophical rather than political clout.
• HOWEVER, this phase of SOD is “collaborative”, and in such a form
important “program” aspects can get lost. The Forum helps to preventthat from occurring.

CIB – Kobe, Japan
March 23, 2016

Membership
IODP Forum membership is open to all countries, consortia, or entities providing
funds to platform operations.
operations Members will include active community scientists andrepresentatives from funding agencies (to any platform), implementing organizations
and program member offices. Program Member Offices shall select one or two
scientists forf scientificf membershipb h to theh Forum fromfeach
h country or consortiumthat provides funding for any platform. Scientific membership will be based on
demonstrated experience in scientific and managerial leadership positions. The
Forum will have liaisons from all other major entities in the program (e.g., theSupport Office, Project Partnership Office, the Chair and sub chairs of the Science
Evaluation Panel, etc.), potential new members to the Program, and interested
related organizations (e.g., PAGES, OOI, ICDP, etc.).

CIB – Kobe, JapanM h 23,March
23 2016

The Forum Chair
maintains a.ppt on the progressof IODP towards
fulfillment of the
2013‐2023 Science
Plan. The latest
version of that .ppt
ppt
can be found at
www.iodp.org/iodp‐
forum.

CIB – Kobe, Japan
March 23, 2016

The Forum meets once/year:• Last meeting in July 2015 in Canberra, Australia; next meeting in
Búzios Brazil,
Búzios,Brazil in September 2016
• All Forum decisions are by consensus; items arising from the last
meeting can be found at www.iodp.org/iodp‐forum.
www iodp org/iodp forum• Several consensus items are of interest and relevance to CIB.

CIB – Kobe, Japan
March 23, 2016

Forum Consensus 15‐03: As the ~2018‐2019 mid‐term renewal of the International
Ocean Discovery Program approaches, the Forum recommends the preparation of 1‐
2 page, summaries of recent expedition‐based achievements vs. further
opport nities for each of the 14 challenges of the IODP Science Plan
opportunities
Plan. TheseTh
summaries should be written in a style that is appropriate to target funding managers,
non‐specialists and the general public. If possible, these summaries should be
produced in time to distribute in 2017 to all national and consortium members
engaged in IODP‐renewal processes. Possible mechanisms to produce theseg rangeg from: ((a)) <1 day
y meetings
g of Co‐Chief scientists andsummaries mightoutside experts, in association with major conferences such as AGU, EGU, or JpGU,
to (b) synthesis mini‐workshops (not more than ~ 6‐10 participants) for major
IODP efforts, such as the multi
multi‐expedition
expedition investigation of the Asian and Indian
Ocean monsoons. The Forum strongly supports efforts by national andconsortium IODP offices to consider providing appropriate levels of financial
support for these efforts
efforts, to take place over the next 12‐18
12 18 months.
months

CIB – Kobe, Japan
March 23, 2016

Forum Consensus 15‐04: The IODP Forum recommends that all IODP Platform
Providers coordinate their actions towards the development of joint activities atthe occasion of the International GeologicalgCongressgwhich will be held on
August 27th‐September 4th, 2016 in Cape Town, South Africa. Activities should
include the organization of an IODP‐ICDP booth and (possibly) an IODP‐relatedscience session
session, membership drive for South Africa
Africa.
• An IODP session was proposed and accepted, with conveners Camoin. Austin,
Becker (1st Forum Chair) and Tatsumi• U.S. abstracts submitted (most with at least some level of USSSP travel support
expected): Austin, Becker (CORKs), Christensen (356 paleo‐climate), Dick (360
C Chi f) Fulthorpe
Co‐Chief),
F lth(356 C
Co‐Chief).
Chi f)• ECORD will also submit two or more abstracts; the session is open, so others(TBD) may also contribute.
contribute

CIB – Kobe, Japan
March 23, 2016

Forum Consensus 15‐05: A thorough review of education and outreachactivities across IODP should be a major agenda item for each future Forummeeting, with the aim of better coordination of these activities and identifying
opportunities for collaboration.

CIB – Kobe, Japan
March 23, 2016

Forum Consensus 15‐08: The Forum endorses the suggestions by two of its
members for potential IODP workshops in coming years
years. These are: (1) an
Antarctic‐Southern Ocean workshop to provide an integrated perspective on
proposed IODP and sub‐glacial drilling in the region (Note: The workshop to
be convened by Trevor Williams
Williams, lead proponent of proposal 813
813, and fundedby USSSP, is effectively a response to this suggestion.), and (2) a Global
Monsoon workshop to integrate results of monsoon investigations
throughout the world with results of the recent and upcoming IODP Pacificand Indian Ocean monsoon drilling programs.

CIB – Kobe, Japan
March 23, 2016

Q ti ? C
Questions?
Comments?
t?

CIB – Kobe,
Kobe Japan
March 23, 2016

IODP 2 - Progress Toward Science Plan Fulfillment:
Expeditions (Full Proposals) by Theme/Challenge• Updated after spring 2015 EFB/CIB/JRFB decisions• Does not (generally) include pre-proposals
Key:* = holding bin after external review** = sent to external review after Jan 2015 SEP( ) = done at end of first IODP{ } = security issues
green font = 2012 top US priority challenge for JR
cyan font = MSPorange font = Chikyu (*** = PCT approved)
white font = JOIDES Resolution

Climate and Ocean Change (Challenges 1 & 2)
Challenge

Done/scheduled

At FB’s

361 SAFARI(702/845-APL)#1 Climate
567 S. Pacific
708 ACEX2
response to
Paleogene
813 Central Antarctic
high{778 Tanzania
Paleoceanography
atmospheri
Margin369 SW Australia
c CO2Paleoclimate}
Cretaceous Climate(760)

At SEP
771 Iberia
Paleoclimate**
832 Tasman Frontier
Subduction
834 Agulhas Transkei
847 Drake Passage
884-CPP S. Australia
Cretaceous

730 Sabine Bank
(347 Baltic Sea)
751 W. Ant. Ice Sheet*#2 Ice581 Coralgal Banks
359 Maldives
771 Iberia
sheet and716 Hawaiian Reefs
Monsoon(820/849Paleoclimate**sea level
732 Ant. Pen. Sed.
APL)
847 Drake/Scotia
response to
Drifts708 ACEX2
852-CPP North Sea
warming
839 Amundsen Sea
813 Central Antarctic
Glacistore
climateIce Sheet
Paleoceanography
863 MDP ISOLAT
888 Aleutian Cenozoic

Climate and Ocean Change (Challenges 3 & 4)
Challenge

Done/scheduled

At FB’s(341 S. Alaska Margin)(346 Asian Monsoon){549 Arabian
353 Indian Monsoon (877) Monsoon}
354 Bengal Fan{595 Indus#3 Control of
355 Arabian Sea-CPP
Fan/Murray
regional
356 Indonesian Throughflow Ridge}
precipitation
359 Maldives Monsoon
618 E. Asian
patterns(820/849-APL)
Margin361 SAFARI (702/845-APL) 777-APL
363 W. Pac. Warm Pool
Okinawa(799)#4 Ocean369 SW Australia
response to
Cretaceous Climate (760)chemical
364 Chicxulub Impact (548)perturbation

At SEP

730 Sabine Bank
819-APL Arabian
Sea OMZ
863-MDP ISOLAT
868 Drake/Scotia

819-APL Arabian
Sea OMZ
857 MDP DREAM
858-APL NW
Australia

Biosphere Frontiers (Challenges 5-7)
Challenge

Done/scheduled At FB’s

At SEP(347 Baltic Sea)
#5 Origin, extent, 357 Atlantis
significance ofMassif (758)subseafloor
366 Mariana
biosphere
Conv. Margin(505/693-APL)

633 Costa Rica mud 833 Guaymas Basinmounds857MDP DREAM#6 Limits ofsubseafloor life

865 Nankai TroughTemp. Limit***857-MDP DREAM{724 Gulf of Aden}

819-APL Arab OMZ
857-MDP DREAM
858-APL NW Aust.

#7 Ecosystemsensitivity toenvironmental
change364 Chicxulub
Impact (548)Earth Connections (Challenges 8-11)
At FB’s

Challenge

Done/scheduled#8 Upper mantle
composition anddynamics(345 Hess Deep)
357 Atlantis Massif(758)
522 Superfast
360 Indian Ridge
Crust
Moho (800)#9 Seafloor
spreading andocean crustal
architecture(345 Hess Deep)522 Superfast
349 SCS Tectonics Crust367-368 SCS II
769-APL CR(878-CPP)
Crustal369 SW Australia
Cretaceous Climate Architecture
and Tectonics (760) (504B logs)#10 Chemical
357 Atlantis
exchange between
Massif (758)crust and seawater

At SEP
834 AgulhasTranskei Transect
805-MDP Mohole

805-MDP Mohole
879 Corinth Rift**

818 Brothers Arc
Flux

350 IBM rear arc#11 Subduction and
351 IBM arc
698 IBM middle
formation oforigins
crust***
continental crust
352 IBM forearc

832 Tasman Frontier
Subduction
888 Aleutian Basin
Formation

Earth in Motion
At FB’s

Challenge

Done/scheduled#12 Control ofearthquakes,
landslides,
tsunamis(NanTroSEIZE 1,2,3) NanTroSEIZE(334/344 CRISP A)
3,4***
362 Sumatra (837)364 NTS C10 Obs’y 537B CRISP B***
782B Hikurangi
Hikurangi (781A)#13 Storage andflow ofsubseafloor
carbonAt SEP
770 Kanto Asperity
796 Ligurian Slide
811 Cape Fear
841 APL Hikurangi
835 JTRACK

811 Cape Fear
533 Cascadia
836-APL Timor Tr.
CORKs
841-APL Hikurangi
791-APL Cascadia 852-CPP NSGlacistore#14 Fluids linking
366 Mariana Conv. 837 New Englandbiological,
Margin (505/693- hydrogeology
chemical,APL)
633 Costa Rica
physical
mud mounds
processes

887-CPP GoM hydrates

IODP-2 - Progress Toward Science Plan Fulfillment
Completed/Scheduled Expeditions by
Theme/Challenge(Note: Only IODP-2 Expeditions included in this table)

green font = 2012 top US priority challenge for JR IODP-2 operations
cyan font = MSPorange font = Chikyu (*** = PCT approved)
white font = JOIDES Resolution

Biosphere Frontiers
Challenge

Completed or Scheduled Expeditions#5 Origin, extent, significance 357 Atlantis Massif (758)of sub-seafloor biosphere
366 Mariana Convergent Margin - late 2016
#6 Limits of subseafloor life

865 Nankai T Limit*** - possible for 2017

#7 Ecosystem sensitivity toenvironmental change

364 Chicxulub Impact – spring 2016

Climate and Ocean Change
Challenge

Completed or Scheduled Expeditions#1 Climate response to highatmospheric CO2

361 SAFARI - 2016
369 SW Australia Cretaceous Climate - late 2017708 ACEX2 - 2018
813 Antarctic Cenozoic - 2018

#2 Ice sheet and sea level
response to warming climate

359 Maldives Monsoon
708 ACEX2 - 2018
813 Antarctic Cenozoic - 2018

#3 Control of regional
precipitation patterns

353 Indian Monsoon
354 Bengal Fan
355 Arabian Sea-CPP
356 Indonesian Throughflow
359 Maldives Monsoon
361 SAFARI - 2016
363 Western Pacific Warm Pool - 2016

#4 Ocean response to chemical
perturbation

364 Chicxulub Impact – spring 2016
369 SW Australia Cretaceous Climate andTectonics (760)Earth Connections (EC) and Earth in Motion (EM)
Challenge

Completed or Scheduled Exps.

EC #8 Upper mantle composition/dynamics

360 Indian Ridge Moho - 2015-2016

EC #9 Seafloor spreading and ocean crustal
architecture

349 SCS Tectonics
367/368 SCS II - 2017369 SW Australia Cretaceous Climate late 2017

EC #10 Chemical exchange between crustand seawater

357 Atlantis Massif

EC #11 Subduction and formation ofcontinental crust

350 Izu-Bonin-Mariana Rear Arc
351 Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc Origins
352 Izu-Bonin-Mariana Fore-arc

EM #12 Control of earthquakes, landslides,
tsunamis

362 Sumatra - 2016
365 NanTroSEIZE Obs’y - 2016
possible NTS riserless - 2017
781A Hikurangi - FY2018

EM #13 Storage/flow of sub-seafloor carbon
EM#14 Fluids linking biological, chemical,
physical processes

357 Atlantis Massif
366 Mariana Conv. Marg. - late 2016

Recommendations

Implementing Amphibious Drilling Proposals (ADP)in IODP‐ICDP
Goal
The Task Force discussed implementation pathways in January and February 2016 on phone and via
email to identify pathways for joint ADP project implementation.

Task Force Members and Mandate
The Task Force was formed on request of the IODP SPC and ICDP EC consensus in summer 2015 todevelop recommendations for implementing ADPs. Task Force participants were: G. Camoin (ECORD),
C. Koeberl (ICDP EC), U. Harms (ICDP OSG), D. McInroy (ECORD ESO)

Summary Recommendations
The task force members are convinced that ADPs will have very different approaches and needs. A
simple definition of an ADP is therefore difficult and joint land‐sea drilling projects will require a highlevel of flexibility from the agencies involved to meet the scientific requirements of such missions.
The definition of ADP categories needs to be widened.
1.
Project structure, operational management, administration and responsibilities. Whilesome ADPs will require independent operations on sea and on land, others may operate at the sametime or sequentially and may share drilling tools, instruments and services. In any case, coordinated
ADP management is essential and therefore a joint IODP‐ICDP operator team should be formed thatwill ensure effective coordination of the two operational domains. The team will be required to work
closely, and will be responsible for allocating managerial, administrative and operational tasks to
IODP and ICDP operator groups and sub‐contractors, and will ensure communication is maintained
between the groups. Additionally, the joint operator team will consider how to most cost effectively
deliver the ADP by sharing resources. For some expeditions, the level of IODP‐ICDP operational
interaction may be high (e.g. parallel or sequential operations), in others the operational interaction
may be lower (e.g. operations separated by long time intervals with minimal equipment sharing).
2.
Scientific management. In each case an ADP should implement a joint IODP‐ICDP mixed
structure for the scientific part,. ADPs should maintain a joint PI – Co‐Chief – Expedition ProjectManager scientific leadership structure and integrate science actions such as initial core description
and science, sampling, moratorium and publication strategy. IODP and ICDP have separate but
similar polices regarding scientific measurements, sample handling, curation, and publications. Bothsets of policies will serve as a starting point, and will be reconciled into a single ADP‐specific policy ona case‐by‐case basis by the joint IODP‐ICDP operator. It is expected that the first ADP will serve as abenchmark for future ADP policies, and refinements made for each individual project going forward.
ICDPs co‐mingled funding principle will often bring in other agencies with additional needs that also
have to be taken into account on a case‐by‐case basis. The joint operator would define the ADP’s
final set of policies, and record any deviations or additions in the ADP Scientific Prospectus.

3.
Finances and funding. The ICDP co‐mingled funding principle will bring in other agencies withadditional needs, so that a fixed principle of share of costs is not applicable and a case‐by‐casedecision process of all funding agencies will be required.
4.
Infrastructure and support. IODPs facility boards and ICDP with the responsible Principle
Investigators plus Operational Support Group have to discuss for each ADP how to minimize costs
and maximize outcome by effectively sharing resources.
5.
Joint staffing. ADPs shall be lead by 2 Co‐Chiefs (representing IODP) and 2 Principal
Investigators (representing ICDP, selected from the ICDP PI team) who assemble a single Science
Party/Team according to rules of IODP and ICDP (with two calls but one combined Science Party,
including members from both the IODP and ICDP aspects of the proposals, noting the differences
through which these two organizations nominate Science Party members).
6.
Samples, data, publications. Samples and data acquired during the course of the project will
be open to all members of the combined Science Party. IODP’s sample and data policy will be thegeneral guideline for ADPs. Exception for sample curation may have to be accepted for land samples
due to national legislation. Access to samples during the moratorium period shall be given according
to IODP and ICDP rules.
7.
Timelines. The timing of operations on land and off shore as well as post‐operational actions
shall be coordinated as much as possible but must be kept flexible due to variable weather,infrastructure or permitting conditions. Scientific post‐cruise/post‐operational actions must be held
jointly between the IODP and ICDP members of the Science Party.

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board (JRFB) Meeting:12-13 May 2015
Arlington, VA USA
Summary of Consensus Statements and Action Items
Consensus Statements
Consensus 1
The JRFB approves the Agenda with the addition of one item for the final day requested
by NSF: to revisit and provide feedback on plans for the review of the facility.
Consensus 2
The JRFB approves the April 2014 JRFB Meeting Minutes with no changes.
Consensus 3
The JRFB approves the Guidelines for Joint IODP-ICDP “Amphibious” Proposals andagrees to move forward with implementation in conjunction with the ICDP and the IODP
Science Support Office.
Consensus 4
The JRFB approves the plan to contact proponents (via e-mail) of inactive (>5 years)
proposals at SEP to update or deactivate their proposal.
Consensus 5
The JRFB recommends Proposal 505/693-APL: Mariana Convergent Margin and South
Chamorro Seamount (one expedition) and Proposal 878-CPP: South China Sea Rifting(two expeditions) for scheduling in FY’17. Furthermore, the JRFB recommends that
Proposal 760: SW Australia Margin Cretaceous Climate be first on the FY’18 schedule,
and that Proposal 781A: Hikurangi be scheduled sometime during FY’18. The
expectation of the JRFB is that there will be 10 months of operations in FY’18 and 10
months of operation in FY’19 as a result of scheduling the CPP.
Consensus 6
The JRFB affirms that, based on current and anticipated proposal pressure, the JOIDES
Resolution will follow a path from the southwestern Pacific Ocean, through the Southern
Ocean, and into the Atlantic Ocean for opportunities for drilling there starting in FY’19.
The JRFB further expects that the JR will operate in the Atlantic, Mediterranean,
Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico over the next few years.
Consensus 7
The JOIDES Resolution Science Operator (JRSO) Annual Program Plan FY’16 isapproved in principle. It was then circulated for approval by e-mail in July 2015, andformally approved on 13 July 2015.

1	
  Consensus 8
The JRFB recommends that the moratorium period for each expedition be a maximumof 18 months post the end-of-expedition.
Consensus 9
The Science Support Office Annual Program Plan FY’16 is approved in principle. A final
plan will be circulated for approval by e-mail in July 2015.
Consensus 10
The JRFB approves the appointment of Anthony Koppers as its next Chair beginning on
1 October 2015.
Consensus 11
The JRFB thanks Susan Humphris and Heiko Pälike for their service in the early yearsof the JRFB.

Action Items
Action Item 1
A small working group (Holly Given, Christina Ravelo, Dave Mallinson, Dave McInroy,
and Nobu Eguchi) will work to review and clarify the Proposal Submission Guidelines.
Action Item 2
A small working group (Dave Mallinson, Anthony Koppers, and Mike Coffin) will work toreview, clarify, and refine the Site Characterization Guidelines.
Action Item 3
Susan Humphris will draft e-mails to proponents who have proposals at SEP that havebeen inactive for 5 years or more. The email will ask if the proponent is planning to
update their proposal, and if they respond that they will not, the SEP will deactivate theproposal. The exception is Proposal 705: Santa Barbara Basin Climate Change, which
will be deactivated because implementation is impractical.
Action Item 4
The JRFB Chair will request that ECORD and CIB approve the moratorium statementby e-mail.
Action Item 5
A subgroup consisting of Heiko Pälike, Anthony Koppers, and Jamie Allan will consider
Data Development issues and the path forward for IODP data.
Action Item 6
The chairs of the Facility Boards will request nominations from the curators for threepositions on the CAB. The recommendations for the new members will be circulated to
all three Facility Boards for approval.

2	  Action Item 7
The JRFB Chair will request that USSSP solicit applications for the JRFB science
member replacements for Heiko Pälike and Susan Humphris. Recommendations fromthis process will be circulated to the JRFB for approval.

3	  JOIDES Resolution Facility Board (JRFB) Meeting Roster:
12 – 13 May 2015
Arlington, VA USA
JOIDES Resolution Facility Board – JRFBJames Allan
National Science Foundation, USA
Brijesh Bansal
Ministry of Earth Science, India
Gilbert Camoin
ECORD Management Agency, CEREGE, France
Mike Coffin
University of Tasmania, Australia
Marcio Silva
Coord. de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nivel (CAPES), Brazil
Gil Young Kim
Korea Inst. of Geosc. and Mineral Res. (KIGAM), Republic of Korea
Shujun Zhang1
Administrative Centre for China’s Agenda 21, China
Brad Clement
JR Science Operator (JRSO), Texas A&M University, USA
Ryo Anma
University of Tsukuba, Japan
Susan Humphris, Chair Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA
Anthony Koppers
Oregon State University, USA
Heiko Pälike
University of Bremen, Germany
Christina Ravelo
University of California Santa Cruz, USA
Andrew Roberts
Australian National University, Australia
Liaisons
Keir Becker
David McInroy2
Holly Given
Karsten Gohl
Barry Katz
Dick Kroon
Shin’ichi Kuramoto
Dave Mallinson

IODP Forum Chair, University of Miami, USA
ECORD Science Operator (ESO), British Geological Survey, UK
IODP Science Support Office, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA
ECORD Facility Board Chair, AWI-Bremerhaven, Germany
EPSP Chair, Chevron Corporation, Houston, TX, USA
SEP Co-Chair, The University of Edinburgh, UK
Center for Deep Earth Exploration (CDEX), JAMSTEC, JapanSEP Co-Chair, East Carolina University, USA

Observers
Jamie Austin
Rita Bauer
Carl BrennerDavid Divins
Nobu Eguchi
Nadine Hallman
Stuart Henrys
Bob Houtman
John Jaeger
Thomas Janecek
Mitch Malone
Sugiyama Masato
Sidney Mello
Rick Murray
Hiroshi Nishi
Eisho Sato
Angela Slagle
Meagan Thompson
Shouting Tuo
Dominique Weis
Michiko Yamamoto

Incoming IODP Forum Chair, University of Texas at Austin, USA
IODP Science Support Office, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA
USSSP, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
Consortium for Ocean Leadership, USA
CDEX, JAMSTEC, JapanECORD Management Agency, CERGE, France
New Zealand IODP Coordinator, ANZICNational Science Foundation, USA
US Advisory Committee, University of Florida, USA
National Science Foundation, USA
JRSO, Texas A&M University, USA
NOAA/OAR International Activities Office (JAMSTEC Fellow), Japan
Universidade Federal Fluminense, CAPES, Brazil
National Science Foundation, USA
IODP Section Chair, J-DESC, Tohoku University, Japan
Ministry of Ed., Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), JapanUSSSP, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
National Science Foundation, USA
IODP-China Office, Tongji University, China
ECORD Sci. Sup. and Advisory Com. (ESSAC), Univ. of Brit. Columbia
IODP Science Support Office, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, US

1
2

Alternate for Qing Sun	
  Alternate for Robert Gatliff	
  

4	
  

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board Meeting Notes:
12-13 May 2015
Arlington, VA USA
Tuesday

12 May 201508:30-18:00

1. Welcome and Introductions

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board (JRFB) Chair Susan Humphris welcomed the groupand reviewed the rules of engagement, confidentiality policy, and conflict of interest
management for this meeting. She also asked for self-introductions by all members,
liaisons, and observers.

2. Approval of Agenda

Susan Humphris requested consensus to approve the agenda. Jamie Allan, NSF
Program Manager, requested the addition of an item to gather opinions about andchanges to the JR Facility Review Process, as he would present it later that day. Susan
received consensus to approve the agenda with this revision.
Consensus 1
The JRFB approves the Agenda with the addition of one item for the final day requested
by NSF: to revisit and provide feedback on plans for the review of the facility.

3. Approval of April 2014 JRFB Meeting Minutes

Susan Humphris asked if the members had recommended changes. None werevoiced.
Consensus 2
The JRFB approves the April 2014 JRFB Meeting Minutes with no changes.

4. National Science Foundation (NSF) Report

Rick Murray, NSF’s new Ocean Science Division Director, presented a summary of the
Sea Change: 2015-2025 Decadal Survey of Ocean Sciences (DSOS) report by the
National Research Council / National Academy of Sciences. He distributed copies of
the NSF reply to DSOS, which was released 11 May. Rick noted that the US scienceand legislative communities hold reports from the National Academy of Sciences in thehighest esteem, and that the NSF Director recently stated that National Academy of
Sciences reports are the standard by which the NSF will move forward.
Within this Decadal Survey Report, the IODP is noted to be high in cost, but also of highrelevance in five of the eight areas of priority study selected by the survey. Ricksummarized the following options for the IODP to address the Decadal Survey’s
recommended 10% cut in operating costs:Raise more revenue from international partners
Increase external funding for operations (e.g. Complementary Project Proposals CPPs)
Reduce costs for operating by reducing program funded science services
Reduce the number of expeditions per year5	
  

The first two options are what the IODP is most interested in, and is, pursuing. Rickpointed out that if the IODP makes no progress by 2018, funding discussions regarding
scientific ocean drilling will become quite pointed.
Brijesh Bansal, JRFB Partner Member for India, agreed that it is a good idea to enhance
CPP contributions. Anthony Koppers, JRFB Science Member, pointed out that CPPs
had scientists’ support because the plan was to get more expeditions by increasing
outside funds. However, NSF had indicated that if new money is brought in, the IODP
budget wouldn’t necessarily increase; those funds could go elsewhere in the Ocean
Science Division (OCE). Rick stated that OCE is trying to codify the distribution of funds
such that a significant portion of the money saved would be retained within IODP.
Heiko Pälike, JRFB Science Member, pointed out that a significant component of thehistoric increase in IODP costs was the price of oil. Rick agreed, but he clarified that
NSF is looking beyond fuel costs. They are looking for structural changes to capitalize
on lower costs.
Jamie Allan then presented his review of IODP financial forecasts. He announced the
new five-year award of the United States Science Support Program (USSSP) to
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) and thanked the Consortium for Ocean
Leadership (COL) for heading the USSSP office for the past three decades.
Jamie pointed out that the IODP has seen significant cost savings from previous efforts
including:Selecting Texas A&M University as the JR Science Operator
Limiting logging services on the JR
Coordinating the geographic scope of yearly operations to produce fuel savings
Removing the fuel price contingency from the JRSO facility budget.

Jamie noted that the NSF is hoping for a 50% increase (roughly) from the IODP
member partners, starting in 2020, to restore the balance to the 50-50 (US-International
Partner) funding distribution of the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP: 1985-2002).
Karsten Gohl, the European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD) Facility
Board Chair, asked why NSF didn’t call for an immediate increase from international
partners? Jamie pointed out that the plan uses surplus and CPP funds to pre-funddeficits and cover operational risks (e.g. fuel price increases, loss of drill string) prior to2020. However, NSF would welcome international partners willing to increase theirshare in the base funding costs. Although Jamie pointed out that additional costdecreases from reduced services and operations is an option as well, Rick respectfully
suggested that the JRFB be cautious, as this type of cut could lead to reduced
contributions from the international community. Jamie provided a good example of an
acceptable risk that resulted in a significant cost savings (the implementation of drill
casing strings with re-entry capability).

6	
  Draft Plan for the JR Facility Review
Jamie then presented a draft plan for the annual and mid-year (3rd year) reviews of the
JR Facility, which are scheduled for February 2016, to be performed in consultation with
the JRFB. These reviews are required now that the management of the JR Facility isunder NSF. Jamie noted that if the JRSO reviews well, their contract could be renewed
rather than re-competed. Jamie asked the Facility Board members for input on theplanned reviews, and Susan Humphris asked the Facility Board to think of a
combination of revenue increases or cost savings that might be appropriate to present
to NSF.
Follow on Discussion of the Draft Plan for the JR Facility Review (from Day 2)
In their follow on discussion, the attendees of the JRFB provided the following
suggestions to NSF regarding the content and membership of the JR Facility Review:







The review should examine the role and effectiveness of the JR Facility Board.
The review should examine the effectiveness of and funding for Education andOutreach.
The review should include JRSO’s self-assessment and areas of improvement.
The review panel should include international panel members.
The review should relate to the new program only.
The review panel should remain consistent (with small variations) for future
reviews.

Holly Given, the IODP Science Support Office (SSO) Director, asked Jamie whether the
SSO had a role in the JR Facility Review. He stated that, while technically, the review isof the JR Facility only, there is potential overlap and linkage between the facility and the
support office.

5. Science Support Office Report

Holly Given presented a summary of activities and accomplishments at the Science
Support Office since April 2014. Her highlights were: High proposal submission volume for the first three deadlines and a much lower
submission volume for 1 April 2015
 Continued high data file submission volume to the SSDB Increased proprietary data requests, which led to a clarification of theconfidentiality policies for data and proposals
 Continued reasonable deactivation rates for proposal reviews at Science
Evaluation Panel (SEP) meetings.

Susan Humphris stated that the JRFB (via the SEP) might have caused the SSDB filesubmittal increase by permitting only one proposal revision and the requirement to haveall data available for review at that time. This resulted in proponents being more diligent
in submitting their data. Anthony Koppers also pointed out that the SEP and
Environmental Protection and Safety Panel (EPSP) are requiring more alternate sites,
so proponents are submitting data for alternate sites as well.

7	
  6. IODP Forum ReportKeir Becker, outgoing Forum Chair, summarized progress toward the IODP Science
Plan and introduced Jamie Austin as the incoming Forum Chair. He noted that the next
Forum meeting will review Education and Outreach activities, and that there will not be
an International Continental Drilling Program (ICDP) representative at the Forummeeting, but that he will attend the next ICDP meeting.

7. Facility Board Reports
ECORD – Karsten Gohl reported the following items from the March 2015 ECORD
Facility Board (E-FB) meeting:







A summary of the status of the Mission-Specific Platform (MSP) proposals at the
March 2015 E-FB meeting. Karsten noted that, as a result of their careful balance
between low, medium, and high cost expeditions, ECORD will implement only
one more high cost expedition through the end of this IODP phase (2023).
A summary of E-FB membership changes; including an increase of the Science
Board member number to six, creation of a new Vice-Chair position to help
decrease the chair’s travel burden, and naming of Gille Lericolais and Dominique
Weis as the E-FB Chair and Vice-Chair, respectively, starting January 2016.
The acceptance of the MSP Third-Party Tools and Instruments Policy and theendorsement of the IODP-ICDP Guidelines on Amphibious Drilling Proposals(ADPs).
The schedule for their next meeting as 15-16 June 2016 in Belgium (likely
Brussels).

Chikyu – Nobu Eguchi, JRFB Liaison for CDEX/JAMSTEC3 (standing in for Chikyu

IODP Board (CIB) Chair, Yoshiyuki Tatsumi), reviewed CIB consensus items from their
July 2014 and March 2015 meetings, as well as the progress of Chikyu expeditions
completed since the last JRFB meeting. Nobu confirmed that the CIB will continue to
use the EPSP for riserless expeditions, but the CIB will conduct their own independent
review of riser expeditions.

8. Policy and Guideline Updates
Proposal Submission Guidelines

Holly Given stated that the current Proposal Submission Guidelines document wasdeveloped at the end of the last program (IODP: 2003-2013). This current version
serves both as a tutorial for new proposal submitters, and as the policy document forwhat happens during review (which, as Dick Kroon, SEP Co-Chair pointed out, is quite
complex because we’re dealing with three platforms). Unfortunately, the document isgetting large and it could be hard for new participants to find information. Holly
requested an opinion from this board regarding this document and its effectiveness atmeeting the needs of the community.
Christina Ravelo (JRFB Science Member) and Anthony Koppers had both reviewed the
Guidelines and agreed to share their notes with Holly. They, along with Heiko Pälike
and Nobu Eguchi, expressed the opinion that a summary table (such as
3	
  Center	
  for	
  Deep	
  Earth	  Exploration	
  at	
  the	  Japanese	
  Agency	
  for	
  Marine-­‐Earth	
  Science	
  and	
  Technology

8	
  

	
  

https://www.iodp.org/proposal-submission-overview-pdb-v2), cheat sheet, or flow chart
would be helpful. Susan Humphris pointed out that previous attempts at a flow chart
were too complex to be helpful.
Dick, Barry Katz (EPSP Chair), and Holly suggested that splitting the document (byplatform, by type of drilling, or by proposal preparation vs. review rules) might make theindividual documents less cumbersome, but would work against the idea of having lessdocumentation.
The Board agreed that an effort should be made to review and clarify this document and
Holly Given, Christina Ravelo, Dave Mallinson (SEP Co-chair), Dave McInroy (alternate
for Robert Gatliff), JRFB Liaison for the ECORD Science Operator), and Nobu Eguchi
volunteered to assist. Jamie Austin requested that this group generate a one or twopage guideline or table that contains callouts to the detailed document.
Action Item 1
A small working group (Holly Given, Christina Ravelo, Dave Mallinson, Dave McInroy,
and Nobu Eguchi) will work to review and clarify the Proposal Submission Guidelines.

IODP Site Characterization Data Guidelines

Holly Given requested JRFB input regarding the validity and helpfulness of the Site
Characterization Data Guidelines and how the SSO should handle the files submitted inrelation to the guidelines. Anthony Koppers stated that the document was in need ofreview, and Susan Humphris pointed out that it is the SEP’s job to set guidelines fordata format and evaluation. Barry Katz stated that guidelines should permit enoughflexibility to benefit the program, while retaining the ability to work safely. Dave
Mallinson countered that, while he would like to remain flexible, permitting a wide rangeof formats in submitted data places a significant burden on the data reviewers. Davewould like to have a working group review the guidelines to make them more precise
and clear, with the goal of pushing the proponents toward data consistency.
Jamie Allan pointed out that flexibility is likely more necessary in the case of proprietarydata, which the proponent may not be able to modify in format or style. He also statedthat it is critical to have precise site locations, as there is a great preference to drilling ininternational waters.
Action Item 2
A small working group (Dave Mallinson, Anthony Koppers, and Mike Coffin4) will work toreview, clarify, and refine the Site Characterization Guidelines.

9. Report on SEP Meetings #2 and #3

Dick Kroon presented a summary of the June 2014 and January 2015 SEP Meetings
and asked for JRFB input on how the SEP might improve their meeting process. Dick
asked for feedback from the JRFB and the community regarding:

4	
  

JRFB	
  Partner	
  Member	
  for	  the	  Australia-­‐New	
  Zealand	
  IODP	
  Consortium	
  (ANZIC)	
  
9	
  






SEP’s current rate of proposal deactivation: approximately 1/3 of the submitted
proposals were deactivated, but approximately 50% of the deactivated proposals
will return as revised proposals.
SEP strictness of proposal review: is SEP too harsh in their review of standard
proposals? With the increasing number of CPPs submitted to the SEP, are they
strict enough on CPPs? (SEP strives to review CPPs with the same critical eye
as the other proposals.)
SEPs use of up to five watchdogs (WDs) for each proposal (with the fifth WD
reviewing drilling-plan feasibility, where most proposals were failing).

Jamie Allan stated that NSF still considers CPPs to be IODP work, so from theperspective of the NSF, the SEP’s level of review is working very well. While CPPs
tend to be more exploratory in nature, they must still present good science. In their2015 meetings, the E-FB and the CIB agreed with the use of the fifth WD.
Dick also highlighted:






The success of the merged panel.
A summary of the 2014-2015 proposal evaluation results.
A list of the proposals submitted on 1 April 2015; noting the small number.
The implementation of the designation of up to 10 lead proponents.
The addition of the following topics to the June SEP agenda:o Site survey data formatso Implications of national guidelines for seismic data acquisitiono Replacement of Dick Kroon as the SEP Co-Chair (Science): the SEP is torecommend a candidate and the JRFB will then review and approveo Communication with and among the SEP members and Co-Chairs

Dick, Gilbert Camoin5, and Anthony Koppers discussed the scheduling and financial
benefits of proponents submitting proposals for short-term expeditions (less than 2months).

10. Overview of All Proposals at the Facility Board

Michiko Yamamoto summarized the list of proposals with the SEP and the JRFB.

11. Overview of JR Proposals Ready for Scheduling

Prior to the JRFB discussion of potential schedules, Susan Humphris asked the JRFB
members to self-identify direct or potential conflicts. They were:






Susan Humphris as a proponent on 818.
Karsten Gohl as lead proponent of 839 and co-proponent on 732
Mike Coffin as a co-proponent on 860
Christina Ravelo as co-proponent on 830-APL
Ryo Anma as a participant in the superfast drilling leg but not a proponent on thecurrently active proposal.

5	
  JRFB	  Partner	
  Member	
  for	
  ECORD	
  

10	
  

Susan directed the conflicted members to remain in the room during Dave Mallinson’s
proposal review presentation, Mitch Malone’s JRSO schedule options presentation, andthe general discussion session, but she asked that they not ask questions or provide
comments. She added that any conflicted persons on proposals presented in thescheduling options would need to leave the room during the decisions session(tomorrow), and assigned Anthony Koppers as chair for that session.
Dave Mallinson then presented the results of SEP review of proposals ready forscheduling.

12. Options for a FY’17 JR Schedule

Mitch Malone presented the details and rationale for several possible FY’17 schedules.

13. Discussion of the FY’17 Scheduling Options

Susan Humphris led the Board in a discussion of potential schedules, their scientificimportance and impact, as well as cost implications. She asked the JRFB to please
think about the options and be prepared to state (tomorrow) which schedule they would
like to implement in FY’17 to achieve the best science in a cost effective way.

14. Guidelines for Joint IODP-ICDP “Amphibious” Drilling Proposals(ADPs)

Keir Becker reported on the progress of the subcommittee developing guidelines for thejoint review of IODP-ICDP Amphibious Proposals. He presented the Guidelines
document that was accepted by the EFB and CIB, and said that it would be
implemented for the 1 October 2015 proposal deadline if JRFB approved it.
Karsten Gohl asked the subcommittee to clarify who is responsible for core storage andpublication costs. While he didn’t think it would be a problem, most ADPs would likely
be MSPs directed to ECORD.
Brijesh Bansal and Anthony Koppers expressed their concern with the review scheduleand how the SEP and ICDP’s Science Advisory Group (SAG) will present theirevaluations. Keir presented a graphic that illustrated that the entire process would take
two to three years, with the workshop step taking the place of an IODP pre-proposal
review. And, while the SEP and SAG will see the proposals at separate meetings, they
will write a single integrated review to present to the proponent.
Susan called for consensus from the board to approve this concept and looked forward
to trying to implement it, as there undoubtedly will be issues along the way.
Christina Ravelo asked Holly Given to comment on the impact on the SSO. Holly statedthat we currently have an ADP in the system and it has given the SSO a good view ofpotential issues. She expressed concerns that SEP decisions would deviate from Keir’sgraphic (for example, by requesting a revision). She said that new policies and newcoding will be needed to address continental site management in the proposal (PDB)
and data (SSDB) systems. Holly assured the board that in principle the SSO can
implement any requests from the JRFB.

11	  Susan received the Board’s consensus and their agreement to work on details with the
SSO.
Consensus 3
The JRFB approves the Guidelines for Joint IODP-ICDP “Amphibious” Proposals andagrees to move forward with implementation in conjunction with the ICDP and the IODP
Science Support Office.

15.

Retiring Inactive Proposals

Holly Given presented a list of proposals with no activity for five years or more andasked if the Board wanted to formulate a guideline for removing inactive proposals fromthe system. Michiko Yamamoto reminded the Board that the last time dormant
proposals were culled from the system was four years ago by the Proposal Evaluation
Panel (PEP).
The Board agreed that proposals at the Facility Boards may simply be waiting on theship track or funding and hence should not be deactivated. Proponents of SEP
proposals with five years of inactivity should be contacted and asked if they plan aformal response to the last review (formal response options will be identified in thecorrespondence). If they have no such plans, the proposal will be deactivated.
Consensus 4:
The JRFB approves the plan to contact proponents (via e-mail) of inactive (>5 years)
proposals at SEP to update or deactivate their proposal.
Action Item 3
Susan Humphris will draft e-mails to proponents who have proposals at SEP that havebeen inactive for 5 years or more. Each e-mail will ask if the proponent is planning to
update their proposal, and if they respond that they will not, the SEP will deactivate theproposal. The exception is Proposal 705: Santa Barbara Basin Climate Change, which
will be deactivated because implementation is impractical.
Wednesday

16.

13 May 2015

8:30 – 18:00

Development of a FY’17 JR Schedule

Anthony Koppers chaired this session because Chair Susan Humphris was conflicted
as noted above. Both Susan Humphris and Mike Coffin were excused from the meetingfor this agenda item.
Consensus 5
The JRFB recommends Proposal 505/693-APL: Mariana Convergent Margin and South
Chamorro Seamount (one expedition) and Proposal 878-CPP: South China Sea Rifting(two expeditions) for scheduling in FY’17. Furthermore, the JRFB recommends that
Proposal 760: SW Australia Margin Cretaceous Climate be first on the FY’18 schedule,
and that Proposal 781A: Hikurangi be scheduled sometime during FY’18. The
expectation of the JRFB is that there will be 10 months of operations in FY’18 and 10
months of operation in FY’19 as a result of scheduling the CPP.
12	
  

17. Long-Term Cruise Track of the JOIDES Resolution
Consensus 6
The JRFB affirms that, based on current and anticipated proposal pressure, the JOIDES
Resolution will follow a path from the southwestern Pacific Ocean, through the Southern
Ocean, and into the Atlantic Ocean for opportunities for drilling there starting in FY’19.
The JRFB further expects that the JR will operate in the Atlantic, Mediterranean,
Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico over the next few years.
Susan Humphris asked that meeting attendees keep the selected expeditions
confidential, and stated that she will inform proponents of the Board’s schedulingdecisions within a week. Holly Given pointed out that ALL discussions of proposals are
ALWAYS confidential.

18. The JR Science Operator Draft FY’16 Annual Program Plan

Brad Clement, JR Science Operator Member, presented an overview of the JR Science
Operator (JRSO) Annual Program Plan. He highlighted the previous four expeditions’
successes, and asked the meeting attendees for feedback on the new IODP
publications design.
Brad confirmed that NSF would carry the risk for fuel prices and equipment replacement
as well as contingency for cost increases exceeding 5%. He also noted that low fuelprices diminish the interest in commercial use of the JR. Brad noted that while there isa slight chance of commercial work for the JR in FY’16, the most likely work to be
conducted during the maintenance period would be processing cores collected by the
ICDP Oman coring project through the JR’s laboratories. Within the FY16 APP, the
JRSO is requesting funds for tech support, core loading, lab supplies, insurances andconsumables. Brad pointed out that this opportunity would process large amounts ofhard rock core, testing the JR’s system for future expeditions that have large hard rockcore recovery.
Jamie Allan reiterated to the Board that NSF has fiduciary responsibility for the JRSO
and the SSO, and Susan Humphris reminded the Board that they are approving theactivities proposed rather than the details of the budgets. Susan asked that this draft be
discussed and approved (in principle) and the group will follow up with a final approvalby e-mail.
Consensus 7
The JOIDES Resolution Science Operator FY’16 Annual Program Plan is approved inprinciple. A final plan will be circulated for approval by e-mail in July 2015.
Moratorium Discussion
Jamie Allan asked the Board to consider if the moratorium period should change in
response to the desire for more extensive post-cruise sampling: if so, by how much? At
present, one expedition has extended their moratorium period to 1.5 years based on
post-cruse sampling. Does the Board feel this is acceptable for proponents who provide
external funding for the post-cruise sampling?

13	  Christina Ravelo and Anthony Koppers agreed with Jamie’s proposal to limit themoratorium to 18 months maximum. They agreed that it is important to stress to thecommunity their need to reduce the impact to the IODP by finding external sources tofund additional sampling requested, as well as associated core transportation (SeeAgenda Item 24).
Consensus 8
The JRFB recommends that the moratorium period for each expedition be a maximumof 18 months post the end-of-expedition.
Action Item 4
The JRFB Chair will request that ECORD and CIB approve the moratorium statementby e-mail.

19. The Science Support Office Draft FY’16 Annual Program Plan

Holly Given presented a summary of the financial and task aspects of the SSO FY’16
Annual Program Plan. She summarized the SSO supported software and hardware
systems, the changes made to these systems in the past year, and the changes
planned for the next year. Anthony Koppers commented that considering the limited
resources, SSO is moving in the right direction on all software and web site
updates/upgrades. Jamie Austin offered to augment the SSO’s web site work bycoordinating with his staff (as he has institutional support for IODP web work).
Holly noted that the SSO is working with NSF to loosen the general policy regarding
reviewer conflicts. Under the current policy, most proponent-recommended reviewers
were conflicted because they were co-proponents on some other active IODP proposal.
Jamie Allen pointed out that this current policy is far more restrictive than the NSF
policy. The better policy would have a reviewer be conflicted only if he/she is a listed
proponent for the proposal being reviewed. Susan Humphris agreed that the more
restrictive policy is not something we need to continue.
Holly highlighted the SSO’s successful management of a cyber-attack, and noted that
Jamie Allan requested that an SSO representative attend the NSF Cyber Security
Summit in the fall to present the experience as an example of what to do for otherpeople overseeing NSF-related systems.
Jamie Allan expressed support for the increase to the SSO budget relative to FY’15 tosupport additional requested tasks.
Consensus 9
The Science Support Office FY’16 Annual Program Plan is approved in principle. A final
plan will be circulated for approval by e-mail in July 2015.

20. Recent Database Development Ideas

Jamie Allan and Brad Clement summarized current data management and accesssystems, as well as future data management, publication, and archival options. The
ideal system would be easy searchable, machine discoverable, persistent, have a digital
object identifier (DOI), and publish the DOI associated with publications (not data).
Jamie presented cost concerns, access vs. security issues, and community needs. He14	  also stressed the lack of definition of “archive” as troublesome to all who work with data
management. Heiko Pälike, Brad Clement, and Anthony Koppers explained theirexperience with data extraction tools and archiving, and stressed that these are very
complicated processes.
Jamie stated that NSF is at the point of discovery, and it’s yet to be determined how
they will move forward. EarthCube seems to be the only option for movement within
NSF and Anthony opined that EarthCube would not be excited about what IODP is
proposing. He feels it is critical that the IODP have a deep archive. The publishingworld is moving rapidly, and they’re moving away from relational databases. It’s risky to
do nothing.
Susan Humphris asked what the JRFB should do regarding this issue? Susan andJamie agreed that the Board should follow the issue and continue to develop aperspective over the next several years.
Action Item 5
A subgroup consisting of Heiko Pälike, Anthony Koppers, and Jamie Allan will consider
Data Development issues and the path forward for IODP data.

21. The Nagoya Protocol: Impacts on IODP Expeditions

Mitch Malone presented a summary of IODP understanding regarding the Nagoya
Protocol to the Convention on Biodiversity, which concerns biological sampling within
Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). He noted that each signatory country can interpretthe protocol differently, and it will be an evolving process. Mitch stated that the JRSO
would likely be required to include the specifics of the microbiological study in the apriori clearance request, therefore, the proponent must be active in the process ofobtaining approval, and having a collaborator in the country of interest might be helpful
toward the process of approval.
Unknown items:
 Is approval required for an expedition or for each researcher on the expedition?
 Does this apply to sample requests from the core repositories? Kochi Core
Repository was told that researchers could not publish data from analyses ofunapproved samples.
The most challenging situations for the IODP will be those expeditions with nomicrobiological component established at the time their clearance application is placed.
Mitch stressed that while the timeline for getting microbiological sampling approvals will
be highly variable for each country and will likely not match the timeline for clearance
and staffing, we need to identify microbiological studies as far in advance as possible:
seven months prior to the expedition will likely be too late to add microbiologicalsampling. Brad Clement stated that we might have to turn down microbiology sampling
proposed in EEZs.
Holly Given mentioned that the program has the mechanism of the PDB site forms to
track this early in the process, and Susan Humphris suggested that the SEP should
mention this issue to the proponents.
15	
  22. Are We Effectively Communicating Expedition Opportunities?

John Jaeger presented the review practices and staffing information obtained in a
recent Consortium for Ocean Leadership (COL) study. He summarized how the
USSSP reviews expedition staff applications and makes nominations, and he presented
the national distribution and levels of experience of applicants.
Based on this information, the United States Advisory Committee (USAC) requested
that:





The JRSO have the expedition prospectus available at the time the staffing call iscirculated, or that the JRSO and/or the expedition Co-Chiefs provide a moredetailed description of the scientific objectives critical to each expedition, for
USSSP’s use in advertising. This detailed description should emphasize theareas of specialization needed on board (approximate number in each role).
The JRSO provide a better description of the application procedures.
The JRSO place a description of the philosophy of how expeditions are staffedon their web site, and update it as memoranda of understanding (MOU) arechanged.

Susan Humphris has seen COL’s video presentation regarding the expedition staffing
process and feels that placing this on the web site would also be very helpful. She
noted that because staffing is platform-specific, the individual Facility Boards should
review the materials used. Mitch noted that the JR has a staffing procedure document(www.iodp.org/program-documents) and suggested this be reviewed and updated.
The JRSO and USSSP have been working to involve the next generation of researchersand scientists in IODP. The challenge is getting them to prepare and present
applications sufficient to permit the selection of two to three graduate level or early
career scientists for each expedition.

23. Membership of Curatorial Advisory Board

Susan Humphris reviewed the rotation of the Curatorial Advisory Board (CAB), and she
stated that all three Facility Boards are responsible for replacing these individuals. The
chairs of the Facility Boards (Yoshiyuki Tatsumi, Karsten Gohl, and Susan) will send a
joint letter to the repository curators requesting nominations; the individual Boards willapprove those nominations. This nomination and approval process will happen via email over the summer.
Susan asked that, when nominating, the curators nominate people who deal withsamples and sample requests: people who have experience with conflicts and sample
request denials, and people who have experience with requests for archive halves andrequest for education and outreach purposes. While country affiliations of the members
are not assigned, it would be good to have representation from within the repository
countries.
Action Item 6
The chairs of the Facility Boards will request nominations from the curators for threepositions on the CAB. The recommendations for the new members will be circulated to
all three Facility Boards for approval.
16	
  24. Issues Relating to Shipping of Cores

Brad Clement presented information and led a discussion of this topic immediately
following his presentation on 12 May 2015 (see Agenda Item 18: JRSO Draft Annual
Program Plan). The notes taken during that discussion were transferred to this location
to better show completion of agenda topics.
Brad noted that post-expedition, high-resolution XRF scanning of cores sections isincreasingly being requested by science parties, sometimes requesting that the
expedition sample party be postponed until the XRF results are available.
Heiko Pälike, Christina Ravelo, and Jamie Allan discussed the technical aspects of XRF
scanning, the benefits to scientists in making on-board vs. post-cruise sampling
decisions, and the technical limitations of the different systems available.
Brad stated that the JRSO was not asking the Board to make a decision regarding
future XRF requests, but to provide guidance or advice as to what the JRSO might tell
proponents who request detailed (cm scale) XRF work. Jamie Allan stated that the
IODP couldn’t accommodate regular requests for detailed XRF scanning, because, atan estimated cost of $1 million, we cannot increase the XRF capability of the ship. Core
shipment to an XRF facility is far more practical at an estimate of $10K per event.
Susan summarized the discussion by stating that while detailed XRF scanning is
becoming a common request of proponents, it is not a service provided by the JR
Science Operator as part of a normal expedition. Proponents or expedition researchersinterested in XRF scanning of cores need to find external funding for XRF work
(including shipping / scanning cores and related measurements) and discuss this in
their expedition plan and/or sample request proposals.

25. Membership of JRFB

Susan Humphris noted that the terms of Heiko Palike and herself will end on September
30, 2015. The USSSP will implement the process to replace two science members, one
US-based and one non-US-based, by putting out a request for candidates.
Nominations and recommendations will be provided to the JRFB for review andapproval.
Susan spoke to Anthony Koppers and Christina Ravelo as potential candidates for therole of JRFB Chair. Anthony offered to serve as the chair and Christina offered to backhim up. Susan asked if the Board is in agreement with this plan and she received
consensus that Anthony Koppers should be the next chair with Christina as his back up.
Consensus 10
The JRFB approves the appointment of Anthony Koppers as its next Chair beginning on
1 October 2015.
Action Item 7
The JRFB Chair will request that USSSP solicit applications for the JRFB science
member replacements for Heiko Pälike and Susan Humphris. Recommendations fromthis process will be circulated to the JRFB for approval.
17	
  26. Review of Consensus Statements and Action Items

The Board reviewed and approved the consensus and action items as presented at thehead of these notes, with the addition of the following:
Consensus 11
The JRFB thanks Susan Humphris and Heiko Pälike for their service in the early yearsof the JRFB.

27. Other Business and Next JRFB Meeting

The JRFB discussed 2016 schedules for the following meetings:


E-FB is scheduled for June 15-16, 2016.
JRFB agreed to meet May 17-18, 2016.

Susan thanked NSF for hosting the meeting, the SSO for their hard work in supporting
the meeting, and for all participants for their active participation.
Meeting adjourned at 3:00 pm.

18	
  ECORD	  Facility	
  Board	  Meeting	
  #3	
  
25th	
  and	
  26th	  of	
  March,	
  2015	  Aix-­‐en-­‐Provence,	
  France	  MINUTES	  TABLE	  OF	  CONTENTS	
  1.	
  Introduction	
  .....................................................................................................................................................	
  3	
  
1.1	
  Welcome,	
  opening	
  remarks	
  and	
  rules	  of	
  engagement	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  ........................................	
  3	
  
1.2	
  Meeting	
  logistics	
  (G.	
  Camoin)	
  ...........................................................................................................	
  3	
  
1.3	
  Introduction	
  of	
  participants	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  ...........................................................................................	
  3	
  
1.4	
  Meeting	
  agenda	
  approval	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  ................................................................................................	
  3	
  
2.	
  Brief	  reports	
  of	
  ECORD	
  Facility	
  Board	
  (EFB)	
  and	
  other	
  ECORD	
  entities	
  ..............................	
  4	
  
2.1	
  EFB:	
  report	
  on	
  main	
  activities	
  since	
  last	  meeting	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  ................................................	
  4	
  
2.2	
  EMA:	
  ECORD	
  budget	
  (incl.	
  budget	
  for	
  MSP	
  operations)	
  (G.	
  Camoin)	
  ..............................	
  5	
  
2.3	
  ESO:	
  Scoping/tender	
  process,	
  operations,	
  technical	
  developments	
  (D.	
  McInroy)	
  ....	
  8	
  
2.4	
  ESO:	
  Curation	
  activities	
  and	
  update	
  on	
  policies	
  (U.	
  Röhl)	
  .................................................	
  10	
  
2.5	
  ESO:	
  Downhole	
  logging	
  data	  and	
  core	  petrophysics	
  measurements	
  (S.	  Davies)	
  ....	
  11	
  
2.6	
  ESO:	
  Educational/outreach	
  issues	
  (A.	  Stevenson/A.	
  Gerdes)	
  .........................................	
  12	
  
2.7	
  ESSAC:	
  Staffing,	
  courses	
  and	
  other	
  activities	
  (G.	
  Früh-­‐Green)	
  ........................................	
  13	
  
2.8	
  ECORD	
  Industry	
  Liaison	  Panel:	
  recent	
  activities	
  (A.	
  Moscariello)	
  .................................	
  17	
  
2.9	
  ECORD:	
  recent	
  activities	
  and	
  forward	
  look	  (G.	
  Camoin)	
  ....................................................	
  19	
  
3.	
  Brief	  reports	
  of	
  other	
  IODP	
  facility	
  boards	
  and	
  entities	
  on	
  recent	
  activities	
  ....................	
  20	
  
3.1	
  JOIDES	
  Resolution	
  Facility	
  Board	
  (S.	
  Humphris)	
  ....................................................................	
  20	
  
3.2	
  Chikyu	
  IODP	
  Board	
  (G.	
  Kimura/N.	
  Eguchi)	
  ..............................................................................	
  22	
  
3.3	
  Science	  Support	
  Office	
  (H.	
  Given)	
  ................................................................................................	
  22	
  
3.4	
  Science	  Evaluation	
  Panel	  (D.	
  Kroon/D.	
  Mallinson)	
  ..............................................................	
  24	
  
3.5	
  IODP	  Forum	  (K.	
  Becker)	
  ...................................................................................................................	
  25	
  
4.	
  Review	
  of	
  the	
  MSP	
  proposals	
  .................................................................................................................	
  31	
  
4.1	
  581-­‐Full2	
  Late	  Pleistocene	
  Coralgal	
  Banks	
  (holding	
  bin)	
  .................................................	
  31	
  4.1.1	
  Summary	
  of	
  objectives,	
  SSD	
  and	  previous	  EFB	
  decision	
  (A.	  Cattaneo)	
  ...............	
  31	
  4.1.2	
  Drilling	
  operations	  and	
  costs	  (D.	
  McInroy)	
  .....................................................................	
  31	
  
4.2	
  637-­‐Full2+Add6	
  New	  England	
  Shelf	
  Hydrogeology	
  (holding	
  bin)	
  ................................	
  33	
  4.2.1	
  Summary	
  of	
  objectives,	
  SSD	
  and	  previous	  EFB	
  decision	
  (M.	  Torres)	
  ..................	
  33	
  
1	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
4.2.2	
  Drilling	
  operations	  and	
  costs	  (D.	
  McInroy)	
  .....................................................................	
  33	
  
4.3	
  716-­‐Full2	
  Hawaiian	
  Drowned	
  Reefs	
  (holding	
  bin)	
  ...............................................................	
  34	
  4.3.1	
  Summary	
  of	
  objectives,	
  SSD	
  and	  previous	  EFB	
  decision	
  (G.	
  Dickens)	
  .................	
  34	
  4.3.2	
  Drilling	
  operations	  and	
  costs	  (D.	
  McInroy)	
  .....................................................................	
  34	
  
4.4	
  708-­‐Full+Add	
  Central	
  Arctic	
  Paleoceanography	  (addendum/revision)	
  .....................	
  35	
  4.4.1	
  Scientific	
  objectives	
  (D.	
  Weis)	
  ...............................................................................................	
  35	
  4.4.2	
  Site	  survey	
  data	  (D.	  Mallinson)	
  .............................................................................................	
  35	
  4.4.3	
  Drilling	
  operations	  and	
  costs	  (D.	
  McInroy)	
  .....................................................................	
  36	
  
4.5	
  Other	  proposal(s)	
  that	  could	
  potentially	
  be	
  forwarded	
  by	
  SEP	  in	
  the	
  future	
  (only	
  discussions;	
  no	
  actions/decisions)	
  .....................................................................................................	
  38	
  4.5.1	
  Summary	
  of	
  scientific	
  objectives	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  ......................................................................	
  38	
  
5.	
  MSP	
  operation	  schedule	
  for	
  FY2015	
  to	
  FY2019	
  (K.	
  Gohl/All)	
  ................................................	
  41	
  
6.	
  Procedures	
  and	
  issues	  regarding	
  EFB	
  activities	
  and	
  MSP	
  operations	
  .................................	
  46	
  
6.1	
  In-­‐kind	
  contributions	
  for	
  MSPs	
  (G.	
  Camoin)	
  ...........................................................................	
  46	
  
6.2	
  Biological	
  Samples	
  &	
  Data	  (U.	
  Röhl)	
  ...........................................................................................	
  47	
  
6.3	
  Procedure	
  of	
  MSP	
  expedition	
  review	
  meetings	
  (M.	  Torres/G.	
  Dickens)	
  ....................	
  49	
  
6.4	
  Discussion	
  on	
  onshore-­‐part	
  of	
  expeditions	
  (G.	
  Dickens/U.	
  Röhl)	
  ..................................	
  50	
  
6.5	
  Pre-­‐expedition	
  webinar	
  series	
  (M.	  Torres/G.	
  Früh-­‐Green)	
  ..............................................	
  52	
  
6.6	
  Addendum	
  of	  EFB	  Terms	
  of	
  Reference	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  ..................................................................	
  53	
  
6.7	
  Selection	
  of	
  the	
  next	  EFB	
  Chair	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  ..................................................................................	
  54	
  
8.	
  Next	  EFB	
  meeting	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  ....................................................................................................................	
  55	
  Further	  Action	
  Items	
  (K.	
  Gohl/All)	
  ..........................................................................................................	
  55	
  
7.	
  Review	
  of	
  Decisions	  and	  Actions	
  (K.	
  Gohl/N.	
  Hallmann/All)	
  ..................................................	
  57	
  
9.	
  Any	
  other	  business	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  .................................................................................................................	
  57	
  ROSTER	
  ................................................................................................................................................................	
  58	
  
LIST	
  OF	
  ACRONYMS	
  .......................................................................................................................................	
  60	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

2	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

1.	
  Introduction	  	
  March	
  25th,	  2015	
  
	
  
	
  

1.1	
  Welcome,	
  opening	
  remarks	
  and	
  rules	  of	
  engagement	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  (8:30)	
  K.	
  Gohl	  opened	  the	
  meeting	
  and	  presented	
  the	
  rules	  of	
  engagement:	
  	
  

	
  
1.2	
  Meeting	
  logistics	
  (G.	
  Camoin)	
  (8:35)	
  G.	
  Camoin	
  presented	
  the	
  logistical	
  information.	
  	
  
	
  

1.3	
  Introduction	
  of	
  participants	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  (8:40)	
  K.	
  Gohl	  let	  all	  the	  participants	
  begin	
  self-­‐introductions.	
  
	
  

1.4	
  Meeting	
  agenda	
  approval	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  (8:44)	
  K.	
  Gohl	  presented	
  the	
  agenda	
  and	  the	
  EFB	
  approved	
  the	
  agenda.	
  	
  ECORD	  FB	  Consensus	
  15-­‐03-­‐01:	
  	
  
The	
  ECORD	
  Facility	
  Board	
  approves	
  the	
  agenda	
  of	
  the	
  ECORD	
  FB	
  Meeting	  #3.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

3	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

2.	
   Brief	
   reports	
   of	
   ECORD	
   Facility	
   Board	
   (EFB)	
   and	   other	   ECORD	
  entities	
  Reports	
  were	  presented	
  for	  the	
  EFB	
  (K.	
  Gohl),	
  EMA	
  (G.	
  Camoin),	
  ESO	
  (D.	
  McInroy),	
  BCR	  (U.	
   Röhl),	
   EPC	   (S.	
   Davies),	
   ESO	
   outreach/education	
   (A.	
   Stevenson),	
   ESSAC	
   (G.	
   Früh-­‐Green)	
  and	
  E-­‐ILP	
  (A.	
  Moscariello).	
  
	
  

2.1	
  EFB:	
  report	
  on	
  main	
  activities	
  since	
  last	  meeting	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  (8:46)	
  K.	
  Gohl	  gave	  an	
  update	
  on	
  the	
  ECORD	
  Facility	
  Board	
  (EFB)	
  activities.	
  The	
  EFB	
  members	
  with	
  voting	
  rights	
  are	  1)	  the	
  five	  Science	  Board	  members:	
  Karsten	
  Gohl	  (GER),	
  Antonio	
  Cattaneo	  (F),	
  Dominique	
  Weis	  (CAN),	
  Gerald	
  R.	
  Dickens	
  (USA)	
  and	
  Marta	
  Torres	
  (USA);	
  2)	
   the	   members	
   of	
   the	   ECORD	
   Executive	   Bureau:	
   five	
   ECORD	
   Council	
   members	
   (core	  group),	
   EMA	   with	   Gilbert	
   Camoin,	
   ESO	   with	   Robert	
   Gatliff,	
   ESSAC	
   with	   Gretchen	
   Früh-­‐Green	
   and	   E-­‐ILP	
   with	   Andrea	   Moscariello;	
   and	   3)	
   NSF	   and	   MEXT	
   with	   one	  representative	
  each.	
  
	
  
K.	
  Gohl	  summarized	
  the	
  activities	
  regarding	
  MSP	
  proposals	
  following	
  the	
  outcome	
  of	
  the	  last	
  EFB	
  meeting	  in	
  2014	  in	
  Bremen	  and	  the	
  5-­‐year	
  scheduling	
  strategy:	  	
  758-­‐Full2	   ‘Atlantis	
   Massif’:	
   will	
   be	
   scheduled	
   in	
   late	   2015;	
   proponents	
   should	
  interact	
  with	  ESO	  in	
  planning	
  the	
  expedition	
  581-­‐Full2	  ‘Late	  Pleistocene	
  Coralgal	
  Banks’:	
  in	
  the	
  EFB	
  holding	
  bin	
  637-­‐Full2	  ‘New	
  England	
  Shelf	
  Hydrogeology’:	
  in	
  the	
  EFB	
  holding	
  bin	
  716-­‐Full2	
  ‘Hawaiian	
  Drowned	
  Reefs’:	
  in	
  the	
  EFB	
  holding	
  bin	  548-­‐Full3	  ‘Chicxulub	
  Crater’:	
  not	
  scheduled	
  because	
  of	
  the	
  high	  costs	
  of	
  two	
  drill	  holes;	
  proponents	
  submitted	
  an	
  Addendum	
  saying	  that	  most	  of	
  the	
  objectives	
  can	  be	
  achieved	
  with	  one	
  drill	
  hole;	
  Addendum	  was	
  approved	
  by	
  the	
  SEP	
  813-­‐Full	
   ‘Antarctic	
   Paleoclimate’:	
   proponents	
   submitted	
   an	
   Addendum	
   with	   a	
  revised	  drilling	
  strategy	  and	  more	  site	  survey	
  data	  708-­‐Full	
   ‘Arctic	
   Paleoceanography’:	
   proponents	
   were	
   asked	
   to	
   submit	
   an	
  Addendum	
  with	  a	
  revised	
  drilling	
  strategy	
  
	
  
K.	
  Gohl	  continued	
  to	
  report	
  on	
  activities	
  regarding	
  MSP	
  proposals	
  following	
  the	
  outcome	
  
of	
  an	
  EFB	
  Virtual	
  Conference	
  in	
  June/July	
  2014:	  548-­‐Full3-­‐Add	
   ‘Chicxulub	
   Crater’:	
   Considering	   a	
   single-­‐hole	
   strategy,	
   the	   EFB	  decided	   to	
   schedule	
   an	
   expedition	
   for	   2016	
   and	   recommended	
   to	
   the	   ECORD	  Council	  to	
  set	  a	
  limit	  of	
  $8.5M	
  USD	  of	
  ECORD’s	
  contribution.	
  813-­‐Full-­‐Add	
   ‘Antarctic	
   Paleoclimate’:	
   The	   EFB	
   accepted	
   the	   Addendum	
   and	  scheduled	
  this	
  expedition	
  for	  2017.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

4	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
The	
  revised	
  schedule	
  of	
  MSP	
  expeditions	
  after	  the	
  Virtual	
  Conference	
  is	
  shown	  in	
  Table	
  
1.	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Table	  1:	
  Schedule	
  of	
  MSP	
  expeditions	
  after	  the	
  EFB	
  Virtual	
  Conference	
  in	
  June/July	
  2014	
  	
  

	
  
K.	
  Gohl	  presented	
  the	
  EFB	
  membership	
  changes:	
  

	
  

A	
   Review	   Meeting	
   of	
   Expedition	
   347	
   ‘Baltic	
   Sea’	
   was	
   conducted	
   in	
   November	
   2014.	
  Three	  reviewers	
  were	  invited:	
  Marta	
  Torres,	
  Gerald	
  Dickens	
  and	
  Martin	
  Jakobsson.	
   The	  scientific	
   report	
   was	   presented	
   by	
   the	   Co-­‐chiefs	
   and	   the	   operational/technical	
   report	
  was	
   presented	
   by	
   ESO.	
   The	   three	
   reviewers	
   went	
   for	
   a	
   closed	
   session	
   and	   came	
   back	
  
with	
   a	
   concluding	
   statement.	
   A	
   written	
   report	
   by	
   the	   reviewers	
   was	
   submitted	
   to	
   the	  meeting	  participants.	
  The	
  outcome	  of	
  this	  review	
  meeting	
  was	  very	  positive	
  with	  some	  constructive	  recommendations	
  for	
  improvements	
  of	
  future	
  operations.	
  
	
  

2.2	
  EMA:	
  ECORD	
  budget	
  (incl.	
  budget	
  for	
  MSP	
  operations)	
  (G.	
  Camoin)	
  (9:00)	
  G.	
   Camoin	
   summarized	
   the	   ECORD	
   budget	
   situation	
   for	
   FY14,	
   FY15	
   and	   FY16	
   and	  beyond	  (Tables	
  2	
  to	
  6).	  	  
	  Germany,	
   France	
   and	   the	   UK	
   represent	
   80%	
   of	
   the	   ECORD	
   budget.	
   The	   annual	  contributions	
  from	  the	
  other	
  countries	
  range	
  from	  $30,000	
  to	
  $1.1M	
  USD	  (Tables	
  2	
  and	  4).	
   This	   helps	
   to	   set	   quotas	
   for	   sailing	
   scientists.	
   However,	
   concerning	
   outreach	   and	  education	
  there	  are	  no	
  quotas	
  based	  on	
  the	  contributions	
  of	
  the	
  countries.	
  
	
  
5	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Table	  2:	
  FY14	
  member	  contributions	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Table	  3:	
  ECORD	  FY14	
  budget	
  
FY14!
FY14!
FY13!
Incomes! Expenses! Expenses!
1,615,180!
!!
!
!
19,097,480!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
7,000,000! 13,055,771!
!
!!
1,000,000!
!
3,131,775*! 15,995,785**!
!!
318,090! 379,730***!
!!
91,770!
65,000!
!!
74,770!
C!
!!
364,238!
285,702!
!!
93,864!
N/A$!!
417,284!*!
N/A$
!
!
!
!
20,712,660! 12,491,791!
!
!!
!!
!
8,220,869!
!!
!

!!
FY!13!balance!
FY!14!contributions!
!!
ECORDCNSF!MoU!
ECORDCJAMSTEC!MoU!
ESO!
EMA!!
MagellanPlus!
ECORD!Outreach!
ESSAC!!
Support!of!SEP!Chair!
BCR!!
!
TOTAL!
!!
FY!14!balance!

*"15"months"(10/13"–"12/14)"**"Including"Expedition"#347"costs"***"including"outreach"costs!

!

!!
!!

!!

!

!

	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Table	  4:	
  FY15	
  member	  contributions	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Table	  5:	
  ECORD	  FY15	
  budget	
  !!
FY!14!balance!
FY!15!contributions!
!!
ECORDBNSF!MoU!
ECORDBJAMSTEC!MoU!
ESO!
EMA!!
MagellanPlus!
ECORD!Outreach!
ESSAC!!
Support!of!SEP!Chair!
Support!of!EBILP!Chair!
BCR!!
!
TOTAL!
!!
Expected!FY!15!balance!

FY15!!
FY15!
Income!
Expenses!
8,220,869!
!!
19,048,000!
!!
!!
!!
!!
7,000,000!
!!
1,000,000!
!
6,040,000*!
!!
275,846!
!!
87,570!
!!
58,500!
!!
369,620!
!
93,864!
!!
12,510!
!!
352,167!
!!
!!
27,268,869! 15,290,077!
!!
!!
11,978,792!
!!

*"Including"Expedition"#357"costs"

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

!

!!

The!Amounts!in!USD!are!subjected!to!exchange!rate!fluctuations!

6	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
The	
   FY14	
   income	
   is	
   $20,712,660	
   USD,	
   i.e.	
   $19,097,480	
   USD	   from	
   the	   member	
  contributions	
  (Table	  2)	
  and	
  $1,615,180	
  USD	
  from	  the	
  FY13	
  positive	
  balance	  (Table	  3).	
  FY14	
  ended	
  with	  a	
  positive	
  balance	
  of	
  $8,220,869	
  USD	  (Table	  3)	
  that	  was	
  carried	
  over	  to	
  FY15.	
  Together	
  with	  the	
  FY15	
  member	  contributions	  of	
  $19,048,000	
  USD	  (Table	  4),	  the	  FY15	
   income	   yields	
   $27,268,869	
   USD	
   (Table	   5).	
   ESO	
   FY15	
   expenses	
   include	
   the	  implementation	
   of	
   the	   Atlantis	
   Massif	
   Expedition.	
   FY15	
   should	
   finish	
   with	
   a	
   positive	  balance	
   of	
   $11,978,792	
   USD	
   (Table	   5).	
   However,	
   due	   to	
   changes	
   in	
   the	   currency	  exchange	
   rates,	
   ECORD	
   could	
   loose	
   $1.5M	
   USD.	
   This	
   is	
   because	
   not	   all	   countries	
   are	  paying	  in	
  dollars.	
  Belgium	
  and	
  France	
  are	
  paying	
  in	
  euros,	
  Denmark	  in	
  krones	  and	  the	  UK	
   in	   pounds.	
   In	
   this	
   case,	
   the	   FY15	
   positive	   balance	
   would	
   be	
   $10,450,000	
   USD.	
  However,	
   potential	
   additional	
   contributions	
   (cash,	
   IKCs)	
   are	   not	   considered.	
   The	   total	
  fixed	
   costs	
   are	   $11,290,000	
   USD	   every	   year	
   and	   $7.7M	
   USD	   are	   available	
   for	   MSP	
  operations	
  every	
  year.	
  
	
  
G.	
  Camoin	
  continued	
  to	
  present	
  the	  predictions	
  for	  the	
  budget	
  FY16	
  to	
  FY18	
  (Table	  6).	  The	
   table	
   is	
   based	
   on	
   cash	   and	   potential	
   additional	
   contributions	
   like	
   IKCs	
   are	   not	  considered.	
   In	
   FY16	
   $18.3M	
   USD	   should	
   be	
   available	
   for	   MSP	   expeditions.	
   After	
   the	  implementation	
  of	
  the	
  Chicxulub	
  expedition	
  that	  will	  cost	  $8.5M	
  USD,	
  FY16	
  should	
  finish	
  
with	
  a	
  positive	
  balance	
  of	
  $9.8M	
  USD.	
  In	
  FY17	
  $17.6M	
  USD	
  should	
  be	
  available	
  for	
  MSP	
  operations.	
   After	
   implementing	
   an	
   Antarctic	
   expedition,	
   the	   FY17	
   should	
   finish	
   with	   a	
  positive	
   balance	
   of	
   $8.6M	
   to	
   $10.9M	
   USD.	
   In	
   FY18	
   $16.4M	
   to	
   $18.7M	
   USD	   should	
   be	  available	
  for	  the	
  implementation	
  of	
  an	
  Arctic	
  expedition.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Table	  6:	
  ECORD	
  budget	
  FY16	
  to	
  FY18	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

7	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

2.3	
  ESO:	
  Scoping/tender	
  process,	
  operations,	
  technical	
  developments	
  (D.	  McInroy)	
  (9:09)	
  D.	
   McInroy	
   presented	
   an	
   update	
   on	
   the	   upcoming	
   Expedition	
   357	
   ‘Atlantis	
   Massif’	
  (2015)	
   including	   the	   associated	
   seafloor	
   drill	
   developments.	
   Furthermore,	
   he	
   reported	  on	
   Expedition	
   364:	
   Chicxulub	
   (spring	
   2016)	
   and	   the	   IODP	   Proposal	
   #813:	
   Antarctic	
  Cenozoic	
  Paleoclimate	
  (potential	  2018	
  MSP).	
  	
  
	
  
Expedition	
  357	  ‘Atlantis	
  Massif	  Serpentinisation	  and	
  Life’	
  RRS	  James	  Cook	  is	
  secured	
  as	
  an	
  IKC	
  from	  the	  UK	
  with	  a	
  value	  of	
  about	
  $2M	
  USD.	
  The	
  sailing	
  dates	  are	
  from	  24th	  October	
  to	
  9th	  December,	  2015.	
  The	
  Science	  Party	  has	  been	  provisionally	
  selected.	
  A	
  major	
  planning	
  meeting	
  was	
  held	
  on	
  February	
  23rd,	  2015.	
  The	  Onshore	  Science	  Party	  has	
  provisionally	
  been	
  schedulled	
  to	
  start	  on	
  January	
  20th,	  2016,	
  and	
  will	  last	  for	
  about	
  three	
  weeks.	
  	
  
	
  	
  
Seafloor	
  drill	
  developments	
  The	
  RD2	
  and	
  MeBo	  seafloor	
  drills	
  need	  to	
  be	
  developed.	
  There	  are	  seven	
  developments	
  that	
   were	   initiated	
   at	
   the	   end	   of	
   2014:	
   two	
   new	
   logging	
   tools,	
   a	
   borehole	
   packer	
   system,	
  a	
   drill	
   string	
   plug	   for	   post-­‐expedition	
   fluid	
   sampling	
   by	
   ROV,	
   a	
   drill-­‐mounted	
   tracer	
  delivery	   system,	
   a	
   drill-­‐mounted	
   water	
   sampling	
   system	
   and	
   a	
   drill-­‐mounted	
   sensor	
  package.	
  In	
  May,	
  the	
  logging	
  tools	
  will	  be	
  delivered	  to	
  the	
  BGS	
  and	
  MARUM.	
  From	  June	  to	
  August	  there	
  will	  be	
  a	
  dry	
  test	  and	  a	
  full	
  wet	
  test,	
  co-­‐funded	
  by	
  ECORD	  and	  the	
  BGS,	
  that	  will	
  take	  place	
  offshore	
  Scotland	
  in	
  mid-­‐August.	
  	
  
The	
   test	
   will	
   be	
   on	
   the	   Northern	
   Lighthouse	
   Board	
   vessel	
   NLV	   Pharos	
   (D.	
   McInroy).	
   The	  time	
   between	
   the	   wet	   test	   and	   the	   expedition	
   is	
   very	
   short	
   (G.	
   Dickens).	
   Using	
   a	
   developing	
  system	   is	   always	
   a	
   risk	
   (D.	
   McInroy).	
   It	
   is	
   better	
   to	
   have	
   a	
   prolonged	
   dry	   testing	
   period	
  before	  the	
  wet	
  test	  (D.	
  McInroy).	
  	
  Expedition	
  364	
  ‘Chicxulub	  Impact	
  Crater’	
  Negociations	
  with	  the	  preferred	
  contractor	
  started.	
  The	
  project	
  was	  descoped	
  from	  two	  holes	  to	
  one	
  hole	  with	  trying	
  to	
  reach	  1500	
  mbsf.	
  The	  minimum	
  was	  1200	
  mbsf	
  so	
  that	  the	
  objectives	
  could	
  be	
  met.	
  Multiple	
  pipe	  size	  ‘step	
  downs’	
  mitigate	
  the	
  risk	  of	
  getting	
  stuck.	
  Regarding	
  the	
  duration	  and	  the	
  costs	
  of	
  this	
  expedition	
  different	
  scenarios	
  were	  developed	  (Table	  7).	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

8	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Table	  7:	
  Duration	  and	
  costs	
  of	
  Expedition	
  364	
  

	
  
The	
   EFB	   set	
   a	
   self-­‐imposed	
   limit	
   of	
   $8.5M	
   USD	
   cost	
   to	
   ECORD.	
   There	
   is	   a	   good	
   chance	
   to	  get	
   to	
   at	
   least	
   1200	
   mbsf	
   on	
   this	
   budget.	
   This	
   operation	
   is	   a	   joint	
   IODP-­‐ICDP	
   MSP	  expedition.	
   ICDP	   has	   provisionally	
   awarded	
   $1M	   USD	   for	   some	   ICDP	   focussed	
   activity	
  added	
   on	
   to	
   this	   expedition	
   but	   not	   for	   the	   basic	
   expedition	
   costs.	
   The	   conditions	
   of	
   this	  funding	
   still	
   have	
   to	
   be	   discussed	
   with	   ICDP.	
   ICDP	   wants	
   a	
   visible	
   and	   distinct	
  contribution	
   to	
   the	   expedition,	
   e.g.	
   an	
   additional	
   logging	
   tool	
   or	
   an	
   additional	
  measurement.	
  	
  
	
  
A	
  decision	
  about	
  whether	
  to	
  break	  the	
  limit	  of	
  $8.5M	
  USD	
  could	
  be	
  made	  at	
  sea	
  when	
  the	
  progress	
  and	  the	
  timing	
  are	
  known	
  (D.	
  McInroy).	
  After	  communicating	
  with	  G.	
  Camoin	
  regarding	
  the	
  progress	
  of	
  the	
  drilling,	
  G.	
  Camoin	
  could	
  explain	
  the	
  situation	
  on	
  the	
  ship	  to	
  the	
  ECORD	  Council	
  members	
  and	  a	
  decision	
  on	
  increasing	
  the	
  budget	
  could	
  be	
  made.	
  	
  
	
  
There	   are	   ongoing	
   discussions	   regarding	   the	   writing	
   of	   a	   MoU	
   between	
   ECORD	
   and	  some	
  Mexican	
  institutions.	
  This	  leaves	
  open	
  the	  possibility	
  of	
  a	
  Mexican	
  contribution	
  to	
  
the	
   expedition,	
   either	
   through	
   an	
   IKC	
   (e.g.	
   support	
   vessel)	
   and/or	
   a	
   limited	
   cash	  contribution.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

IODP	
  Proposal	
  #813	
  Antarctic	
  Cenozoic	
  Paleoclimate	
  	
  
This	
   expedition	
   was	   provisionally	
   scheduled	
   for	   2017.	
   The	   only	
   possibility	
   so	
   far	   is	
   to	
  contract	
   the	   RV	
   N.	
   B.	
  Palmer	   which	
   belongs	
   to	
   the	   Division	
   of	
   Polar	   Programs	
   of	
   NSF.	
  This	
  ship	
  is	
  potentially	
  available	
  in	
  February	
  to	
  April	
  2018	  and	  not	  in	
  2017	
  as	
  directed	
  by	
   the	   EFB.	
   However,	
   the	   ship	
   will	
   not	   be	
   provided	
   as	
   an	
   IKC.	
   The	   costs	
   of	
   hiring	
   the	   RV	  N.	
   B.	
   Palmer	
   will	
   be	
   of	
   $5.5M	
   USD,	
   including	   a	
   long	
   transit	
   from	
   Chile	
   and	   back.	
   The	  expedition	
   cost	
   estimate	
   would	
   be	
   of	
   $9M	   USD	   or	
   $7M	   USD	
   if	
   NSF	   can	
   schedule	
   other	  programs	
   to	
   reduce	
   the	   mobilisation	
   costs.	
   A	
   commitment	
   has	   to	
   be	
   done	   by	   around	
  August	  2015.	
  
	
  
ESO	
  requests	
  EFB	
  steer	  for	
  this	  proposal,	
  as	
  NSF/ASC	
  need	  to	
  be	
  informed	
  of	
  the	
  plans.	
  There	  are	  a	
  few	
  options:	
  1)	
  to	
  implement	
  this	
  expedition	
  at	
  higher	
  cost	  than	  originally	
  estimated	  ;	
   2)	
   to	
   negotiate	
   a	
   better	
   rate	   for	   the	
  RV	
   N.	  B.	
  Palmer	   (ECORD-­‐NSF	
   discussions	  or	
   indirectly	
   use	
   a	
   barter	
   agreement);	
   and	   3)	
   to	
   abandon	   the	   RV	
   N.	  B.	
  Palmer	   option	
   and	  to	
   look	
   for	   an	   alternative	   2017	
   expedition.	
   An	   alternative	   for	   2017	
   could	
   be	
   Coralgal	
  
	
  
9	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Banks.	
  	  DISCUSSION	
  on	
  IODP	
  Proposal	
  #813:	
  The	
  problem	
  is	
  that	  there	  are	  not	  so	  many	  icebreakers	
  operating	  in	
  this	  area	  (K.	
  Gohl/D.	
  McInroy).	
  The	
  ship	
  barter	  agreement	
  means	
  talking	
  with	  ship	  operators	
  and	
  schedulers	
  to	
  
see	
  where	
  ships	  are	  being	
  scheduled	
  and	  in	
  what	  programmes	
  they	  have	  been	
  scheduled,	
  and	
   perhaps	
   there	
   is	
   an	
   opportunity	
   to	
   make	
   a	
   ship	
   swap	
   (K.	
   Gohl/T.	
   Janecek).	
   A	
   better	
  
way	
  to	
  get	
  ship	
  time	  might	
  be	
  that	  the	
  proponents	
  apply	
  for	  a	
  ship	
  to	
  their	
  own	
  national	
  funders	
  prior	
  to	
  submitting	  an	
  IODP	
  proposal	
  (R.	
  Gatliff).	
  
	
  

2.4	
  ESO:	
  Curation	
  activities	
  and	
  update	
  on	
  policies	
  (U.	
  Röhl)	
  (9:40)	
  U.	
   Röhl	   gave	
   an	
   update	
   on	
   the	   Bremen	   Core	
   Repository	
   (BCR).	
   The	   BCR	
   currently	
  archives	
   154	
   km	
   of	
   cores	
   from	
   the	   Atlantic	
   Ocean,	
   Arctic	
   Ocean,	
   Mediterranean	
   Sea,	  Black	
  Sea	
  and	  Baltic	
  Sea.	
  On	
  the	  BCR	
  webpage	  a	
  map	
  shows	
  the	
  location	
  of	
  the	
  drill	
  sites.	
  At	
  the	
  moment	  there	  is	
  still	  a	
  capacity	
  of	
  35-­‐40	
  km	
  of	
  core	  (U.	
  Röhl/D.	
  Kroon).	
  
	
  
The	
  major	
  achievements	
  in	
  2014	
  are	
  listed	
  below:	
  	
  

	
  

There	   are	   new	
   versions	
   of	
   the	   Drilling	
   Information	
   System	
   (DIS):	
   the	   Repository	  Database	
  ‘CurationDIS’	
  and	  the	  Expedition	
  Database	
  ‘ExpeditionDIS’.	
  the	
  Scientific	
  Earth	  Drilling	
   Information	
   Service	
   (SEDIS)	
   is	
   continued	
   into	   the	   new	
   IODP	
   programme	
   with	  support	   of	
   ECORD	
   and	   the	   MARUM.	
   For	   MSP	   expeditions	   the	   BCR	
   provides	
   online	  tutorials	
  for	  all	
  laboratories	
  and	
  facilities	
  that	  are	
  used	  during	
  an	
  expedition.	
  
	
  
This	
  year	  is	
  the	
  9th	
  year	  of	
  the	
  Bremen	  ECORD	  Summer	  School.	
  In	
  2015	
  the	
  topic	
  of	
  the	
  Summer	   School	
   is	
   ‘Ocean	
   crust	
   processes:	
   magma,	
   faults,	
   fluxes	
   and	   life’.	
   The	   Summer	
  School	  combines	
  lectures	
  and	
  interactive	  discussions	
  on	
  the	
  main	
  themes	
  of	
  IODP	
  with	  practical	
   ‘shipboard’	
   methodologies.	
   Two	   weeks	
   ago	   the	   first	
   ECORD	
   Training	
   Course	
  was	
  held	  at	
  the	
  MARUM	
  with	  30	
  participants	
  from	  nine	  different	
  countries.	
  There	
  were	
  
	
  
10	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
almost	   60	
   applicants	
   for	   this	
   course	
   (U.	
   Röhl/D.	
   Mallinson).	
   The	   participants	
   were	  prepared	   for	   future	   IODP	   expeditions.	
   This	   Training	
   Course	
   was	   open	
   for	   non-­‐ECORD	  and	
  non-­‐IODP	  member	  countries.	
  
	
  
U.	
  Röhl	  continued	
  giving	
  an	
  update	
  on	
  policies.	
  1)	
  MSP	
  Standard	
  Measurements:	
  This	  policy	
  was	  discussed	
  and	
  approved	
  at	
  the	
  last	  EFB	  meeting	
  in	
  2014.	
  The	  policy	
  was	
  implemented	
  and	  is	
  online	
  since	  June	  2014.	
  2)	
   IODP	   Sample,	
   Data,	
   and	
   Obligations	
   Policy:	
   This	
   policy	
   was	   also	
   discussed	
   and	  approved	
  at	
  the	
  last	  EFB	
  meeting	  in	
  2014,	
  and	  is	
  online	
  since	  June	  2014.	
  3)	
   MSP	
   Third-­‐Party	
   Tools	
   and	   Instruments	
   Policy:	
   A	
   draft	
   version	
   of	
   this	
   policy	
   exists	  since	  December	
  2014	
  that	  has	  to	
  be	
  discussed	
  at	
  the	
  upcoming	
  EFB	
  meeting.	
  	
  There	  is	
  an	
  IODP	
  Curatorial	
  Advisory	  Board	  (CAB)	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  IODP	
  Sample,	
  Data,	  and	  Obligations	
   Policy.	
   The	   CAB	
   consists	
   of	
   five	
   members	
   of	
   the	   scientific	
   community	
   who	  serve	
  overlapping	
  four-­‐year	
  terms.	
  After	  this	  policy	
  has	  been	
  online	
  there	
  was	  a	
  decision	
  on	
  the	
  membership	
  on	
  this	  advisory	
  board.	
  Some	  members	
  will	  rotate	
  off	
  this	  year	  and	  the	
  question	
  is	
  when	
  the	  new	
  membership	
  will	  be	
  decided	
  and	
  who	
  will	  decide	
  on	
  this	  issue.	
  	
  
	
  

2.5	
   ESO:	
   Downhole	
   logging	
   data	   and	   core	
   petrophysics	
   measurements	
   (S.	
  Davies)	
  (9:51)	
  S.	
   Davies	
   presented	
   the	   activities	
   of	
   the	   European	
   Petrophysics	
   Consortium	
   (EPC):	
   post-­‐expedition	
   activities,	
   preparation	
   for	   upcoming	
   expeditions,	
   capability	
   developments	
  and	
  training	
  staff	
  for	
  upcoming	
  expeditions,	
  and	
  other	
  key	
  activities	  including	
  education	  and	
  training.	
  
	
  
For	
   Expedition	
   347	
   ‘Baltic	
   Sea’,	
   EPC’s	
   staff	
   collaborated	
   with	
   the	   MARUM’s	
   one	   to	
  document	
  QAQC	
  of	
  the	
  expedition	
  downhole	
  logging	
  and	
  core	  physical	
  properties	
  data.	
  The	
   petrophysics	
   staff	
   scientist	
   attended	
   the	   first	
   post-­‐cruise	
   meeting	
   and	   EPC	   also	
  attended	
  the	
  expedition	
  review	
  meeting.	
  	
  Downhole	
  logging	
  on	
  MSP	
  expeditions	
  varies	
  from	  using	
  EPC	
  logging	
  tools,	
  e.g.	
  on	
  MSP	
  Expeditions	
  310	
  and	
  325,	
  or	
  working	
  with	  external	
  conractors,	
  e.g.	
  on	
  MSP	  Expeditions	  302	
  and	
  347.	
  For	  Expedition	
  357	  the	
  logging	
  will	  be	
  from	  the	
  seabed	
  rock	  drill.	
  At	
  the	  moment,	
  EPC	
  and	
  ESO	  are	
  looking	
  for	  a	
  logging	
  contractor	
  for	  Expedition	
  364.	
  
	
  
For	
  Expedition	
  357	  ‘Atlantis	
   Massif’,	
  EPC	
   will	
   work	
   closely	
   with	
   the	   BGS	   and	   MARUM	
   as	
  downhole	
   logging	
   tools	
   are	   developed	
   for	   deployment	
   from	
   the	   two	
   seabed	
   rock	
   drills	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

11	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
that	
  are	
  planned	
  to	
  be	
  used	  as	
  part	  of	
  this	
  expedition.	
  
	
  
For	
  Expedition	
  364	
  ‘Chicxulub’,	
  EPC	  personnel	
  has	  discussed	
  the	
  logging	
  requirements	
  with	
   Co-­‐chiefs	
   and	   are	   investigating	
   various	
   logging	
   tool	
   options.	
   EPC	   is	
   working	
   with	  the	
   British	   Embassy	
   to	
   get	   permits	
   in	
   place	   for	   the	   radioactive	   source	   of	
   the	   Standard	  MSCL.	  	  
	  Concerning	
   capability	
   development,	
   EPC	   is	
   updating	
   the	   procedures	
   for	   core	  petrophysics	
  measurements	
  and	
  working	
  on	
  the	
  improvement	
  of	
  plotting	
  petrophysical	
  results.	
   Furthermore,	
   there	
   is	
   an	
   ongoing	
   refurbishment	
   of	
   the	   offshore	
   petrophysics	  container	
  to:	  1)	  increase	
  the	
  core	  storage;	
  2)	
  extend	  the	
  Standard	
  MSCL	
  by	
  introducing	  the	
  capability	
  of	
  a	
  double	
  magnetic	
  susceptibility	
  loop	  and	  having	
  the	
  potential	
  to	
  extend	  sensor	
   capability;	
   and	   3)	
   to	
   maintain	
   the	   option	
   for	
   a	
   second	   ‘fast-­‐track’	
   MSCL.	
   EPC’s	
  downhole	
  logging	
  equipment	
  has	  been	
  tested.	
  
	
  
In	
   preparation	
   for	   future	
   expeditions,	
   EPC	   offers	
   a	
   staff	   training,	
   including	
   offshore	
  survival	
  training,	
  software	
  training	
  and	
  MSCL	
  training.	
  	
  Regarding	
   education	
   and	   training,	
   EPC	
   personnel	
   has	   led	   training	
   sessions	
   for	   early	
  career	  scientists.	
  EPC	  was	
  invited	
  by	
  the	
  London	
  Petrophysical	
  Society	
  to	
  talk	  on	
  ‘life	
  as	
  
an	
   academic	
   petrophysist’	
   at	
   their	
   careers	
   day	   in	
   November	
   2014.	
   Furthermore,	
   EPC	  was	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  ECORD	  Summer	  School	
  2014,	
  GESEP	  2014,	
  ECORD	  ‘Virtual	
  Drillship’	
  2015	
  and	
  MEDGATE	
  2014.	
  	
  Concerning	
   staffing	
   and	   organisation,	
   the	   EPC	
   management	
   is	
   now	
   divided	
   between	  Sarah	
   Davies	
   and	   Sally	
   Morgan.	
   EPC	
   represents	
   ESO	
   as	
   operations	
   watchdog	
   and	  observer	
  on	
  the	
  Science	  Evaluation	
  Panel.	
  
	
  

2.6	
  ESO:	
  Educational/outreach	
  issues	
  (A.	  Stevenson/A.	
  Gerdes)	
  (10:03)	
  A.	
  Stevenson	
  presented	
  education	  and	
  outreach	
  issues	
  for	
  ESO.	
  
	
  
For	
  the	  ‘Atlantis	
  Massif’	
  expedition,	
  a	
  communication	
  plan	  was	
  drafted	
  and	
  sent	  to	
  the	  Co-­‐chief	
   Scientists	   to	
   get	   background	
   information	
   about	   the	   key	   messages	
   and	   to	
   be	  consistent	
   in	
   conveying	
   a	
   message	
   to	
   the	   media.	
   Albert	
   Gerdes	
   took	
   part	   in	
   the	   planning	
  meeting	   for	   this	   expedition	
   that	
   was	   held	   in	
   Edinburgh	
   on	
   February	   23rd.	
   There	
   are	  discussions	
  about	  the	
  information	
  to	
  be	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  expedition	
  flyer	  and	  on	  the	
  ESO	  website.	
  The	
  interesting	
  message	
  for	  the	
  public	
  is	
  the	
  story	
  of	
  life	  and	
  life	  evolving	  very	  slowly,	  but	
  also	  the	
  CO2	
  storage.	
  Ideas	
  for	
  media	
  activities,	
  including	
  media	  briefings	
  and	  other	
   activities	
   at	
   the	   start	
   of	
   the	   expedition,	
   will	
   be	
   developed	
   once	
   the	   mobilisation	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

12	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
port	
  has	  been	  confirmed.	
  London	
  would	
  be	  a	
  good	  place	
  for	
  media	
  activities.	
  There	
  will	  be	
   also	
   a	
   close	
   collaboration	
   with	
   the	   communications	   specialists	
   at	
   the	   Co-­‐chief	  Scientists’	
   universities	
   and	   those	
   of	
   the	   science	
   party.	
   The	   Co-­‐chiefs	
   will	
   be	
   asked	
   to	
  provide	
   video	
   material	
   that	
   may	   be	
   used	   to	
   publicise	   the	   expedition	
   and	   that	
   will	
   be	
   put	  into	
  the	
  media	
  packs,	
  which	
  will	  be	
  distributed.	
  A	
  close	
  liaison	
  will	  be	
  made	  both	  with	
  
the	
  UK	
  National	  Oceanography	
  Centre	
  and	
  NERC.	
  
	
  
For	
   the	   ‘Chicxulub’	
   expedition,	
   the	   discussions	
   with	
   the	   Co-­‐chiefs	
   have	
   started.	
   A.	  Stevenson	
   joined	
   the	   ESO	
   delegation	
   to	
   attend	
   the	   Chicxulub	
   Drilling	
   Workshop	
   from	
  March	
   28th	   to	
   April	
   1st,	
   2015	
   in	
   Mexico.	
   A	
   media	
   conference	
   and	
   a	
   press	
   release	
   were	  organized	
  to	
  publicise	
  the	
  workshop	
  and	  the	
  expedition	  science,	
  to	
  help	  the	  permitting	
  process	
   and	   to	
   highlight	
   the	   contribution	
   from	
   the	   Secretary	
   of	
   Education.	
   The	   outreach	  contacts	
  include	
  the	  Communications	
  Director	
  at	
  UT	
  Jackson	
  School,	
  the	
  Media	
  Officer	
  at	
  Imperial	
  College,	
  London,	
  and	
  some	  Mexican	
  press	
  groups.	
  It	
  is	
  also	
  possible	
  that	  there	
  would	  be	  a	
  link	  to	
  the	  Mexican	
  National	
  Academy	
  and	  the	  UK	  Royal	
  Society.	
  
	
  
The	
   main	
   target	
   audiences	
   are	   the	   media,	
   interested	
   public,	
   scientific	
   community,	
  policymakers	
   and	   educators.	
   The	   main	
   communication	
   objectives	
   are:	   1)	
   to	
   interact	
  positively	
   with	
   the	   media	
   and	   the	   general	
   public	
   to	
   demonstrate	
   the	   benefits	
   of	
   MSP	  expeditions;	
  2)	
  to	
  maximize	
  the	
  expedition’s	
  publicity	
  impact	
  among	  the	
  public	
  and	  the	  scientific	
   community;	
   and	   3)	
   to	
   strengthen	
   the	   links	
   between	
   the	   IODP/ECORD	  community	
  and	  the	
  international	
  media.	
  The	
  message	
  can	  be	
  conveyed	
  using	  the	
  ECORD	  web	
   pages,	
   expedition	
   flyers,	
   the	   ECORD	   folder,	
   booths	
   at	
   the	   EGU	   and	   AGU,	
   media	  packs,	
   press	
   conferences,	
   media	   releases,	
   the	   media	   day	   at	
   the	   Onshore	
   Science	
   Party	  and	
  Science	  Party	  organisations’	
  websites.	
  
	
  

2.7	
  ESSAC:	
  Staffing,	
  courses	
  and	
  other	
  activities	
  (G.	
  Früh-­‐Green)	
  (10:15)	
  G.	
   Früh-­‐Green	
   gave	
   an	
   overview	
   of	
   completed	
   and	   upcoming	
   IODP	
   2015	
   expeditions.	
  Expedition	
   354	
   ‘Bengal	
   Fan’	
   will	
   be	
   completed	
   by	
   the	   end	   of	
   the	   current	
   month.	
  Afterwards	
  the	  JR	
   will	
  continue	
  with	  Expedition	
  355	
  ‘Arabian	
  Sea	  Monsoon’	
  (CPP).	
  The	  next	  MSP	
  expedition	
  is	
  ‘Atlantis	
  Massif’.	
  	
  
	
  
Staffing:	
  G.	
  Früh-­‐Green	  continued	
  to	
  present	
  staffing	
  and	
  quotas.	
  The	
  number	
  of	
  berths	
  depends	
  on	
  the	
  financial	
  contributions	
  of	
  the	
  ECORD	
  member	  countries.	
  The	
  staffing	
  for	  the	
  eight	
  expeditions,	
   349	   through	
   356,	
   has	   been	
   completed	
   and	   the	   three	   major	
   contributors	
  have	
  the	  major	
  proportions	
  of	
  participants.	
  The	  distribution	
  of	
  participants	
  from	  smaller	
  countries	
   is	
   fine.	
   In	
   the	   case	   of	
   special	
   calls	
   the	   participants	
   do	
   not	   count	   towards	
   the	  quotas.	
   For	   the	   time	
   period	
   from	
   January	
   2014	
   to	
   May	   2015	
   there	
   is	   also	
   a	
   good	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

13	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
distribution	
   of	   senior	
   scientists	   to	
   early	
   career	
   scientists	
   and	   students	
   from	
   ECORD	
  countries.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   2014	
   quotas	
   show	
   a	
   deficit	
   for	   Germany	
   and	   France	
   at	
   the	   end	   of	
   2014	
   (Table	   5),	  however,	  Germany	
  has	  no	
  deficit	
  anymore	  in	
  2015.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Table	  5:	
  2014	
  quotas	
  	
  

	
  
	
  
The	
  projected	
  quotas	
  for	  2014	
  and	  2015	  look	  good	  for	  the	  UK	
  and	
  Germany,	
  but	
  France	
  has	
   to	
   work	
   on	
   it	
   (Table	   6).	
   Overall,	
   more	
   ECORD	
   participants	
   sailed	
   than	
   the	   eight	
  berths	   per	   JR	
   expedition	
   that	   are	   mentioned	
   in	
   the	   ECORD-­‐NSF	
   MoU.	
   The	   minimum	
  number	  of	
  designated	
  ECORD	
  berths	
  based	  on	
  the	  MoU	
  is	
  of	
  81	
  for	
  two	
  years.	
  The	
  total	  number	  of	
  participants	
  in	
  expeditions	  in	
  2014	
  and	  2015	
  is	
  of	
  94	
  (Table	  6).	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

14	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Table	  6:	
  Projected	
  quotas	
  2014	
  and	  2015	
  	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  The	
   staffing	
   for	   the	   upcoming	
   JR	
   expeditions	
   after	   July	
   2015	
   has	   been	
   completed	
  (Expedition	
   356	
   ‘Indonesian	   Throughflow’)	
   or	
   is	   almost	
   completed	
   (Expedition	
   359	  ‘Maldives	
   Monsoon	
   and	   Sea	   Level’).	
   ECORD	   will	
   have	
   10	
   sailing	
   scientists	   on	
   both	  expeditions.	
  
	
  
JR	
  Expedition	
  360	
  ‘SW	
  Indian	
  Ridge	
  Lower	
  Crust	
  and	  Moho’	
  is	
  fully	
  staffed	
  and	  there	
  will	  be	
   eight	
   ECORD	
   scientists	
   sailing,	
   including	
   for	   the	   first	
   time	
   a	
   Polish	
   scientist.	
   The	  staffing	
   of	
   the	   JR	
   Expedition	
   361	
   ‘Southern	
   African	
   Climates’	
   is	   almost	
   completed,	  including	  a	  special	
  call	  for	  a	
  nannofossil	
  specialist.	
  	
  
	
  
A	
  total	
  of	
  82	
  applications	
  were	  received	
  for	  the	
  next	
  MSP	
  expedition	
  357	  ‘Atlantis	
  Massif	
  Serpentinization	
   and	   Life’.	
   43	
   of	
   them	
   are	   from	
   ECORD	
   scientists.	
   The	   staffing	
   is	
   in	
  process	
   and	   the	   first	
   invitations	
   were	
   sent	
   in	
   March	
   2015.	
   ECORD	   will	
   have	
   12	
   berths	  because	  India	  and	  Brazil	
  did	  not	
  provide	  applications;	
  in	
  this	  case,	  the	  MoU	
  dictates	
  that	  those	
   two	
   berths	
   go	
   back	   to	
   ECORD.	
   For	
   ECORD,	
   there	
   were	
   more	   applications	
   from	
  senior	   scientists,	
   but	   together	
   with	
   the	   US,	
   Japanese,	
   Korean	
   and	   Chinese	
   partners	
   the	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

15	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
academic	
  career	
  distribution	
  is	
  eventually	
  well	  balanced.	
  The	  ‘Atlantis	
  Massif’	
  expedition	
  is	
   staffed	
   with	
   4	
   scientists	
   from	
   France,	
   1	
   from	
   UK,	
   2	
   from	
   Germany	
   and	
   5	
   from	
   small	
  countries.	
   The	   IKC	   berths	
   for	   the	   UK	   are	   not	   counted.	
   50%	
   of	
   the	   Onshore	
   Science	
   Party	  will	
   be	
   female.	
   The	   Webinar	
   associated	
   to	
   this	   expedition	
   was	   very	
   successful	
   with	   65	
  participants.	
  	
  
	
  
There	   are	   currently	
   two	   open	
   calls	
   for	   applications:	
   1)	   a	   special	
   call	
   for	
   a	
   nannofossil	
  micropaleontologist	
   for	
   IODP	
   Expedition	
   361;	
   and	   2)	   a	   call	
   for	   applications	
   for	
   IODP	  Expedition	
   362	
   ‘Sumatra	
   Seismogenic	
   Zone’.	
   All	   expeditions	
   scheduled	
   until	
   mid	   2016	  should	  be	
  staffed	
  by	
  the	
  middle	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  year.	
  	
  
	
  
For	
  a	
  simplification	
  of	
  the	
  application	
  process,	
  the	  ESSAC	  webpage	
  and	  the	
  application	
  form	
   were	
   revised.	
   There	
   is	
   no	
   longer	
   an	
   online	
   procedure:	
   all	   applications	
   are	   now	
  
done	
  by	
  email.	
  	
  
	
  
ECORD	
  members	
  in	
  IODP	
  panels:	
  G.	
   Früh-­‐Green	
   continued	
   to	
   present	
   the	
   4	
   new	
   SEP	
   members	
   (January	
   2015-­‐December	  2017):	
   Marguerite	
   Godard	
   (France),	
   Steven	
   Bohaty	
   (UK),	
   Werner	
   Piller	
   (Austria)	
   and	  Marc-­‐André	
  Gutscher	
  (France).	
  	
  
The	
   new	
   EFB	
   members	
   starting	
   in	
   January	
   2016	
   are	   Gilles	
   Lericolais	
   (ECORD),	
   Fumio	
  Inagaki	
   (Japan)	
   and	   Stephen	
   Gallagher	
   (Australia).	
   The	   official	
   alternate	
   will	
   be	
   Benoît	  Ildefonse.	
  These	  new	
  members	
  were	  already	
  approved	
  by	
  the	
  ECORD	  Council.	
  	
  Jan-­‐Hinrich	
   Behrmann	
   (GEOMAR,	
   Kiel,	   Germany)	
   has	   been	
   elected	
   as	
   the	   new	
   ESSAC	  Chair	
  starting	  in	
  2016.	
  	
  
	
  
In	
   2015	
   there	
   will	
   be	
   five	
   MagellanPlus	
   workshops.	
   The	   workshop	   ‘South	
   Atlantic	
  Drilling’	
   was	   already	
   held	   in	
   February.	
   The	   upcoming	
   workshops	
   are	   the	  IMAGE/MEDGATE	
   Project	
   and	   the	   ‘Indian	
   Ocean	   Crust	
   and	   Mantle	
   Drilling’	
   workshop	
   in	  May,	  ‘Mantle,	
  Water	  and	
  Life’	  in	
  June	  and	  ‘Submarine	  Paleoseismology’	
  in	
  July.	
  
	
  
EGU:	
  
There	
   will	
   be	   a	   special	   IODP-­‐ICDP	
   session	
   at	
   the	   EGU	
   in	
   April	
   2015.	
   This	
   session	
  ‘Achievements	
   and	   perspectives	
   in	
   scientific	
   ocean	   and	   continental	
   drilling’	
   will	
   be	  convened	
  by	
  G.	
  Früh-­‐Green	
  and	  collaborators.	
  	
  Education	  and	
  outreach	
  activities:	
  DLPs	
   -­‐	
   A	
   new	
   Distinguished	
   Lecturer	   Programme	
   was	   set	   up.	
   This	
   time	   there	
   are	   five	
  speakers	
   who	
   cover	
   the	   themes	
   of	
   the	   Science	   Plan.	
   Two	
   cover	
   the	   topic	
   ‘Climate	
   and	  Ocean	
  Change’	
  and	  the	
  other	  three	  cover	  the	
  three	
  topics	
  ‘Biosphere	
  Frontiers’,	  ‘Earth	  in	
  Motion’	
  and	
  ‘Earth	
  Connections’.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

16	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
ECORD	
  Schools	  -­‐	  Traditionally	
  there	  are	  the	  Urbino	
  Summer	  School	
  in	
  Paleoclimatology	  and	
  the	
  ECORD	  Bremen	  Summer	  School	
  with	  a	
  different	
  theme	  every	
  year.	
  The	
  Bremen	  2015	
  Summer	  School	
  will	  concern	
  ‘Ocean	  crust	  processes:	
  magma,	
  faults,	
  fluxes	
  and	
  life’.	
  ECORD	
  Scholarships	
  are	
  offered	  to	
  students	
  to	
  be	
  able	  to	
  attend	  these	  summer	
  schools;	
  usually	
  there	  are	
  50-­‐70	
  applications	
  every	
  year	  and	
  10-­‐15	
  scholarships	
  are	
  given.	
  	
  
In	
   addition	
   to	
   the	   two	   traditional	
   summer	
   schools,	
   ECORD	
   co-­‐funded	
   the	   International	
  School	  on	
  Foraminifera	
  in	
  June	  2015	  in	
  Urbino.	
  	
  
A	
  new	
  ECORD	  Training	
  Course	
  was	
  held	  in	
  Bremen	  in	
  March	  2015:	  ‘The	  Virtual	
  Drillship	  Experience’.	
   In	
   total	
   53	
   applicants	
   and	   30	
   participants	
   from	
   ECORD	
   and	   non-­‐ECORD	  countries	
  attended	
  this	
  first	  Training	
  Course.	
  	
  
	
  
ECORD	
   Grants	   -­‐	
   ECORD	
   Research	
   Grants	
   are	   given	
   every	   year	   to	
   PhD	
   students,	
   early-­‐
career	   or	   postdoctoral	
   scientists	
   for	   DSDP/ODP/IODP	   related	
   research.	
   With	
   those	
  grants	   ECORD	
   tries	
   to	
   promote	
   the	   use	   of	
   ocean	   drilling	
   material	
   and	   data,	
   and	   to	
  encourage	
  new	  collaborations	
  at	
  different	
  institutions.	
  	
  
	
  
‘Teachers	
   at	
   Sea’	
   -­‐	
   The	   ‘Teachers	
   at	
   Sea’	
   is	   a	   very	
   successful	
   outreach	   programme.	
   In	  2015	  Diane	  Hanano	
  is	
  sailing	
  on	
  Expedition	
  354	
  ‘Bengal	
  Fan’.	
  	
  
	
  
ECORD	
   publication	
   database	
   -­‐	
   Teresa	
   Bingham	
   was	   hired	
   temporary	
   and	   part-­‐time	
  through	  ETH	
  and	
  ECORD	
  funds	
  to	
  help	
  setting	
  up	
  a	
  publication	
  database	
  for	  all	
  ECORD	  related	
  literature.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  ESSAC	  news	
  will	  be	
  distributed	
  monthly	
  through	
  the	  ESSAC	  distribution	
  list.	
  	
  (10:36)	
  coffee	  break	
  (11:03)	
  
	
  

2.8	
  ECORD	
  Industry	
  Liaison	  Panel:	
  recent	
  activities	
  (A.	
  Moscariello)	
  A.	
  Moscariello	
  summarized	
  the	
  ECORD-­‐ILP	
  activities.	
  There	  are	
  three	
  focus	
  activities	
  of	
  
the	
  ILP	  in	
  2015:	
  1)	
  to	
  involve	
  and	
  educate	  a	
  larger	
  number	
  of	
  possible	
  Industry	
  partners	
  in	
   ECORD/IODP	
   activities;	
   2)	
   to	   organise	
   one	   ILP	
   annual	
   event;	
   and	   3)	
   to	
   ensure	
   an	
  active	  participation	
  of	
  Industry	
  representatives	
  at	
  the	
  MagellanPlus	
  workshops.	
  Most	
  of	
  
the	
   ILP	
   members	
   are	   from	
   the	   oil	   and	   gas	   industry	
   (BP,	
   Eni,	
   Total,	
   ExxonMobil,	
   Shell,	  Statoil,	
  BG	
  Group),	
  but	  there	  are	
  also	  two	  service	
  companies	
  (Schlumberger	
  and	  ION).	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

17	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Focus	
   activity	
   1:	
   The	   new	
   members	
   are	   the	   BG	
   Group	
   and	   Schlumberger	
   as	
   Industry	
  partners	
  and	
  UK-­‐IODP	  KEF	
  (Sally	
  Morgan)	
  as	
  an	
  observer.	
  	
  Focus	
   activity	
   2:	
   The	   last	
   ILP	
   meeting	
   was	   held	   in	
   September	
   2014	
   in	
   Bremen	
   and	  focused	   on	
   the	   topics	
   in	
   which	
   industry	
   has	   interest,	
   like	
   the	   Niger	
   Transform	
   Margin,	
  the	
   Arctic	
   and	   the	   Mediterranean.	
   The	   expression	
   of	
   interest	
   for	   this	
   workshop	
   came	  from	
  Shell,	
  BG	
  Group,	
  ION,	
  Statoil	
  and	
  Schlumberger.	
  Focus	
   activity	
   3:	
   The	   MagellanPlus	
   workshop	   ‘Drilling	
   the	   Cretaceous-­‐Palaeogene	
  tropical	
   South	
   Atlantic’	
   was	   held	   in	
   February	
   2015	
   in	
   Newcastle.	
   Five	
   representatives	
  from	  Industry	
  (one	  from	  the	  BG	  Group	  and	
  four	  from	  Shell)	
  attended	
  this	
  workshop.	
  ION	  and	
  CGG	  Veritas	
  provided	
  seismic	
  lines.	
  
	
  
A.	
   Moscariello	
   continued	
   to	
   present	
   the	   IODP	   Pre-­‐proposal	
   864:	
   ‘The	
   Origin,	
   Evolution	
  and	
   Palaeoenvironment	
   of	
   the	
   Equatorial	
   Atlantic	
   Gateway’.	
   There	
   is	
   lack	
   of	
   data	   for	   the	  Southern	
   Atlantic	
   and	   this	   project	
   is	
   an	
   example	
   for	   the	   collaboration	
   of	
   the	   science	
  community	
  with	  Industry.	
  
	
  
A.	
  Moscariello	
  summarized	
  other	
  ILP	
  activities.	
  There	  are	  discussions	
  on	
  how	
  combining	  the	
   ECORD/ILP	
   visibility	
   with	
   the	   ECORD	
   outreach	   team.	
   The	   next	
   AAPG	
   Annual	  Convention	  and	  Exhibition	
  will	  be	
  held	  in	
  Denver	
  from	  May	
  31st	  to	
  June	  3rd	  2015.	
  	
  
	
  
DISCUSSION	  on	
  collaboration	
  with	  Industry:	
  The	
   ECORD	
   activity	
   should	
   be	
   raised	
   to	
   the	   level	
   of	
   the	   European	
   Commission	
   (G.	
  Lericolais).	
  There	  is	  a	
  lack	  of	
  vessels	
  for	
  deep	
  sea	  mining,	
  which	  is	
  related	
  to	
  drilling,	
  and	  IODP	
  and	
  ECORD	
  could	
  play	  a	
  very	  important	  role	  in	
  this	  business	
  (G.	
  Lericolais).	
  Next	  year	  the	
  BGS	
  will	  participate	
  in	
  a	
  blue	  mining	
  drilling	
  campaign	
  with	  a	
  rock	  drill	
  (R.	
  Gatliff).	
  A.	
  Stevenson	
   is	
   working	
   together	
   with	   an	
   Atlantic	
   Initiative	   together	
   with	
   the	   EU,	
   the	   US	
   and	  the	
   Canadians	
   (R.	
   Gatliff).	
   There	
   is	
   an	
   agreement	
   between	
   the	   EU,	
   the	   US	
   and	   Canada	
   to	
  
have	
  an	
  Atlantic	
  Research	
  Alliance	
  and	  they	  try	  to	
  mobilise	
  the	
  scientific	
  community	
  and	  to	
  identify	
  priorities	
  for	
  this	  alliance	  (A.	  Stevenson).	
  A.	
  Stevenson	
  has	  been	
  asked	  to	
  chair	
  the	  Atlantic	
   Seabed	
   Mapping	
   Working	   Group	
   and	   there	
   will	
   be	   a	   big	
   event	
   in	
   April	
   2016	
   in	
  Brussels.	
  G.	
  Lericolais	
  will	
  attend	
  this	  event	  and	  he	
  will	  be	
  able	  to	
  report	
  because	
  one	  day	  before	  he	  is	
  co-­‐organising	  a	
  meeting	
  on	
  a	
  Northern	
  Atlantic	
  cooperation	
  (G.	
  Lericolais).	
  There	  is	
  the	
  upcoming	  MagellanPlus	
  workshop	  ‘Mantle,	
  Water	  and	
  Life’	  in	
  June	  2015	
  and	
  probably	
   they	   did	   not	   invite	
   a	
   representative	   from	
   Industry	
   (G.	
   Früh-­‐Green).	
   A.	
   Moscariello	
  will	
  have	  a	
  look	  to	
  the	
  details	
  of	
  this	  proposal	
  and	
  see	
  how	
  Industry	
  could	
  be	
  involved.	
  For	
  most	
  MSP	
  projects	
  Industry	  is	
  very	  interested	
  but,	
  in	
  contrast	
  to	
  the	  very	  experienced	  science	
   community,	
   Industry	
   is	
   sometimes	
   missing	
   the	   experience	
   (G.	
   Dickens).	
   Industry	
  really	  appreciates	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  the	
  science	
  community	
  (A.	
  Moscariello).	
  For	
  example,	
  if	
  Industry	
   drills	
   a	
   location	
   on	
   its	   own	   then	
   they	
   do	
   not	   care	
   about	
   any	   scientific	
   topics.	
  However,	
   it	
   would	
   be	
   great	   for	   public	
   relations	
   for	   the	   company	
   if	
   they	
   could	
   bring	
   a	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

18	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
scientist	
   and	   spend	
   a	
   bit	   more	
   time	   and	   money	   at	
   this	
   location	
   (G.	
   Dickens).	
   IODP	
   could	  bring	
   the	   whole	
   stratigraphic	
   calibration	
   and	   analyses	
   of	
   cores	
   (M.	
   Malone).	
   This	
   could	  happen	
  on	
  the	
  ship	
  or	
  quickly	
  post-­‐cruise.	
  Normally	
  Industry	
  hires	
  people	
  and	
  this	  can	
  take	  many	
  months	
  for	  them	  to	
  get	  the	
  analyses.	
  For	
  example,	
  Shell	  is	
  very	  interested	
  in	
  the	
  Niger	  Transform	
  area	  and	  they	  want	  more	  information	
  to	
  save	  money	  (M.	  Malone).	
  
	
  

2.9	
  ECORD:	
  recent	
  activities	
  and	
  forward	
  look	  (G.	
  Camoin)	
  (11:26)	
  G.	
   Camoin	
   presented	
   some	
   general	
   news	
   about	   ECORD	
   and	   started	
   with	   following	
  changes	
  in	
  the	
  ECORD	
  structure:	  	  1) Michel	
  Diament	
  is	
  the	  new	
  ECORD	  Council	
  Chair	
  until	
  December	
  2015	
  and	
  Guido	
   Lüniger	
   is	
   the	   outgoing	
   ECORD	
   Council	
   Vice-­‐Chair	
   until	
   the	   end	   of	  June	
   2015.	
   There	
   will	
   be	   a	   new	
   incoming	
   ECORD	
   Council	
   Vice-­‐Chair	
  starting	
  on	
  July	  1st	
  and	  becoming	  the	  new	
  ECORD	  Council	
  Chair	
  on	
  January	
  1st,	
  2016.	
  	  2) The	   new	
   MagellanPlus	
   Chair	
   since	
   the	   beginning	
   of	
   February	
   2015	
   is	
  Lucas	
  Lourens	
  (Netherlands).	
  3) ESSAC	
   nominated	
   Jan	
   Behrmann	
   (Germany)	
   as	
   the	   new	
   ESSAC	
   Chair	  starting	
  on	
  January	
  1st,	
  2016.	
  4) The	   three	
   new	
   EFB	
   members	
   are	   Gilles	
   Lericolais	
   (France),	
   Stephen	
  Gallagher	
   (Australia)	
   and	   Fumio	
   Inagaki	   (Japan)	
   starting	
   on	
   January	
   1st,	  2016.	  5) Nadine	  Hallmann	  is	
  the	  new	  EMA	  Assistant	
  Director	
  since	  January	  2015.	
  
	
  
G.	
   Camoin	
   showed	
   the	   content	
   of	
   the	   Annual	
   Report	
   2015	
   that	
   is	
   online	
   and	   indicated	  that	
  the	
  hard	  copies	
  will	  be	
  distributed	
  within	
  the	
  next	  two	  or	
  three	
  weeks.	
  	
  
	
  
G.	
  Camoin	
  presented	
  the	
  ECORD	
  membership	
  (Table	  8).	  At	  the	
  moment	
  ECORD	
  has	  17	
  member	  countries.	
  Iceland	
  has	
  withdrawn	
  from	  ECORD	
  at	
  the	
  end	  of	
  2014.	
  Most	  of	
  the	
  countries	
  are	
  committed	
  until	  end	  of	
  FY18,	
  i.e.	
  ECORD	
  has	  to	
  start	  soon	
  thinking	
  about	  an	
   external	
   review	
   of	
   the	   ECORD	
   activities	
   to	
   prepare	
   the	   renewal	
   of	
   ECORD	
   and	   the	  funding	  beyond	  FY18.	
  Denmark,	
  Israel	
  and	
  Switzerland	
  are	
  committed	
  until	  end	  of	
  FY16,	
  and	
  Canada	
  until	  end	  of	
  FY15.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

19	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Table	  8:	  ECORD	
  member	  countries	
  	
  
and	
  their	
  contributions	
  

	
  
	
  
There	   are	   renewed	
   contacts	   with	   Spain	
   showing	  that	
   they	
   could	
   come	
   back	   to	
   ECORD.	
   At	
   the	  beginning	
   of	
   ECORD	
   Spain	
   contributed	
   $400,000	
  USD	
  and	  then	
  they	  increased	
  their	
  contribution	  to	
  $700,000	
   USD	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   Concerning	
   potential	
  newcomers,	
   the	   new	
   ‘Accessing	   Member’	
   status	
  was	
   proposed	
   to	
   Russia.	
   That	
   means	
   with	   only	
   a	
  small	
   contribution	
   Russia	
   can	   have	
   access	
   to	
   the	  ECORD	
  educational	
  programme,	
  but	
  does	  not	
  get	  any	
   sailing	
   scientists	   on	
   IODP	   expeditions.	
   There	
  are	
  new	  contacts	  through	
  the	
  Russian	  Academy	  of	
  Sciences.	
   There	
   are	   still	
   contacts	   with	
   the	   Czech	
  Republic	
  and	
  Luxembourg	
  and	  new	  contacts	
  with	  Turkey.	
   This	   year	
   Turkey	
   is	
   willing	
   to	   organise	
   an	  IODP	
   Day	   and	   their	   Ministry	
   is	   positive	   about	
   an	  
ECORD	
  membership.	
  
	
  
	
  
ECORD	
   is	
   ready	
   to	
   play	
   a	
   significant	
   role	   in	
   the	   development	
   of	
   Amphibious	
   Drilling	
  Proposals	
   (ADPs)	
   combining	
   land	
   drilling	
   and	   (especially)	
   shallow	
   water	
   drilling.	
   One	  example	
   is	
   the	   planned	
   drilling	
   programme	
   offshore	
   Nice	
   (southeastern	
   France),	
  combining	
  an	
  IODP	
  and	  an	
  ICDP	
  proposals.	
  In	
  the	
  frame	  of	
  the	
  MagellanPlus	
  workshop	
  series,	
  ECORD	  and	  ICDP	
  provide	  10,000	  €	
  each	  to	
  fund	  ADP	
  workshops.	
  
	
  
	
  

3.	
   Brief	
   reports	
   of	
   other	   IODP	   facility	
   boards	
   and	   entities	
   on	
   recent	
  activities	
  There	
  were	  reports	
  on	
  the	
  JR-­‐FB	
  (S.	
  Humphris),	
  the	
  CIB	  (N.	
  Eguchi),	
  the	
  Science	  Support	  Office	   (H.	
   Given),	
   the	   Science	
   Evaluation	
   Panel	
   (D.	
   Kroon)	
   and	   the	   IODP	
   Forum	
   (K.	
  Becker).	
  	
  
	
  

3.1	
  JOIDES	
  Resolution	
  Facility	
  Board	
  (S.	
  Humphris)	
  (11:35)	
  The	
   JOIDES	  Resolution	
   Facility	
   Board	
   (JR-­‐FB)	
   is	
   responsible	
   for	   scheduling	
   the	   JR	
   and	   for	  the	
   advisory	
   panels	
   that	   this	
   facility	
   board	
   uses.	
   The	   JR-­‐FB	
   is	
   required	
   to	
   get	   feedback	  from	
   other	
   facility	
   boards	
   on	
   the	   effectiveness	
   of	
   the	   advisory	
   panels.	
   The	   last	   JR-­‐FB	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

20	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
meeting	  was	
  held	  in	
  April	
  2014	
  and	  the	
  next	  meeting	
  will	  be	
  held	  in	
  May	  2015.	
  
	
  
S.	
   Humphris	
   presented	
   a	
   list	
   with	   expeditions	
   completed	
   since	
   the	   last	
   EFB	
   meeting	
   and	  expeditions	
  that	  are	
  scheduled:	
  

	
  
With	
   the	   Expedition	
   353	
   ‘Indian	
   Monsoon’	
   there	
   were	   a	
   number	
   of	
   sites	
   within	
   Indian	  waters	   leading	   to	   a	
   considerable	
   amount	
   of	
   trouble	
   gaining	
   clearance	
   for	   drilling.	
  Drilling	
   in	
   Indian	
   waters	
   had	   to	
   be	   postponed	
   and	   the	   problem	
   could	
   only	
   be	
   solved	
  through	
  major	
  effort	
  by	
  the	
  science	
  operators	
  and	
  NSF	  including	
  an	
  intervention	
  at	
  the	  highest	  levels	
  of	
  government.	
  This	  resulted	
  in	
  additional	
  expenses	
  that	  included	
  the	
  ship	  going	
   to	
   India	   for	   inspection.	
   Given	
   the	   experience	
   of	
   getting	
   research	
   clearance	
   for	  Expedition	
  353,	
  the	
  decision	
  was	
  made	  to	
  exclude	
  one	
  site	  of	  Expedition	
  359	
  ‘Maldives	
  Monsoon’	
  that	  is	
  in	
  Indian	
  waters.	
  
	
  
The	
   long-­‐term	
   JR	
   cruise	   track	
   will	
   follow	
   a	
   path	   from	
   the	   western	
   and	   southwestern	  Pacific	
  Ocean,	
  through	
  the	
  Southern	
  Ocean	
  into	  the	
  Atlantic	
  Ocean	
  for	
  opportunities	  to	
  start	
   drilling	
   there	
   in	
   2018.	
   This	
   statement	
   will	
   be	
   revisited	
   at	
   the	   next	
   JR-­‐FB	
   meeting	
   in	  May	  2015	
  based	  on	
  proposal	
  pressure.	
  The	  prediction	
  is	
  that	  this	
  will	  be	
  still	
  the	
  long-­‐term	
  track	
  (S.	
  Humphris).	
  	
  
	
  
JR-­‐FB	
  membership	  At	
   the	   next	
   JR-­‐FB	
   meeting	   a	
   new	
   JR-­‐FB	
   chair	
   will	
   be	   selected.	
   There	
   are	   two	
   new	  scientists	
  at	
  the	
  JR-­‐FB:	
  Anthony	  Koppers	
  and	
  Christina	
  Ravelo.	
  There	
  is	
  an	
  open	  call	  for	  the	
   selection	
   of	
   the	   US	
   members.	
   The	   US	
   Science	   Support	
   Programme	
   makes	
   a	
  recommendation	
  to	
  the	
  JR-­‐FB.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

21	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Items	
  for	
  EFB	
  attention	
  1)	
  Feedback	
   is	
   needed	
   regarding	   the	   effectiveness	
   of	
   the	   advisory	
   panels	
   in	
   meeting	
   the	  needs	  of	
  the	
  EFB	  2)	   Proposal	
   and	   site	
   survey	
   confidentiality	
   policies:	
   feedback	
   on	
   proposed	
   revisions	
   of	  the	
   clarifications	   regarding	   the	   handling	
   of	
   proprietary	
   data	   and	   information	
   (see	  agenda	  book)	
  3)	
  Feedback	
  on	
  the	
  draft	  of	
  the	
  amphibious	
  IODP-­‐ICDP	  drilling	
  proposal	
  procedures	
  and	
  guidelines	
  (see	  agenda	
  book)	
  
	
  

3.2	
  Chikyu	
  IODP	
  Board	
  (G.	
  Kimura/N.	
  Eguchi)	
  (11:45)	
  G.	
  Kimura	
  presented	
  the	
  budgetary	
  situation	
  for	  JFY15	
  and	  a	
  Chikyu	
  status	
  update.	
  Some	  non-­‐IODP	   operations	
   were	
   cancelled	
   and	   delayed	
   last	
   year	
   and	   MEXT	   allocated	
   non-­‐IODP	
  scientific	
  operations	  in	
  order	
  to	
  relieve	
  the	
  budgetary	
  situation.	
  MEXT	
  requests	
  a	
  budget	  for	
   Chikyu	
  operations	
  for	  JFY15	
  to	
  conduct	
  scientific	
  drilling.	
   Only	
   basic	
   cost	
   of	
  drill	   ship	
   operation	
   might	
   be	   secured.	
   CDEX	   has	   still	
   budgetary	
   constraints	
   because	  JAMSTEC	
  could	
  not	
  carry	
  over	  its	
  cumulated	
  profits	  between	
  the	
  5-­‐year	
  programs	
  of	
  the	
  Independent	  Administrative	  Legal	
  Entity	
  (IALE)	
  in	
  April	
  2014.	
  In	
  addition,	
  the	
  BOP	
  and	  ship	
  body	  inspection	
  is	
  more	  expensive	  than	  expected.	
  	
  After	   a	   long	
   negotiation,	
   the	   Chikyu	
   has	   been	
   committed	
   to	   a	
   commercial	
   contract	
  between	
   the	   Japan	
   Drilling	
   Company	
   (JDC)	
   and	   ONGC	
   (Indian	
   company)	
   for	
   a	
   gas	  hydrate	   exploration	
   cruise	
   off	
   India	
   beginning	
   this	
   March	
   and	   expected	
   to	
   finish	
   in	
  August	   2015.	
   With	
   this	
   Indian	   operation	
   basic	
   cost	
   for	   the	   Chikyu	
   can	   be	
   saved	
   (N.	
  Eguchi).	
  Because	
  of	
  the	
  delay	
  in	
  this	  Indian	
  operation	
  the	
  IODP	
  operation	
  is	
  also	  delayed	  to	
  next	  year	  (N.	
  Eguchi).	
  After	  the	
  cruise	
  off	
  India	  the	
  Chikyu	
  has	
  to	
  go	
  to	
  dry	
  dock	  for	  a	
  5-­‐year	  legal	  inspection	
  as	
  well	  as	
  for	
  maintainance	
  and	
  repair	  including	
  BOP	
  and	
  riser-­‐pipe	
  repairs.	
  The	
  Chikyu	
  will	  be	
  able	  to	
  return	
  to	
  IODP	
  operations	
  in	
  March	  2016	
  when	  a	
  riserless	
  operation	
  is	
  planned	
  (N.	
  Eguchi).	
  
	
  
The	
   last	   CIB	
   meeting	
   was	   held	   in	
   July	
   2014	
   and	   the	   next	
   CIB	
   meeting	
   will	
   be	
   held	   in	
  March	  2015.	
  Hiroshi	
  Nishi	  took	  over	  as	
  chair	
  of	
  the	
  J-­‐DESC	
  IODP	
  Section	
  in	
  September	
  2014.	
  
	
  

3.3	
  Science	  Support	
  Office	
  (H.	
  Given)	
  (11:53)	
  The	
   IODP	   Science	   Support	
   Office	
   (SSO)	
   started	   at	
   the	   beginning	
   of	
   the	   new	
   IODP	
   in	
  October	
   2013	
   and	   is	
   located	
   at	
   the	   Scripps	
   Institution	
   of	
   Oceanography,	
   UC	
   San	
   Diego.	
  The	
  SSO	  is	
  funded	
  by	
  the	  National	
  Science	  Foundation	
  (NSF).	
  The	
  budget	
  of	
  the	
  SSO	
  for	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

22	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
FY15	
  is	
  about	
  $1M	
  USD.	
  Seven	
  people	  are	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  office.	
  The	
  tasks	
  of	
  the	
  SSO	  are:	
  
1)	
  to	
  support	
  the	
  JR-­‐FB	
  and	
  its	
  advisory	
  panels;	
  2)	
  to	
  oversee	
  the	
  proposal	
  process	
  for	  IODP;	   3)	
   to	
   manage	
   the	   Site	
   Survey	
   Data	
   Bank	
   (SSDB);	
   and	   4)	
   to	
   provide	
   the	   IODP	  website.	
  
	
  
The	
  proposals	
  from	  the	  October	
  2013	
  submission	
  deadline	
  were	  the	
  first	  responsibility	  for	
  the	
  SSO.	
  Since	
  then	
  there	  is	  a	
  good	  proposal	
  activity	
  and	  volume.	
  At	
  any	
  given	
  time	  since	
   the	   SSO	   exists	
   there	
   are	   106	
   active	
   proposals	
   in	
   the	   system,	
   with	   20%	
   of	
   them	
  being	
  MSP	
  proposals.	
  38%	  of	
  the	
  active	
  proposals	
  are	
  led	  by	
  ECORD	
  scientists.	
  There	  are	
  about	
  1300	
  unique	
  proponents	
  and	
  about	
  500	  of	
  those	  are	
  ECORD	
  scientists.	
  
	
  
The	
   submission	
   of	
   IODP	
   proposals	
   must	   be	
   made	
   via	   the	   e-­‐system.	
   The	   Proposal	
  Submission	
   Guidelines	
   document	
   is	
   continuously	
   evolving.	
   Proposals	
   continue	
   to	
   be	  refined	
  at	
  the	
  Facility	
  Board.	
  Once	  the	
  proposal	
  has	  been	
  forwarded	
  from	  SEP	  there	
  is	
  a	
  
lot	
  of	
  interaction	
  between	
  the	
  Facility	
  Board	
  and	  the	
  proponents.	
  The	  revised	
  proposal	
  does	
   not	   have	
   to	
   be	
   reviewed	
   by	
   SEP.	
   There	
   is	   a	   one-­‐way	
   arrow	
   from	
   SEP	
   to	
   the	   Facility	
  Board.	
  A	
  new	
  section	
  called	  ‘Consideration	
  by	
  an	
  IODP	
  Facility	
  Board’	
  was	
  added	  to	
  the	
  Proposal	
  Submission	
  Guidelines	
  and	
  aims	
  at	
  requesting	  a	
  proponents’	
  response	
  letter	
  or	
  
an	
  addendum.	
  The	
  Facility	
  Board	
  usually	
  wants	
  SEP	  to	
  have	  an	
  opinion	
  about	
  a	
  proposal	
  after	
  getting	
  more	  information	
  from	  the	
  proponents.	
  Therefore,	
  the	
  SSO	
  introduced	
  the	  SEP	  Comment	
  Form	  to	
  record	  the	
  specific	
  item	  the	
  proponent	
  asked	
  SEP	  to	
  look	  at.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   SSO	
   got	   specific	
   requests	
   from	
   the	   proponent	
   groups	
   of	
   proposals	
   846-­‐APL,	
   840-­‐Pre,	
   864-­‐Pre	
   and	   730-­‐Full	   about	
   how	
   confidential	
   data	
   are	   handled.	
   Specifically	
   they	  wanted	  to	
  know	
  if	
  the	
  SSO	
  would	
  sign	  an	
  agreement	
  about	
  how	
  proprietary	  data	  would	
  be	
   handled.	
   These	   inquiries	
   led	   to	
   revisions	
   of	
   the	   two	
   policies	
   for	   proposal	
   and	   data	
  confidentiality.	
   These	   revisions	
   to	
   the	   policy	
   documents	
   do	
   not	   introduce	
   any	   new	
  procedures	
   and	   only	
   concern	
   clarifications	
   on	
   the	   policies.	
   The	   SSO	
   decided	
   to	
   sign	
   an	
  agreement	
  for	
  proprietary	
  site	  survey	
  data	  bank	  (SSDB)	
  to	
  help	  the	
  proponents.	
  The	
  SSO	  signs	
   to	
   agree	
   on	
   operating	
   in	
   accordance	
   with	   its	   policies.	
   SSO	   will	
   sign	
   a	
   Non-­‐disclosure	
  Agreement	
  (NDA)	
  if	
  the	
  institution	
  of	
  the	  person	
  who	  received	
  the	
  data	  from	  the	
  data	  provider	
  also	  signs	
  this	  agreement.	
  	
  DISCUSSION	
  on	
  confidentiality:	
  It	
   could	
   be	
   good	
   to	
   have	
   a	
   watchdog	
   signing	
   a	
   NDA	   and	   blocking	
   the	   access	
   to	
   other	  members	
   who	   are	   not	   watchdogs	
   (G.	
   Lericolais).	
   This	
   is	   difficult	
   because	
   there	
   might	
   be	  time	
  series	
  to	
  look	  at	
  but	  there	  are	
  also	
  pictures	
  that	  might	
  be	
  in	
  the	
  proposal	
  document	
  itself	  (H.	
  Given).	
  When	
  the	
  watchdog	
  signed	  then	
  there	  is	
  the	
  question	
  if	
  no	
  picture	
  of	
  the	
  proposal	
   can	   be	   shown	
   because	
   this	
   might	
   have	
   proprietary	
   data.	
   It	
   is	
   not	   possible	
   to	
   have	  an	
   open	
   discussion	
   if	
   it	
   is	
   not	   allowed	
   to	   show	
   pictures	
   and	   this	   resulted	
   in	
   pulling	
   back	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

23	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
from	
  getting	
  NDAs	  (H.	
  Given).	
  Confidentiality	
  is	
  important	
  and	
  that	  is	
  why	  there	
  will	
  be	
  a	
  
signing	
  sheet	  at	
  the	  beginning	
  of	
  the	
  meetings	
  (H.	
  Given).	
  There	  is	  a	
  problem	
  with	  the	  EPSP	  because	   of	
   oil	   company	
   proprietary	
   data	
   (G.	
   Lericolais).	
   Here,	   it	
   is	
   important	   to	
   be	  stringent.	
  	
  
	
  
COMMENT	
  on	
  proposals	
  with	  Industry	
  interest:	
  It	
   would	
   be	
   useful	   to	
   identify	
   proposals	
   that	   might	
   have	
   some	
   Industry	
   interest	
   (A.	
  Moscariello).	
  It	
  is	
  very	  difficult	
  to	
  change	
  the	
  proposal	
  submission	
  system	  but	
  this	
  issue	
  can	  be	
   considered	
   for	   the	   development	
   of	
   the	   system	
   (H.	
   Given).	
   As	
   soon	
   as	
   SEP	
   initially	
  discussed	
  such	  a	
  proposal	
  there	
  could	
  be	  a	
  communication	
  to	
  A.	
  Moscariello	
  from	  the	
  SEP	  chair	
  (H.	
  Given).	
  
	
  

3.4	
  Science	  Evaluation	
  Panel	  (D.	
  Kroon/D.	
  Mallinson)	
  (12:17)	
  D.	
  Kroon	
  reported	
  on	
  the	
  last	
  SEP	
  meeting.	
  There	  is	  a	
  good	  MSP	
  proposal	
  pressure	
  and	  a	
  big	
  variety	
  of	
  proposals	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  character	
  and	  the	
  scientific	
  objectives.	
  	
  
	
  
Table	  9	  shows	
  mature	
  proposals	
  in	
  the	
  system	
  that	  came	  back	  to	
  SEP	
  for	  review	
  at	
  the	  last	
  meeting.	
  At	
  this	  level	  there	
  is	
  no	
  MSP	
  proposal.	
  Highlighted	
  in	
  green	
  are	
  proposals	
  that	
  came	  back	  from	  external	
  review	
  and	  revised	
  proposals	
  are	
  highlighted	
  in	
  brown.	
  
	
  
	
  
Table	  9:	  Revised	
  proposals	
  submitted	
  on	
  the	
  1st	  of	
  October,	  2014	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

24	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
D.	
   Kroon	
   continued	
   to	
   present	
   proposals	
   that	   are	   new	
   in	
   the	   system	
   or	
   that	
   were	  deactivated	
   in	
   the	   past	   and	   came	
   back	   to	
   SEP.	
   This	
   list	   includes	
   three	
   MSP	
   proposals	
  (Table	  10).	
  	  Table	
  10:	  New	
  proposals	
  at	
  the	
  SEP	
  since	
  the	
  1st	  of	
  October,	  2014	  	
  (12:40)	
  lunch	
  break	
  (13:40)	
  
	
  

3.5	
  IODP	  Forum	  (K.	
  Becker)	
  The	
   proposal	
   pressure	
   is	
   the	   main	
   criterion	
   for	   evaluating	
   the	   progress	
   towards	
   the	  Science	
   Plan.	
   There	
   is	   a	   good	
   proposal	
   pressure	
   and	   it	
   is	
   the	   challenge	
   of	
   the	   facility	
  boards	   to	
   schedule	
   these	   expeditions	
   to	
   achieve	
   the	   objectives	
   of	
   the	   Science	   Plan.	
   K.	
  Becker	  presented	
  an	
  overview	
  of	
  completed	
  and	
  scheduled	
  expeditions	  and	
  proposals	
  at	
  
the	
   Facility	
   Boards	
   and	   at	
   the	   SEP	
   organized	
   by	
   challenges:	
   1)	
   Climate	
   and	   Ocean	  Change:	  challenges	
  #1-­‐4;	
  2)	
  Biosphere	
  Frontiers:	
  challenges	
  #5-­‐7;	
  3)	
  Earth	  Connections:	
  challenges	
  #8-­‐11;	
  and	  4)	  Earth	  in	
  Motion:	
  challenges	
  #12-­‐14	
  (Table	  11).	
  This	  table	  was	  updated	
  after	  the	  January	  2015	  SEP	
  meeting	
  and	
  does	  not	  include	
  the	  12	  pre-­‐proposals	
  that	
  were	  identified	
  at	
  the	
  last	  two	
  SEP	
  meetings	
  for	  the	
  development	
  to	
  full	  proposals.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

25	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Table	  11:	
  IODP	
  expeditions	  and	
  proposals	
  organized	
  by	
  challenge	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

26	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Continuation	
  of	
  Table	
  11	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
The	
  next	  IODP	  Forum	
  Chair	
  will	  be	
  nominated	
  soon	  (K.	
  Becker).	
  There	
  was	  a	
  first	  vote	  and	
   two	
   candidates	
   had	   exactly	
   the	   same	
   number	
   of	
   votes	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   There	
   will	
   be	  another	
  vote	  and	  the	
  nomination	
  will	  be	
  done	  within	
  the	
  next	  two	
  weeks	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  There	
  were	  three	
  candidates	
  for	
  this	  position	
  (K.	
  Becker/G.	
  Camoin).	
  	
  
	
  
At	
   the	   upcoming	
   IODP	
   Forum	
   there	
   will	
   be	
   two	   special	
   focus	
   points:	
   1)	
   first	
   review	
   of	  IODP-­‐2	
  results;	
  and	  2)	  review	
  of	
  education	  and	
  outreach	
  across	  IODP.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

27	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
K.	
  Becker	
  continued	
  to	
  present	
  the	  new	
  procedures	
  regarding	
  the	
  amphibious	
  proposals.	
  At	
  the	
  first	  IODP	  Forum	
  meeting	  in	
  2014	
  a	
  motion	
  has	  been	  made	  to	
  work	  with	  ICDP	
  and	  to	
  design	
  a	
  process	
  to	
  jointly	
  evaluate	
  proposals.	
  The	
  IODP	  Forum	  recommended	
  setting	
  
up	
   a	
   working	
   group.	
   ICDP	   agreed	
   and	   this	
   working	
   group	
   was	   set	   up	
   and	   chaired	
   by	
  Kenneth	   Miller	
   (IODP	
   SEP).	
   The	   other	
   panelists	
   were	
   Pierre	
   Francus	
   (ICDP	   EC),	
   Flavio	
  Anselmetti	
  (ICDP	  SAG),	
  Jochen	
  Erbacher	
  (IODP	  Forum)	
  and	
  Sean	  Gulick	
  (IODP	  SEP).	
  
	
  
The	
  definition	
  of	
  ADP’s	
  is	
  as	
  follows	
  (revised	
  version	
  from	  April	
  3rd,	
  2015):	  	
  There	  are	
  three	  principles	
  for	  the	
  coordinated	
  evaluation	
  of	
  ADP’s:	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
One	
   difference	
   between	   ICDP	   and	   IODP	   is	
   that	   ICDP	   has	   one	   annual	
   cycle	
   of	
   proposal	  review	
  while	  IODP	
  gets	  two	
  proposal	
  deadlines	
  separated	
  by	
  six	  months.	
  	
  ADP’s	
   generally	
   require	
   workshops	
   to	
   bring	
   together	
   members	
   of	
   the	   IODP	   and	   ICDP	  communities	
   and	   to	
   justify	
   the	   scientific	
   need	   for	   both	   onshore	
   and	   offshore	
   sites	
   (K.	
  Becker).	
   Workshop	
   proposals	
   will	
   be	
   reviewed	
   by	
   the	   ICDP	   SAG/EC	
   and	   the	   IODP	   SEP	  with,	  if	  necessary,	
  the	
  advice	
  of	
  the	
  MagellanPlus	
  SSC,	
  USAC	  or	
  any	
  external	
  reviewer	  (K.	
  Becker).	
   Workshop	
   funds	
   will	
   be	
   provided	
   by	   ICDP	   and	   the	   IODP	   Program	
   Member	
  Organizations	
  (ECORD,	
  USAC,	
  J-­‐DESC).	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

28	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
K.	
  Becker	
  continued	
  to	
  present	
  two	
  flow	  charts	
  for	  the	
  development	
  of	
  ADP	
  workshops	
  and	
  full	  proposals	
  (Figs.	
  1	
  and	
  2).	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Figure	
  1:	
  IODP-­‐ICDP	
  Amphibious	
  Drilling	
  Proposal	  (ADP)	
  Development:	
  Workshop	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

On	
   IODP	   side	
   the	   workshop	
   proposal	
   will	
   be	
   submitted	
   for	   the	   ICDP	
   January	   15th	  deadline	
   and	   whatever	
   deadlines	
   are	   appropriate	
   for	   the	   national	
   or	
   consortium	
  workshop	
   programmes	
   (Fig.	
   1).	
   On	   ICDP	   side	
   the	   submission	
   will	
   be	
   to	   ICDP	
   Potsdam	
  who	
  would	
  forward	
  the	
  proposal	
  to	
  the	
  IODP	  Science	  Support	
  Office	
  as	
  information.	
  The	  SSO	
  would	
  forward	
  the	
  proposal	
  to	
  SEP	
  for	  review.	
  If	
  there	  is	  a	
  positive	  decision	
  by	
  ICDP	
  at	
  their	
  Executive	  Committee	
  in	
  June,	  they	
  would	
  make	  the	
  decision	
  to	
  offer	
  funding.	
  In	
  a	
  
parallel	
   process	
   there	
   is	
   the	   possibility	
   of	
   getting	
   co-­‐funding	
   of	   a	   workshop	
   from	
   the	  various	
  sources	
  of	
  IODP	
  workshop	
  funding	
  (Fig.	
  1).	
  
	
  
Full	
  ADP	
  proposals	
  should	
  be	
  submitted	
  for	  the	
  normal	
  IODP	
  October	
  1st	
  deadline	
  and	  co-­‐submitted	
   for	   the	   ICDP	
   January	   15th	   deadline.	
   If	   a	   full	
   ADP	
   proposal	
   is	   positively	
  reviewed	
  at	
  the	  January	
  IODP	
  SEP,	
  the	
  IODP	  Science	  Support	
  Office	
  will	  obtain	
  fast-­‐track	
  external	
   review	   in	
   time	
   for	   the	   spring	
   ICDP	   SAG	
   meeting.	
   Following	
   external	
   review,	
   the	  Full	
  ADP	
  will	  be	
  evaluated	
  by	
  the	
  scientific	
  panels	
  of	
  both	  programmes	
  (spring	
  SAG	
  and	  June	  SEP).	
  Those	  recommendations	
  will	  be	
  integrated	
  into	  a	
  single	
  review	
  document.	
  It	
  
is	
  up	
  to	
  the	
  chairs	
  of	
  these	  two	
  panels	
  to	
  organize	
  a	
  joint	
  evaluation.	
  The	
  key	
  aspect	
  is	
  to	
  
get	
   an	
   integrated	
   review	
   and	   to	
   avoid	
   that	   the	   proponents	
   get	   contrasting	
   reviews	
   (K.	
  Becker).	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

29	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Figure	
  2:	
  IODP-­‐ICDP	
  Amphibious	
  Drilling	
  Proposal	  (ADP)	
  Development:	
  Full	
  Proposal	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
The	
  document	  ‘IODP	  ICDP	
  Guidelines	
  for	
  joint	
  review	
  of	  “Amphibious	
  Drilling	
  Proposals”	
  (ADP’s)’	
   will	
   be	
   reviewed	
   this	   spring	
   at	
   the	   EFB,	
   CIB	   and	   JR-­‐FB,	
   then	
   at	
   the	   ICDP	  Executive	  Committee	
  in	
  June	  and	  the	
  IODP	  Forum	
  in	
  July.	
  If	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  agreement,	
  then	  it	
  will	  be	
  adopted	
  by	
  both	  programmes.	
  	
  DISCUSSION	
  on	
  ADP’s:	
  SEP	
   and	   SAG	   have	
   to	
   evaluate	
   the	   ADP	
   proposals	
   together	
   and	   they	   have	
   to	
   forward	
   it	
  together	
  to	
  the	
  facility	
  boards,	
  i.e.	
  it	
  cannot	
  happen	
  that	  ICDP	
  or	
  IODP	
  rejects	  and	  the	
  other	  panel	
  accepts	
  (K.	
  Gohl/H.	
  Nishi).	
  The	  ADP	
  definition	
  says	  that	  the	
  scientific	
  objectives	
  can	
  
only	
  be	
  achieved	
  by	
  both	  drilling	
  onshore	
  and	
  offshore	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  If	
  one	
  panel	  does	  not	  like	
  the	
  proposal	
  then	
  it	
  is	
  not	  an	
  ADP	
  anymore	
  (D.	
  Kroon/G.	
  Camoin).	
  	
  
K.	
   Becker	
   gave	
   two	
   examples	
   for	   expeditions	   that	   had/will	
   have	
   an	
   onshore	
   ICDP	  component	
  besides	
  the	
  offshore	
  IODP	
  component:	
  1)	
  the	  New	
  Jersey	
  Sea	
  Level	  Expedition;	
  and	   2)	
   the	   Chicxulub	
   Expedition.	
   Some	
   of	
   the	   hydrogeological	
   proposals	
   that	   are	   in	
   the	  system	   could	
   be	
   an	
   example	
   for	   the	   future	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   These	   proposals	
   could	
   incorporate	  objectives	
  like	  groundwater	
  flow	
  from	  the	
  land	  to	
  the	
  ocean.	
  SEP	
  would	
  have	  the	
  option	  to	
  determine	
  if	
  a	
  proposal	
  could	
  be	
  two	
  standalone	
  projects	  and	  that	
   one	   part	   should	
   be	
   submitted	
   for	   an	
   IODP	
   project	
   and	   the	   other	
   part	   for	   an	   ICDP	  project	
   (D.	
   Mallinson).	
   It	
   gives	
   strength	
   to	   a	   proposal	
   if	
   the	   proponents	
   can	
   demonstrate	
  that	
   the	   scientific	
   objective	
   can	
   only	
   be	
   achieved	
   with	   drilling	
   onshore	
   and	   offshore	
  because	   there	
   is	
   support	
   from	
   two	
   independent	
   panels	
   (M.	
   Torres).	
   ADP’s	
   give	
   the	  opportunity	
   to	   potentially	
   address	
   scientific	
   objectives	
   that	
   could	
   not	   be	
   addressed	
   by	   a	
  solely	   either	
   offshore	
   or	
   onshore	
   component	
   (S.	
   Humphris).	
   Regarding	
   hydrogeological	
  proposals,	
   stronger	
   proposals	
   could	
   maybe	
   be	
   written	
   by	
   looking	
   at	
   the	   continent-­‐ocean	  transition	
  (S.	
  Humphris).	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

30	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
T.	
  Janecek	
  mentioned	
  that	  it	
  appears	
  that	  a	
  new	
  structure	
  is	
  being	  built	
  for	  maybe	
  only	  a	
  small	
   number	
   of	
   proposals.	
   This	
   structure	
   is	
   not	   new	
   (K.	
   Becker/K.	
   Gohl).	
   The	   only	
   new	
  item	
   in	
   this	
   scheme	
   is	
   the	   coordinated	
   review	   between	   SEP	
   and	   SAG	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   The	  proponents	
  do	
  not	
  want	  separate	
  evaluations.	
  They	  want	  a	
  joint	
  evaluation	
  with	  a	
  single	  response	
  letter	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
ECORD	  FB	  Consensus	
  15-­‐03-­‐02:	
  	
  
The	
   ECORD	
   Facility	
   Board	
   agrees	
   on	
   writing	
   a	
   feedback	
   message	
   regarding	   the	   ADP	
  guidelines	
  to	
  the	
  other	  Facility	
  Boards.	
  	  Ø Action	
   (K.	
   Gohl):	  to	
  write	  a	
  feedback	
  message	
  regarding	
  the	  ADP	
  guidelines	
  to	
  
the	
  other	  Facility	
  Boards.	
  
	
  
	
  

4.	
  Review	
  of	
  the	
  MSP	
  proposals	
  Five	
  MSP	
  proposals	
  that	  are	
  currently	
  at	
  the	
  ECORD	
  Facility	
  Board	
  were	  reviewed	
  and	  discussed:	
   1)	
   #581	
   Late	
   Pleistocene	
   Coralgal	
   Banks;	
   2)	
   #637	
   New	
   England	
   Shelf	  Hydrogeology;	
  3)	
  #716	
  Hawaiian	
  Drowned	
  Reefs;	
  4)	
  #708	
  Arctic	
  Paleoceanography;	
  and	  5)	  #813	
  Antarctic	
  Paleoclimate.	
  Of	
  those	  the	
  first	
  three	  are	  in	
  the	
  holding	
  bin.	
  
	
  

4.1	
  581-­‐Full2	
  Late	  Pleistocene	
  Coralgal	
  Banks	
  (holding	
  bin)	
  
4.1.1	
  Summary	
  of	
  objectives,	
  SSD	
  and	  previous	  EFB	
  decision	
  (A.	  Cattaneo)	
  (14:15)	
  A.	
  Cattaneo	
  presented	
  the	
  scientific	
  objectives	
  and	  the	
  drilling	
  plan	
  for	
  proposal	
  #581.	
  At	
  present,	
   this	   proposal	
   is	
   in	
   the	   holding	   bin	
   but	   there	
   have	
   been	
   discussions	
   if	
   the	  objectives	
   can	
   still	
   be	
   reached	
   by	
   drilling	
   to	   a	   maximum	
   depth	
   of	
   80	
   mbsf.	
   There	
   is	   a	  pending	
   issue	
   concerning	
   the	   availability	
   of	
   data	   that	   have	
   not	   been	
   provided	
   to	
   the	   Site	  Survey	  Data	  Bank	  (A.	  Cattaneo/D.	
  Mallinson).	
  	
  4.1.2	
  Drilling	
  operations	  and	
  costs	  (D.	
  McInroy)	
  (14:21)	
  The	
   penetration	
   considered	
   in	
   the	   current	
   proposal	
   is	
   between	
   70	
   and	   100	
   mbsf	
   at	  seven	
  holes.	
  There	  are	
  two	  possible	
  platforms:	
  a	
  geotechnical	
  ship	  with	  coring	
  rig	
  or	
  a	
  
sea	
  bed	
  drill.	
  The	
  expedition	
  is	
  technically	
  feasible,	
  i.e.	
  no	
  extra	
  development	
  is	
  needed.	
  The	
   geotechnical	
   mobilisation/demobilisation	
   costs	
   would	
   be	   disproportionate	
   to	
   the	  length	  of	
  the	
  expedition	  (13-­‐20	
  days).	
  100	  mbsf	
  is	
  beyond	  the	
  current	
  reach	
  of	
  the	
  BGS	  RD2	  and	  the	
  MeBo70,	
  but	  it	  is	
  potentially	
  reachable	
  with	  the	
  MeBo200.	
  In	
  May	  2014,	
  A.	
  Droxler	
   confirmed	
   that	   the	   objectives	
   can	   be	
   met	   with	   50-­‐70	
   m	
   penetration.	
   A	
   revised	
  proposal	
  or	
  addendum	
  has	  not	  been	
  submitted.	
  The	
  expedition	
  would	
  cost	  $2.0-­‐$2.7	
  M	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

31	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
USD	
   when	
   a	
   seafloor	
   drill	
   is	
   used	
   and	   the	   vessel	
   is	
   assumed	
   to	
   be	
   provided	
   as	   a	   full	   IKC.	
  The	
   maximum	
   penetration	
   is	
   80	
   mbsf	
   and	   50	
   mbsf	
   for	   the	   MeBo	
   200	
   and	   RD2,	  respectively.	
  The	
  cost	  of	  an	
  operation	
  using	  a	
  geotechnical	
  vessel	
  would	
  range	  between	
  $5.5	
  and	
  $8.7M	
  USD.	
  	  DISCUSSION	
  on	
  proposal	
  #581:	
  The	
   expedition	
   would	
   take	
   less	
   than	
   20	
   days	
   (transit	
   to	
   drill	
   sites	
   and	   drilling)	
   plus	
   5-­‐6	
  
days	
  of	
  mobilisation	
   at	
   the	   start	
   and	   two	   days	
   of	
   demobilisation	
   at	
   the	   end	   (D.	
   McInroy/K.	
  Gohl).	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   MeBo200	
   might	
   not	   be	
   available	
   for	
   IODP	   expeditions	
   until	
   2020	
   (D.	
   McInroy/M.	
  Torres).	
   This	
   will	
   be	
   the	   same	
   for	   the	   MeBo70	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   Both	   MeBo	
   systems	
   are	   booked	
  out	
  until	
  2019	  or	
  2020	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  However,	
  if	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  opportunity	
  for	  an	  IODP/ECORD	  expedition	  and	  if	  the	
  expedition	
  is	
  short	  (less	
  than	
  4	
  weeks)	
  and	
  can	  be	
  scheduled	
  with	  a	  German	   or	
   another	
   vessel	
   as	
   an	
   IKC,	
   MARUM	
   may	   be	
   able	   to	
   run	   more	   than	   two	
   MeBo	  expeditions	
   per	   year	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   The	   MeBo200	
   has	
   not	   yet	   been	
   fully	
   tested	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   The	  first	
   expedition	
   will	
   be	
   offshore	
   New	
   Zealand	
   in	
   early	
   2016.	
   There	
   is	   a	   high	
   demand	   for	   the	  two	
  MeBo	  systems	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  If	
  ECORD	
  wants	
  to	
  use	  the	
  MeBo	  before	
  2020	  then	  MARUM	
  has	  to	
  be	
  quickly	
  informed,	
  i.e.	
  within	
  a	
  couple	  of	
  months	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  
	
  
T.	
   Janecek	
   asked	
   about	   the	   likelihood	
   of	
   IKCs,	
   from	
   whom	
   it	
   could	
   come	
   from	
   and	   how	
  
much	
   a	
   research	
   vessel	
   would	
   cost	
   if	
   ECORD	
   does	
   not	   get	
   a	
   ship	
   as	
   an	
   IKC.	
   It	
   would	
   cost	  another	   $2.5	
   M	
   USD	
   if	
   ECORD	
   could	
   get	
   a	
   research	
   vessel	
   in	
   the	   area	   (D.	
   McInroy).	
   The	  research	
  vessel	
  has	
  to	
  be	
  in	
  the	
  region	
  (D.	
  Smith).	
  There	  is	  a	
  defined	
  application	
  process	
  for	  a	
   non-­‐US	
   research	
   vessel	
   working	
   in	
   US	
   waters	
   (D.	
   McInroy/D.	
   Smith).	
   Hiring	
   a	
  geotechnical	
   vessel	
   would	
   be	
   another	
   $1.5	
   M,	
   i.e.	
   in	
   total	
   $3.5	
   M	
   to	
   $5	   M	   USD	
   (D.	
   McInroy).	
  D.	
  Smith	
  suggested	
  just	  to	
  do	
  the	
  coring	
  and	  to	
  do	
  the	
  analyses	
  onshore.	
  It	
  was	
  mentioned	
  that	
  the	
  costs	
  in	
  the	
  proposal	
  are	
  only	  $1	
  M	
  USD	
  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  However,	
  this	  depends	
  on	
  the	
  vessel	   mentioned	
   in	
   the	   proposal	
   and	   the	   vessel	
   may	   not	   be	
   big	   enough	   to	
   take	
   research	
  laboratories	
  (D.	
  McInroy).	
  These	  are	
  probably	
  the	
  costs	
  at	
  the	
  time	  of	
  proposal	
  submission,	
  i.e.	
  from	
  17	
  years	
  ago	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  The	
  proponents	
  had	  the	
  offer	  to	
  use	  a	
  ship	
  but	  the	
  ship	  disappeared	
  (R.	
  Gatliff).	
  This	  offer	  was	
  only	  for	  a	
  test	
  on	
  one	
  core	  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  	
  
	
  
This	
  proposal	
  is	
  on	
  hold	  because	
  of	
  no	
  further	
  activities	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  scoping	
  and	  because	
  it	
  
was	
   not	   considered	
   for	   scheduling	
   before	
   2018	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   This	   proposal	
   could	
   be	
   an	  alternative	   depending	
   on	
   the	   MSP	   expeditions	
   schedule.	
   A	
   new	
   scoping	
   for	   geotechnical	
  platforms	
  could	
  be	
  done	  or	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  good	  to	
  talk	  to	
  research	
  vessel	
  operators	
  to	
  see	
  if	
  
any	
  ship	
  is	
  available	
  in	
  this	  area	  as	
  an	
  IKC	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

32	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

4.2	
  637-­‐Full2+Add6	
  New	  England	
  Shelf	
  Hydrogeology	
  (holding	
  bin)	
  
4.2.1	
  Summary	
  of	
  objectives,	
  SSD	
  and	  previous	  EFB	
  decision	
  (M.	  Torres)	
  (14:37)	
  M.	
  Torres	
  presented	
  the	
  scientific	
  objectives	
  and	  the	
  drilling	
  plan	  of	
  proposal	
  #637.	
  This	  proposal	
   is	
   in	
   the	   holding	   bin	   because	
   it	
   was	
   considered	
   as	
   too	
   expensive	   to	
   be	
  implemented.	
   The	   ESO	
   cost	
   estimate	
   from	
   2014	
   was	
   ranging	
   between	
   $27	
   M	
   and	   $41	
   M	
  
USD.	
  A	
  consensus	
  from	  the	
  EFB	  2013	
  meeting	
  was	  to	
  look	  for	
  ways	
  to	
  minimize	
  the	
  costs	
  
and	
  to	
  look	  for	
  outside	
  funding.	
  There	
  was	  a	  consensus	
  at	
  the	
  last	  EFB	  2014	
  meeting	
  to	
  
keep	
   this	   proposal	
   in	
   the	   holding	   bin.	
   The	   absolute	
   minimum	
   requirements	
   were	  discussed	
   with	
   the	   proponents.	
   Based	
   on	
   an	
   email	
   exchange	
   with	
   the	   proponent	
   B.	  Dugan	  in	
  February	  2015,	
  the	  minimum	
  would	
  be	
  three	  logging	
  while	  drilling	
  holes	
  and	  two	
   coring	
   holes.	
   The	   proponents	
   look	   at	
   stepped	
   wireline	
   logging	
   instead	
   of	
   logging	
  while	
   drilling	
   to	
   reduce	
   the	   costs	
   and	   they	   are	   looking	   for	   additional	
   funds	
   including	
  ICDP.	
   The	   proponents	
   are	   looking	   for	   guidance	
   from	
   the	   EFB	
   to	
   find	
   the	   best	
   way	   to	  establish	
  a	
  program	
  that	  allows	
  attaining	
  the	
  scientific	
  objectives	
  with	  reasonable	
  costs.	
  	
  4.2.2	
  Drilling	
  operations	  and	
  costs	  (D.	
  McInroy)	
  (14:42)	
  Currently	
   the	   proposal	
   includes	
   ten	
   holes	   in	
   total,	
   i.e.	
   five	
   cored	
   holes	   and	   five	
   logging	
  while	
   drilling	
   holes.	
   The	   proposal	
   is	
   feasible,	
   but	   costly.	
   The	   proponents	
   were	  encouraged	
  by	
  the	
  EFB	  to	
  consider	
  wireline	
  logging	
  instead	
  of	
  logging	
  while	  drilling	
  and	  to	
   reduce	
   the	   number	
   of	
   holes.	
   In	
   March	
   2015	
   the	   proponents	
   acknowleged	
   that	   a	
  compromise	
   is	
   needed	
   and	   that	   they	   are	   willing	
   to	
   submit	
   an	
   addendum.	
   The	   cost	  estimated	
  last	  year	  was	  in	
  the	
  $24.8	
  M-­‐$39.3	
  M	
  USD	
  range.	
  Assuming	
  three	  holes	
  with	  wireline	
   coring,	
   the	   cost	
   range	
   would	
   be	
   between	
   $12.1	
   M	
   and	   $20.7	
   M	
   USD.	
   The	  proponents	
  want	  to	
  have	  a	
  face-­‐to-­‐face	
  meeting	
  with	  ESO	  to	
  find	  out	
  how	  much	  budget	
  is	
  available	
  and	  to	
  produce	
  a	
  new	
  proposal.	
  	
  DISCUSSION	
  on	
  proposal	
  #637:	
  ICDP	
   and	   C-­‐DEBI	
   for	   microbiology	
   are	   an	
   option	
   for	   additional	
   funding	
   (M.	
   Torres).	
  However,	
   the	   proponents	
   cannot	
   get	   any	   additional	
   funding	
   before	
   knowing	
   when	
   the	  expedition	
  could	
  be	
  scheduled	
  (M.	  Torres).	
  There	  is	
  big	  difference	
  in	
  the	
  costs	
  of	
  a	
  liftboat	
  platform	
  and	
  another	
  type	  of	
  platform	
  (D.	  Smith).	
  ECORD	
  should	
  say	
  which	  platform	
  is	
  affordable	
  and	
  give	  the	
  proponents	
  a	
  technical	
  limit	   (D.	
   Smith).	
   Usually	
   ECORD	
   does	
   not	   go	
   to	
   the	   proponents	
   with	
   a	
   statement	
   of	  resources	
  (D.	
  McInroy).	
  It	
  should	
  be	
  put	
  back	  on	
  the	
  proponents	
  and	  a	
  plan	
  should	
  be	
  made	  so	
  that	  the	
  scientific	
  objectives	
  can	  be	
  reached	
  as	
  minimum	
  as	
  possible	
  but	  the	
  upper	
  end	  should	   be	
   ruled	
   out	   (M.	
   Malone).	
   In	
   the	   new	
   evaluation	
   programme	
   the	   operators	
   are	  writing	  the	
  guidance	
  to	
  the	
  proponents	
  during	
  the	  evaluation	
  or	
  even	
  during	
  the	
  workshop	
  (M.	
  Torres).	
  It	
  is	
  clear	  to	
  the	
  proponents	
  that	  using	
  a	
  platform	
  like	  a	
  jack-­‐up	
  vessel	
  is	
  too	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

33	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
expensive	
   (D.	
   McInroy).	
   A	
   cost	
   limit	
   has	   to	
   be	   set	   and	   there	
   should	
   be	
   realistic	
   options	  ahead	
   of	
   time	
   (G.	
   Dickens).	
   It	
   will	
   be	   a	   standard	
   procedure	
   to	
   limit	
   costs	
   for	   most	
   of	
   the	  expeditions	   that	
   ECORD	
   schedules	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   Given	
   this	
   limited	
   contribution	
   from	
   ECORD	
  
only	
   a	
   certain	
   platform	
   can	   be	
   kept	
   as	
   feasible.	
   Then	
   ECORD	
   has	   to	
   go	
   back	   to	
   the	  proponents,	
   they	   have	
   to	   see	   if	
   their	   scientific	
   objectives	
   can	   be	
   reached	
   and	   write	
   an	  addendum	
   that	   stays	
   in	
   the	   cost	
   limit	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   If	
   the	   proponents	
   cannot	
   stay	
   within	
   the	  cost	
  limit	  proposed	
  by	
  ECORD	  then	
  they	  have	  to	
  get	
  extra	
  funds	
  on	
  their	
  own	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  R.	
  Gatliff	
  questioned	
  if	
  three	  holes	  are	
  needed.	
  The	  minimum	
  is	
  two,	
  but	  they	  need	  at	
  least	
  three	
  holes	
  where	
  they	  can	
  map	  the	
  extend	
  of	
  freshwaters	  (M.	  Torres).	
  The	
  reason	
  for	  the	  big	
  costs	
  is	
  logging	
  while	  drilling	
  (G.	
  Dickens/D.	
  McInroy).	
  The	
  reason	
  for	  the	
  deactivations	  at	
   SEP	   is	   always	
   that	   the	   drilling	
   plan	
   is	
   not	   feasible	
   (D.	
   Kroon).	
   The	   advice	
   is	
   to	
   start	  honest	  with	  the	
  proponents	
  and	  discuss	
  with	  them	  what	  is	
  possible	
  and	
  realistic	  (D.	
  Kroon).	
  
It	
  is	
  more	  difficult	
  for	  the	
  old	
  proposals	
  because	
  of	
  their	
  long	  history	
  (M.	  Torres).	
  ECORD	  moved	
  ahead	
  with	  the	  new	
  SEP	
  and	  now	  there	  is	
  also	  a	
  better	
  guidance	
  for	  the	
  proponents	
  (M.	
  Torres).	
  
	
  

4.3	
  716-­‐Full2	
  Hawaiian	
  Drowned	
  Reefs	
  (holding	
  bin)	
  
4.3.1	
  Summary	
  of	
  objectives,	
  SSD	
  and	  previous	  EFB	
  decision	
  (G.	
  Dickens)	
  (14:56)	
  G.	
   Dickens	
   presented	
   the	   scientific	
   objectives	
   and	   the	   drilling	
   plan	
   of	
   proposal	
   #716.	
  There	   are	   eleven	
   primary	   sites	
   with	
   a	
   penetration	
   of	
   150	
   m.	
   However,	
   the	   proponents	
  are	
  flexible	
  on	
  some	  of	
  the	
  sites	
  as	
  well	  as	
  the	
  penetration	
  depths.	
  The	
  idea	  is	
  using	  the	
  MeBo	
  instead	
  of	
  a	
  geotechnical	
  vessel.	
  	
  
	
  
4.3.2	
  Drilling	
  operations	  and	
  costs	  (D.	
  McInroy)	
  (14:59)	
  The	
  current	
  proposal	
  has	  a	
  maximum	
  penetration	
  of	
  180	  mbsf.	
  The	
  proponents	
  reduced	
  the	
   penetration	
   depths	
   to	   a	   maximum	
   of	
   140	
   mbsf	
   and	   at	
   some	   sites	
   it	
   could	
   be	
  shallower	  than	
  100	  mbsf.	
  A	
  geotechnical	
  ship	  with	  a	
  coring	
  rig	  or	  a	
  sea	
  bed	
  drill	
  could	  be	
  used.	
   Even	
   the	   revised	
   penetration	
   depths	
   are	   beyond	
   the	   current	
   reach	
   of	
   the	   BGS	   RD2	  and	
   the	   MeBo70.	
   The	   MeBo200	
   has	   to	
   be	
   used,	
   but	   it	
   is	   potentially	
   five	
   years	
   away	
   from	
  being	  available	
  to	
  IODP.	
  The	
  ESO	
  cost	  estimate	
  is	
  of	
  $3.4M	
  to	
  $4.6	
  M	
  USD	
  assuming	  the	
  
use	
  of	
  a	
  seafloor	
  drill	
  and	  a	
  research	
  ship	  as	
  an	
  IKC.	
  Using	  a	
  geotechnical	
  ship	  would	
  cost	  between	
  $8	
  M	
  and	
  $13	  M	  USD.	
  In	
  March	  2015	
  the	
  proponent	
  J.	
  Webster	
  replied	
  that	
  he	
  is	
  
not	
   sure	
   whether	
   waiting	
   for	   the	   MeBo200	
   or	
   revising	
   the	   penetration	
   depths	
   in	
   the	  proposal.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
34	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
DISCUSSION	
  on	
  proposal	
  #716:	  About	
   50	
   driling	
   days	   are	   planned	
   (D.	
   McInroy/G.	
   Camoin).	
   D.	
   Kroon	
   questioned	
   the	   use	   of	  the	
   MeBo200.	
   A	
   different	
   drilling	
   plan	
   drilling	
   more	   sites,	
   but	   shallower	
   holes	
   could	
   be	  considered	
   (D.	
   Kroon).	
   There	
   are	   terraces	
   and	
   a	
   penetration	
   depth	
   of	
   50	   m	   should	
   be	  enough	  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  Instead	
  of	
  drilling	
  at	
  one	
  site	  down	  to	
  150	  m,	  two	  successive	  terraces	
  could	
   be	
   drilled	
   and	   exactly	
   the	   same	   sequence	
   could	
   be	
   reconstructed	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
  However,	
  this	  is	
  just	  modelling	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  There	
   is	
   an	
   Australian	
   commercial	
   drill	
   which	
   was	   tried	
   for	   the	   Great	   Barrier	
   Reef	  expedition,	
   but	   it	
   was	   too	
   busy	
   doing	
   commercial	
   work	
   and	   it	
   was	   very	
   expensive	
   (R.	
  Gatliff).	
   Last	
   week	
   R.	
   Gatliff	
   found	
   out	   that	   the	   company	
   is	
   building	   two	
   extra	
   drills	
   and	  maybe	
  this	  could	
  be	
  an	
  option.	
  These	  drills	
  have	  the	
  potential	
  to	
  drill	
  deeper	
  than	
  100	  mbsf	
  (R.	
  Gatliff).	
  All	
  proponents	
  will	  get	  a	
  letter	
  of	
  response	  to	
  explain	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  their	
  proposal	
   (K.	
  Gohl).	
  For	
  proposal	
  #716	
  the	
  question	
  can	  be	
  asked	  if	
  the	
  scientific	
  objectives	
  can	  be	
  reached	
  by	
  drilling	
  shallower	
  holes	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  
	
  

4.4	
  708-­‐Full+Add	
  Central	
  Arctic	
  Paleoceanography	  (addendum/revision)	
  4.4.1	
  Scientific	
  objectives	
  (D.	
  Weis)	
  (15:11)	
  D.	
  Weis	  presented	
  the	
  scientific	
  objectives	
  of	
  proposal	
  #708.	
  
	
  
	
  
K.	
   Gohl	   asked	
   D.	
   Weis	   to	
   lead	
   the	   discussion	
   because	
   of	
   his	   institutional	
   conflict	
   of	  interest.	
  	
  (15:27)	
  coffee	  break	
  (15:40)	
  	
  4.4.2	
  Site	  survey	
  data	  (D.	  Mallinson)	
  One	
  primary	  drill	
  site	  and	
  three	  alternate	
  sites	  are	
  proposed.	
  The	
  maximum	
  penetration	  depth	
   for	   the	   primary	   site	
   is	
   1200	
   mbsf	
   and	   was	   revised	
   based	
   on	   a	   new	
   velocity	
   model.	
  The	
   proposal	
   was	   reviewed	
   by	
   the	   SEP	
   in	
   June	   2014,	
   but	   at	
   this	
   time	   the	   new	
   seismic	
  data	
   aquired	
   during	
   the	   RV	
   Polarstern	
   cruise	   in	
   August	
   to	
   October	
   2014	
   were	
   not	   yet	  available.	
   At	
   its	   June	   2014	
   meeting,	
   SEP	
   recommended	
   that	   the	   proponents	
   submit	
   an	  addendum	
   and	   new	
   site	
   survey	
   data	   from	
   the	   RV	
   Polarstern	
   2014	
   cruise.	
   SEP	
   also	
  requested	
  a	
  more	  accurate	
  velocity	
  model	  and	  digital	
  bathymetry/backscatter	
  data.	
  On	
  March	
   16,	
   2015,	
   an	
   addendum	
   and	   new	
   data	
   were	
   received.	
   The	   RV	
   Polarstern	
   2014	  cruise	   data	   have	
   just	   been	
   uploaded	
   but	   not	   yet	   fully	
   reviewed.	
   Digital	
   data	
   were	
  uploaded	
   and	
   a	
   new	
   velocity	
   model	
   was	   provided.	
   Furthermore,	
   the	   proponents	
  addressed	
  science	
  and	
  operational	
  EFB’s	
  concerns.	
  There	  are	
  still	
  problems	
  with	  the	
  site	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

35	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
location	
  for	  the	
  primary	  site	  on	
  the	  new	  MCS	
  line.	
  There	  is	  a	
  mismatch	
  between	
  stated	
  site	
  positions	  and	
  CDPs	
  on	
  seismic	
  sections	  and	  the	
  basemap.	
  	
  DISCUSSION	  on	
  site	  survey	
  data	  for	
  proposal	
  #708:	
  R.	
   Gatliff	
   questioned	
   if	
   there	
   is	   a	   new	
   line	
   linking	   ACEX-­‐1	
   to	
   these	   sites.	
   This	
   is	
   not	   clear	  from	
  the	
  addendum	  (D.	  Mallinson).	
  There	
  is	
  no	
  seismics	
  that	  connects	
  the	
  ACEX	
  1	
  and	  the	
  
ACEX	
  2	
  sites	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  	
  4.4.3	
  Drilling	
  operations	  and	
  costs	  (D.	
  McInroy)	
  (15:57)	
  The	
   water	
   depth	
   at	
   the	   primary	   site	
   is	
   1405	
   m.	
   The	   proponents	
   are	   requesting	
   three	  holes	  at	  the	
  primary	  site	  with	  penetration	
  depths	
  of	
  1200	
  mbsf.	
  The	
  Addendum	
  still	
  calls	  for	
  three	  deep	  holes	  in	
  deep	
  water	  requiring	
  at	
  the	
  primary	  site	  2.6	  km	  of	
  drillstring	
  and	  up	  to	
  3.6	  km	  of	
  drillstring	
  at	
  the	
  alternate	
  sites.	
  The	
  maximum	
  that	  can	  be	
  deployed	
  on	
  a	
  
geotechnical	
   rig	
   is	   2	   km	
   of	
   pipes.	
   Therefore,	
   an	
   ACEX-­‐style	
   fleet	
   with	   a	
   ‘top-­‐end’	
  geotechnical	
  rig	  on	  a	
  sizable	
  icebreaker	
  is	
  needed.	
  Such	  a	
  set-­‐up	
  does	  not	
  currently	
  exist.	
  A	
   stronger	
   rig	
   is	
   required	
   to	
   handle	   more	   than	
   2	
   km	
   of	
   pipe	
   and	
   a	
   casing	
   will	
   be	  required.	
  The	
  long	  site	  residency	
  increases	
  the	
  risk	  of	
  being	
  pushed	
  off	
  station.	
  24	
  days	  are	
   required	
   on	
   site	   for	   coring	
   and	   28-­‐29	
   days	   including	
   logging	
   and	   casing.	
   The	   ESO	  cost	
  estimate	
  if	
  of	
  about	
  $25	  M	  to	
  $34	  M	  USD	
  assuming	
  no	
  IKC	
  and	  including	
  three	  holes	  to	
  1200	
  mbsf.	
  The	
  estimated	
  costs	
  are	
  $14	  M	  to	
  $19	  M	  USD	
  assuming	
  an	
  ice	
  breaker	
  as	
  
an	
   IKC	   and	   including	
   drilling	
   two	
   holes	   to	
   1200	
   mbsf.	
   The	   costs	
   for	
   ECORD	
   could	
   be	  reduced	
  to	
  $9	
  M	
  to	
  $15	  M	  USD	  if	  ice	
  breakers	
  are	
  free,	  only	  two	
  holes	  are	
  drilled	
  and	  the	  total	
  pipe	  penetration	
  is	
  below	
  2	
  km.	  	  DISCUSSION	
  on	
  proposal	
  #708:	  Addendum,	
   objectives	
   and	   costs:	
  The	
  science	
  questions	  and	  the	
  operational	
  issues	
  were	  not	  addressed	
   in	
   the	   addendum	   (G.	
   Dickens).	
   Even	
   with	   drilling	
   only	
   one	   of	
   their	
   sites	
   they	  could	
   reach	
   their	
   main	
   objectives	
   and	   they	
   could	
   reduce	
   the	   costs	
   but	   they	
   just	
   do	
   not	  address	  it	
  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  The	
  addendum	
  is	
  not	  a	
  substantive	
  answer	
  (D.	
  Weis).	
  For	
  example,	  during	
   a	
   paleoceanographic	
   drilling	
   operation	
   in	
   the	   Sea	   of	
   Japan	
   geotechnical	
   logging	  was	
   done	   in	
   real	
   time	   and	   only	   two	
   holes	   had	   to	
   be	
   drilled	
   per	   site	   to	
   get	
   a	
   continuous	
  sequence	
  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  Two	
  holes	  are	
  only	  enough	
  when	
  the	  recovery	
  is	
  close	  to	
  100%	
  (T.	
  Janecek).	
   The	   question	
   is	
   if	
   the	   sequence	
   of	
   interest	
   can	   be	
   found	
   and	   if	
   fossils	
  for	
   dating	
  
can	
  be	
  found	  in	
  this	
  sequence	
  (M.	  Torres).	
  The	
  Neogene	
  section	
  can	  be	
  dated	
  through	
  the	  dinoflagellates	
  or	
  via	
  Beryllium	
  dating	  that	  goes	  down	  to	
  14	
  million	
  years	
  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  The	  costs	
   for	   this	   expedition	
   are	   not	   justified	
   (G.	
   Dickens).	
   But	   there	
   is	
   no	
   record	
   of	   sea	
   ice	  through	
   time	
   for	   the	   Neogene	
   (D.	
   Kroon).	
   Paleoceanographically	
   they	   will	
   get	   something	
  
out	
  of	
  it	
  and	  the	
  dating	
  for	  the	
  Neogene	
  is	
  in	
  hands	
  (D.	
  Kroon).	
  There	  is	  a	
  site	  on	
  the	
  seismic	
  line	
  that	  hits	  all	
  objectives	
  but	  the	
  proponents	
  do	
  not	
  select	
  this	  one	
  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  This	  site	
  is	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

36	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
possibly	
  to	
  close	  to	
  sea	
  ice	
  (D.	
  Weis).	
  One	  of	
  the	  reviewers	
  said	  that	  the	
  proponents	
  should	
  
go	
  to	
  an	
  expended	
  section	
  (D.	  Mallinson).	
  The	
  proponents	
  want	  the	
  Neogene	
  and	  the	  best	  Neogene	
  is	
  in	
  the	
  expended	
  section	
  of	
  the	
  Neogene	
  with	  1200	
  m	
  of	
  drilling	
  (D.	
  Kroon).	
  	
  During	  the	
  expedition	
  ACEX-­‐1	
  only	  one	
  place	
  was	
  drilled	
  with	  a	
  very	  interesting	
  result	
  (D.	
  Kroon).	
   However,	
   this	   has	   only	
   been	
   recorded	
   at	
   one	   site	   and	   it	
   is	
   important	   to	
   drill	  elsewhere	
   to	
   confirm	   it	   or	
   to	
   find	
   a	
   different	
   situation	
   (D.	
   Kroon).	
   The	   hiatus	
   has	   to	
   be	
  confirmed	
   at	
   least	
   once.	
   The	   costs	
   of	
   $15	
   M	
   to	
   $16	
   M	
   USD	   are	   not	   too	   high	
   for	   such	   an	  interesting	
   expedition.	
   The	   Neogene	
   could	
   be	
   drilled	
   and	   the	   hiatus	
   problem	
   could	
   be	  addressed	
   (D.	
   Kroon).	
   It	
   is	   also	
   important	   to	
   know	
   what	   the	   pink	
   reflector	
   means	
   (D.	
  Kroon).	
   ECORD	
   should	
   propose	   to	
   the	   proponents	
   to	
   drill	
   at	
   one	   site	   for	   $15	
   M	
   to	
   $16	
   M	
  
USD	
  (D.	
  Kroon).	
  The	
  proponents	
  did	  not	
  change	
  the	
  drilling	
  depth	  to	
  reduce	  the	
  costs	
  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  They	  admitted	
  that	  the	
  target	
  depth	  could	
  be	
  1100	
  mbsf	  instead	
  of	
  1200	
  mbsf	  (D.	
  Mallinson).	
  Budget	  limit	
  and	  IKCs:	
  ECORD	
  should	
  go	
  back	  to	
  the	
  proponents	
  and	
  say	
  that	  ECORD	
  will	  not	
  spend	
  $30	  M	  USD	
  for	
  this	
  expedition,	
  but	
  $15	  M	  USD	
  and	  the	
  proponents	
  have	  to	
  decide	
  where	
   they	
   want	   to	
   drill	
   (D.	
   Kroon).	
   Either	
   in	
   2018	
   or	
   2019	
   the	   upper	
   limit	
   of	
   ECORD’s	
  contribution	
  will	  be	
  $16	  M	  to	
  $17	  M	  USD	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  The	
  second	
  scenario	
  raised	
  by	
  ESO	
  
has	
  to	
  be	
  considered,	
  i.e.	
  an	
  IKC	
  for	  the	
  ice	
  breaker	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  Germany	
  would	
  propbably	
  offer	
   an	
   ice	   breaker	
   as	
   an	
   IKC	
   (D.	
   Weis).	
   At	
   the	   ECORD	
   Spring	
   Council	
   meeting	
   in	
   March	  2015	
   the	   Swedish	
   representative	   said	
   that	
   Sweden	
   would	   provide	   an	
   ice	   breaker	
   as	
   IKC	
   (G.	
  Camoin).	
   A	
   proposal	
   for	   the	   RV	
   Polarstern	
   to	
   work	
   in	
   this	
   area	   during	
   the	   possible	   ACEX-­‐2	
  expedition	
  was	
  submitted	
  and	  the	
  proponents	
  will	  get	  a	
  response	
  in	
  May	  2015	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  If	
  
this	
   proposal	
   would	
   be	
   approved	
   the	   RV	
   Polarstern	
   would	
   be	
   an	
   IKC.	
   In	
   this	
   case,	
   the	  expedition	
  costs	
  would	
  be	
  $14	  M	  to	
  $19	  M	  USD	  if	  the	
  ice	
  breakers	
  are	  IKCs	  and	
  two	
  holes	  are	
  drilled	
  (D.	
  McInroy).	
  With	  a	
  cost	  range	
  of	
  $6.7	
  to	
  $9	
  M	
  USD	
  for	  the	  Antarctic	
  expedition,	  there	
   will	
   be	
   $16.4	
   M	
   to	
   $18.7	
   M	
   USD	   available	
   in	
   2018.	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   An	
   upper	
   limit	
   of	
   $15	
  M	
   USD	   for	   the	   Arctic	
   expedition	
   would	
   be	
   reasonable	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   There	
   could	
   be	
   large	  contributions	
  from	  various	
  people	
  due	  to	
  the	
  interest	
  in	
  the	
  Arctic	
  (D.	
  Smith).	
  Operational	
  risks:	
  Deep	
  water	  drilling	
  and	
  deep	
  penetration	
  increases	
  the	
  risk	  (D.	
  Smith).	
  There	  is	
  no	
  guarantee	
  to	
  stay	  on	
  site	  for	
  that	  long	  and	  the	
  deeper	
  the	
  drilling	
  the	
  higher	
  the	
  
risk	
  to	
  not	
  meet	  the	
  objectives	
  (D.	
  Smith).	
  This	
  issue	
  was	
  also	  given	
  to	
  the	
  proponents,	
  but	
  it	
  
was	
   not	   addressed	
   (G.	
   Dickens).	
   The	   primary	   site	   seems	
   to	
   be	
   located	
   on	   a	   structural	  closure	   at	
   the	   base	   and	   the	   top	   of	
   the	   Eocene	
   section,	
   i.e.	
   there	
   is	
   the	   possibility	
   that	   the	  EPSP	
  might	
  not	  recommend	  the	
  primary	  site	  for	
  approval	
  (D.	  Strack).	
  	
  Discussion	
   with	   proponents:	
   The	   EFB	
   should	
   invite	
   the	   proponents	
   to	
   be	
   involved	
   in	
   the	  discussions	
   (G.	
   Früh-­‐Green).	
   The	   letter	
   to	
   the	   proponents	
   said	
   that	   in	
   principle	
   the	   EFB	  supports	
   an	
   Arctic	
   proposal,	
   but	   not	   especially	
   this	   one	   (D.	
   Weis).	
   However,	
   there	
   is	
   no	
  competing	
   proposal	
   (D.	
   Weis).	
   The	   proponents	
   went	
   out	   with	
   the	   RV	
   Polarstern	
   to	
   get	   a	
  second	   set	   of	   seismic	
   lines,	
   i.e.	
   they	   did	
   a	
   lot	   of	
   effort	
   to	
   get	   the	   supportive	
   evidence	
   of	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

37	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
excellent	
  seismic	
  lines	  (D.	
  Kroon).	
  A	
  discussion	
  with	  the	
  proponents	
  is	
  needed	  because	
  there	  are	
   still	   too	
   many	
   questions	
   (R.	
   Gatliff/M.	
   Torres).	
   Based	
   on	
   budget	
   and	   operational	
   limits,	
  ECORD	
   has	   to	
   go	
   back	   to	
   the	   proponents	
   and	   tell	   them	
   that	   the	   expedition	
   will	
   not	   take	  place	
   without	
   certain	
   operational	
   restrictions	
   and	   exceeding	   the	   budget	
   limit	
   for	   this	  expedition	
   (T.	
   Janecek).	
   There	
   are	   too	
   many	   tools	
   and	   variables	
   for	   MSP	   expeditions,	
  therefore	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  beneficial	
  for	  the	
  proponents	
  to	
  discuss	
  the	
  various	
  options	
  with	  the	
  operator	
   (M.	
   Torres).	
   The	   budget	
   limit	
   gives	
   restrictions	
   on	
   the	   hardware	
   and	   then	
   the	  discussion	
  can	
  start	  with	  the	
  proponents	
  (T.	  Janecek).	
  
	
  

4.5	
   Other	
   proposal(s)	
   that	
   could	
   potentially	
   be	
   forwarded	
   by	
   SEP	
   in	
   the	  future	  (only	
  discussions;	
  no	
  actions/decisions)	
  4.5.1	
  Summary	
  of	
  scientific	
  objectives	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  (16:37)	
  K.	
   Gohl	   gave	
   an	
   overview	
   of	
   the	   14	
   active	   Pre-­‐	
   and	   Full	
   MSP	
   proposals	
   at	
   the	   SEP	
   (Table	
  
12).	
  	
  
	
  
Table	
   12:	
   MSP	
   proposals	
   at	
   the	   SEP.	
   The	   order	
   is	
   according	   to	
   the	   relative	   maturity.	
   The	   asterisk	
  	
  	
  
indicates	
  that	  ECORD	
  co-­‐funding	
  may	  be	
  considered.	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

38	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

Continuation	
  of	
  Table	  12:	
  	
  

	
  
The	
  first	  seven	  proposals	
  in	
  the	
  table	  have	  been	
  active	
  since	  2014.	
  Proposal	
  #879	
  is	
  an	
  
expensive	   operation	
   in	
   the	   Gulf	
   of	
   Corinth	
   and	   it	
   would	
   normally	
   be	   a	   JR	
   proposal.	
  However,	
  the	
  Gulf	
  of	
  Corinth	
  is	
  not	
  accessible	
  by	
  the	  JR	  and	
  that	  is	
  why	  it	
  turned	
  into	
  a	
  
MSP	
   proposal.	
   Proposal	
   #796	
   is	
   the	   first	
   proposal	
   in	
   the	   new	
   ADP	
   category.	
   The	   DREAM	
  proposal	
   is	
   listed	
   in	
   this	
   table	
   because	
   of	   a	   possible	
   contribution	
   from	
   ECORD	
   to	
   this	  Chikyu	   operation	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   In	
   the	   second	
   part	   of	
   the	   table	
   there	
   are	   proposals	
   that	
   were	  for	
  the	
  last	  time	  active	  in	
  2011	
  or	
  2012.	
  	
  
	
  
COMMENT	
   on	
   MSP	
   #863-­‐MDP:	
   The	   proponents	
   will	
   submit	
   daughter	
   proposals	
   on	
   April	
  1st,	
  2015	
  (D.	
  Kroon).	
  	
  
	
  
COMMENT	
   on	
   MSP	
   #852-­‐Pre:	
   The	   proponents	
   will	
   most	
   likely	
   submit	
   a	
   full	   proposal	
   on	
  October	
  1st,	
  2015	
  (D.	
  Kroon).	
  	
  DISCUSSION	
  on	
  proposals	
  at	
  the	
  SEP	
  and	
  future	
  MSP	
  expeditions:	
  Is	
   is	
   the	   question	
   how	
   long	
   should	
   pre-­‐proposals	
   stay	
   in	
   the	   system	
   without	
   any	   activity	
   (S.	
  Humphris).	
  It	
  would	
  be	
  good	  to	
  ask	  the	
  proponents	
  after	
  a	
  certain	
  period	  of	
  time	  of	
  total	  inactivity	
   if	
   there	
   is	   a	   future	
   for	   their	   proposal	
   and	   if	
   not	   then	
   the	   proposal	
   will	
   be	
  withdrawn	  (S.	
  Humphris).	
  Every	
   year	
   ECORD	
   has	   about	
   $7.5	
   M	
   USD	   available	
   for	   MSP	
   operations	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   This	  allows	  two	
  expensive	  and	
  two	  or	
  three	
  medium-­‐cost	
  expeditions	
  in	
  10	
  years.	
  The	
  remaining	
  expeditions	
   have	
   to	
   be	
   in	
   the	   low-­‐cost	
   category,	
   i.e.	
   less	
   than	
   $5	   M	   USD	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   An	
   Arctic	
  expedition	
  in	
  2018,	
  year	  5	
  of	
  the	  new	
  phase,	
  would	
  be	
  possible	
  with	  an	
  upper	  limit	  of	
  $15	  M	  USD	
   because	
   there	
   was	
   no	
   expedition	
   in	
   2014	
   and	   there	
   will	
   be	   a	   low-­‐cost	
   expedition	
   in	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

39	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
2015,	
   year	
   2	
   of	
   the	   new	
   phase	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   The	   implementation	
   of	   a	   second	
   expensive	  expedition	
  requires	
  at	
  least	
  two	
  low-­‐cost	
  expeditions	
  with	  significant	
  IKCs	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  The	
  active	  proposals	
  at	
  the	
  SEP	
  show	
  a	
  good	  distribution	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  scientific	
  objectives	
  and	  costs	
  (D.	
  Kroon/G.	
  Camoin).	
  	
  Several	
  low-­‐cost	
  expeditions	
  require	
  regular	  research	
  vessels	
  and	
  equipment	
  like	  the	
  MeBo	  and	
  the	  RD2	
  that	  needs	
  to	
  be	
  booked	
  early	  because	
  of	
  the	
  high	  demand	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  Seabed	
  drilling	
   systems	
   have	
   to	
   be	
   provisionally	
   booked	
   years	
   ahead	   to	   secure	
   these	   systems	
   (K.	
  Gohl).	
  	
  It	  would	
  be	
  important	
  to	
  know	
  the	
  schedule	
  of	
  the	
  RV	
  N.	
  B.	
  Palmer.	
  Mobilization	
  costs	
  can	  be	
  saved	  if	
  the	
  ship	  is	
  in	
  the	  area	  in	
  2018	
  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  The	
  schedules	
  will	  be	
  available	  by	
  August	  2015	
  (T.	  Janecek).	
  S.	
  Humphris	
  asked	
  if	
  cruises	
  with	  long	  piston	
  coring	
  are	
  limited	
  to	
  the	
  French	
  vessel	
  Marion	
  Dufresne.	
  In	
  France	
  there	  are	
  two	
  systems	
  for	
  long	  piston	
  coring	
  (50	  m	
  cores)	
  that	  not	
  only	  work	
  with	  the	
  Marion	  Dufresne	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  There	  is	
  also	
  a	
  new	  Japanese	
  ship	  constructed	
  by	
   JAMSTEC	
   (D.	
   McInroy).	
   The	   new	
   Japanese	   system	
   will	   probably	
   have	
   a	
   penetration	  depth	
  of	
  30	
   m	
   (N.	
   Eguchi).	
   At	
   the	   moment	
   there	
   are	   discussion	
   between	
   EPF	   and	   JAMSTEC	  on	
   building	
   a	
   new	
   vessel	
   and	   they	
   would	
   like	
   to	
   have	
   the	   Calypso	
   corer	   on	
   board	
   (G.	
  Lericolais).	
  	
  There	  are	
  two	
  vessels	
  that	  are	
  equipped	
  with	  the	  Calypso	
  system	  reaching	
  20	
  
m	
   and	   25	   m	   of	
   core	
   length	
   (G.	
   Lericolais).	
   The	   RRS	
   James	   Cook	   might	
   also	
   be	
   able	   to	
   be	
  equipped	
  with	  long	  piston	
  coring	
  and	  it	
  goes	  to	
  the	
  South	  Atlantic	
  every	
  year	  (R.	
  Gatliff).	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
The	
  meeting	
  was	
  closed	
  at	
  17:12.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

40	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

March	
  26th,	  2015	  	
  (9:30)	
  	
  K.	
  Gohl	  opened	  the	
  meeting.	
  
	
  
	
  

5.	
  MSP	
  operation	  schedule	
  for	
  FY2015	
  to	
  FY2019	
  (K.	
  Gohl/All)	
  (9:02)	
  	
  K.	
   Gohl	
   summarized	
   seven	
   proposals	
   that	
   were	
   already	
   discussed	
   on	
   the	   first	
   EFB	  meeting	
   day	   (Table	
   13).	
   At	
   the	   moment	
   these	   proposals	
   are	   most	
   mature	
   at	
   their	   status.	
  Three	  of	
  these	
  proposals	
  are	
  scheduled	
  and	
  four	  are	
  still	  in	
  the	
  holding	
  bin.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  	
  Table	  13:	  Mature	
  MSP	
  proposals	
  that	  are	
  already	
  scheduled	  or	
  still	  in	
  the	
  holding	
  bin.	
  IODP-MSP proposal table, ECORD Facility Board meeting 25-26 March 2015
IODP-MSP proposal

Drilling plan

Platform

ESO expedition
cost estimates inmill. US$(average)

758 Atlantis Massif (G.
Früh-Green)

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

MeBo & RD2

3.7 - 4.3 (4.0)

548 Chicxulub Crater(J. Morgan)

WD 17 m,2 holes 1500 m

liftboat or jackup platform

8.5

813 Antarctic
Paleoclimate (T.
Williams)

WD 353-1407 m,
8 holes 50 m

RD2 on RVPalmer

9.0

708 Arctic
Paleoclimate (R. Stein)

WD 1334-1752 m,
1 hole 1225 m

drill ship

25.0 - 34.0 (29.5)(12 Mar 2015)

or

MSP/ECORD
priorities(outlined in
ECORD
documents)

Remarks

EFB decision at meeting

deep biosphereship is IKC by UKscheduled for 2015 (2nd half)

total cost $9.9M;
ECORD contribution
limited to $8.5M;
ICDP contributes$1.0 M; IKC by
Mexico?

scheduled for 2016drilling in polar
regions$3.5M + $5.5M ship
cost

scheduled for 2018drilling in polar
regions (Arctic
in particular)

costs include
chartered icebreaker($7.3M)not scheduled, but to be kept inholding bin; seriously considered
to be scheduled for 2018

14.0 – 19.0 (16.5)

716 Hawaiian
Drowned Reefs (J.
Webster)

WD 134-1154 m,
11 holes 150 m

geotech drill or

8.0 - 13.0 (10.5) or

MeBo200

3.4 - 4.6 (4.0)

581 Coralgal Banks(A. Droxler)

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

geotech drill or

5.5 - 8.7 (7.1) or

MeBo/RD2

2.3 - 3.4 (2.9)

637 New EnglandHydrogeology (M.
Person)

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

large liftboat orindustry rig

24.8 - 39.2 (32.0)

2 holes at 3 sites
with wireline

without icebreakercosts
sealevel
MeBo option: shipmust be IKC
sealevel
MeBo option: shipmust be IKC

not scheduled, but kept in holdingbin

not scheduled, but kept in holdingbin

not scheduled, but kept in holdingbin; perhaps reconsidered for2nd 5-year phase of IODP

12.1 – 20.8 (14.5)

	
  

	
  
Correction	
  for	  Table	  13:	  For	
  proposal	
  637	  the	
  drilling	
  plan	  that	  costs	
  on	
  average	
  $14.5	
  M	
  
USD	
  includes	  drilling	
  one	
  and	  not	
  two	
  holes	
  at	
  three	  sites	  (D.	
  McInroy).	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

41	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
K.	
   Gohl	   presented	
   the	   budget	
   that	
   is	
   available	
   for	   MSP	   expeditions	
   (Table	
   14)	
   and	  different	
  scheduling	
  scenarios.	
  The	
  carry-­‐over	
  from	  FY14	
  is	
  $8.2	
  M	
  USD.	
  The	
  balance	
  at	
  
the	
  end	  of	
  FY15	
  is	
  $10.5	
  M	
  USD	
  and	  includes	
  a	
  currency	
  exchange	
  loss	  of	
  about	
  $1.5	
  M	
  
USD	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  The	
  annual	
  budget	
  available	
  for	
  MSP	
  expeditions	
  is	
  $7.8	
  M	
  USD.	
  	  Table	
  14:	
  EFB	
  budget	
  calculation	
  for	
  MSP	
  expeditions.	
  The	
  costs	
  are	
  pure	  expedition	
  funds	
  without	
  ESO	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
fixed	  costs.
ECORD
FB	
   budget calculation table for MSPs
26 March 2015
ECORD annual
available
MSP
estimatedbalance atcomments
FY
budget forbudgetexpedition
average ofend of FY
MSP(million US$) (proposal no. expedition(million $US)
expeditions& short title) costs (million(million US$)
US$)
2014
6,9
6,9 (none)
0,0
8,2
2015
7,5
15,7 758 Atlantis
4,0
10,5 ship will be in-kind contribution by
MassifUK
2016
7,8
18,3 548
8,5
9,8 costs limited to $8.5 M by ECORD
Chicxulubplus $1 M by ICDP
2017
7,8
17,6 (none)
0,0
17,6
2018
7,8
25,4 813 Antarctic
9,0
16,4 ECORD limit at max $9M incl max
Paleoclimate$3.5 M for RV Palmer
0,0
16,4 708 Arctic
15,0
1,4 ECORD limit at $15M; icebreakers
Paleoclimate
must be IKC
2019
7,8
9,2
4,0
5,2 low cost
2020
7,8
13,0
4,0
9,0 low cost
2021
7,8
16,8
10,0
6,8 medium cost
2022
7,8
14,6
4,0
10,6 low cost
2023
7,8
18,4
18,0
0,4 high cost

	
  
	
  

	
  

Budgets and costs are only related to expeditions and exclude the annual base/fix costs for ESO.
Budgets are projected and do not include gains from bank interest.

Scenario	
  0:	
  The	
  costs	
  of	
  the	  Antarctic	
  expedition	
  would	
  be	
  of	
  $9	
  M	
  USD	
  and	  of	
  the	
  Arctic	
  expedition	
   of	
   $16.4	
  M	
   USD.	
   The	   $16.4	
  M	
   USD	   is	
   the	   average	   on	
   the	   lower	
   cost	   option,	
   i.e.	
  drilling	
   of	
   two	
   holes	   to	
   1200	
   mbsf	
   and	   all	   icebreakers	
   come	
   as	
   IKCs	
   (K.	
   Gohl/D.	
  McInroy).	
  At	
  the	
  end	  of	
  FY18	
  the	
  balance	
  would	
  be	
  around	
  zero.	
  	
  
	
  
Scenario	
   1:	
  The	
  costs	
  for	  the	  Antarctic	
  and	
  Arctic	
  expeditions	
  could	
  be	
  limited	
  to	
  $7	
  M	
  
and	
   $15.5	
   M	
   USD,	
   respectively.	
   In	
   this	
   case,	
   the	   positive	   balance	
   at	
   the	   end	   of	
   FY18	
  would	
   be	
   $3	   M	   USD.	
   A	
   medium-­‐cost	
   expedition	
   could	
   be	
   implemented	
   in	
   FY21	
   and	   an	
  expensive	   operation	
   could	
   be	
   implemented	
   in	
   FY23.	
   Low-­‐cost	
   expeditions	
   have	
   to	
   be	
  implemented	
  in	
  FY19,	
  FY20	
  and	
  FY22.	
  	
  Scenario	
   2:	  A	
  low-­‐cost	
  expedition,	
  like	  proposal	
  #581,	  could	
  be	
  implemented	
  in	
  FY17.	
  The	
  schedule	
  for	
  expeditions	  in	
  FY19	  to	
  FY23	
  is	
  like	  in	
  scenario	
  1.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

42	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
DISCUSSION	
  on	
  the	
  MSP	
  operation	  schedule	
  beyond	  FY16:	
  
It	
  is	
  important	  to	
  have	  two	
  scenarios	
  to	
  be	
  flexible	
  and	  to	
  have	  alternates.	
  For	
  example,	
  if	
  
the	
  expedition	
  costs	
  are	
  too	
  high	  for	  the	
  RV	
  N.	
  B.	
  Palmer	
  due	  to	
  the	
  long	  transit	
  then	
  the	  Antarctic	
  proposal	
  has	  to	
  be	
  pushed	
  back	  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  Exchange	
   with	   proponents	
   at	
   pre-­‐proposal	
   stage:	
   G.	
   Camoin	
   asked	
   if	
   the	   ESO	  representatives	
  have	  contact	
  with	  the	
  proponents	
  at	
  the	  pre-­‐proposal	
  stage	  regarding	
  the	
  technology	
   they	
   can	
   use	   to	
   implement	
   their	   MSP	   expedition.	
   The	   contact	
   at	
   this	
   stage	  occurs	  only	  occasionally	
  (D.	
  McInroy).	
  Many	  proposals	
  are	  at	  the	  pre-­‐proposal	
  stage	
  and	  it	
  would	  be	
  important	  to	
  have	  discussions	
  between	
  the	
  operator	
  and	  the	
  proponents	
  to	
  give	  them	
   an	
   idea	   of	
   the	   costs	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   This	
   might	
   help	
   the	   proponents	
   to	
   realize	
   what	
   is	
  doable	  and	  to	
  develop	
  a	
  full	  proposal.	
  It	
  is	
  always	
  possible	
  to	
  limit	  the	
  drilling	
  plans	
  and	  the	
  SEP	
  will	  tell	  if	
  the	
  scientific	
  objectives	
  can	
  still	  be	
  reached.	
  This	  would	
  avoid	
  discussions	
  about	
  less	  mature	
  proposals	
  at	
  the	
  EFB	
  and	
  too	
  frequent	
  exchanges	
  between	
  the	
  EFB	
  and	  the	
   proponents	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   The	   transition	
   between	
   pre-­‐	
   and	   full	   proposal	
   is	
   very	
  important	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  This	
  is	
  the	
  idea	  of	
  the	  new	
  SEP	
  and	
  exchanges	
  between	
  the	
  EFB	
  and	  the	
   proponents	
   are	   not	   negative	   (D.	
   Kroon).	
   But	   less	
   mature	
   proposals	
   for	   high-­‐cost	
  expeditions	   at	
   the	   EFB	   are	
   a	
   waste	
   of	
   time	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   For	   example,	
   for	   the	   Chicxulub	
  expedition	
   the	   proponents	
   always	
   wanted	
   to	
   drill	   two	
   holes	   and	   suddenly	
   after	
   setting	   a	  budget	  limit	
  only	  one	
  hole	  was	
  enough	
  for	  them	  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  The	
  drilling	
  plans	
  have	
  to	
  be	
  
streamlined	
   and	   the	   costs	
   have	
   to	
   be	
   reduced	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   When	
   the	   proposals	
   are	  discussed	
  at	
  the	
  SEP,	
  ESO	
  has	  to	
  tell	  that	  an	
  expedition	
  is	
  doable	
  but	
  with	  a	
  budget	
  limit	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
   In	
   the	   response	
   letter	
   to	
   the	   proponents	
   the	   budget	
   limit	
   has	   to	
   be	
   mentioned	
   and	  the	
   proponents	
   have	
   to	
   be	
   asked	
   to	
   get	   in	
   contact	
   with	   ESO	   or	
   the	   EFB	
   to	   discuss	
   the	  different	
  options	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  The	
  message	
  that	  has	  to	
  be	
  passed	
  to	
  the	
  proponents	
  between	  the	
  pre-­‐	  and	
  full	  proposal	
  is	
  that	  there	  is	  a	
  budget	
  limit	
  for	  their	
  expedition	  and	
  that	  they	
  
have	
  to	
  streamline	
  their	
  drilling	
  plan	
  and	  to	
  apply	
  for	
  any	  IKC	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  The	
  watchdogs	
  have	
   to	
   be	
  asked	  to	
  include	
  a	
  request	
   in	  the	  response	
  letter	
   to	  the	
  proponents	
  to	
  contact	
  ESO	
  and	  the	
  EFB	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  Contacting	
  the	
  operators	
  at	
  the	  pre-­‐proposal	
  stage	
  is	
  especially	
  important	
   for	   the	   MSPs	
   because	
   of	
   the	   wide	
   range	
   of	
   technology	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   In	
   the	  proposal	
   submission	
   guidelines	
   it	   already	
   says	   that	   for	   pre-­‐proposals	
   the	   proponents	
   are	  encouraged	
   to	
   contact	
   the	   appropriate	
   implementing	
   organization	
   before	
   submission	
   of	  the	
  pre-­‐proposal	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  dicsuss	
  drilling	
  platform	
  capabilities	
  and	  the	
  feasibility	
  of	
  the	
  proposal	
  (H.	
  Given).	
  Low-­‐cost	
  expedition	
  in	
  FY17:	
  An	
  argument	
  for	
  scheduling	
  an	
  expedition	
  in	
  FY17	
  would	
  be	
  
to	
   fulfill	
   the	   promise	
   of	
   having	
   on	
   average	   one	   expedition	
   per	   year.	
   It	
   would	
   be	
   good	
   to	  have	
  another	
  low-­‐cost	
  expedition	
  before	
  FY18	
  if	
  the	
  budget	
  allows	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  For	
  proposal	
  #581	
  the	
  biggest	
  constraint	
  is	
  not	  the	
  costs	
  but	
  its	
  readiness	
  (M.	  Torres).	
  It	
  would	
  be	
  better	  to	
   delay	
   this	   proposal	
   because	
   of	
   its	   uncertainty	
   in	
   readiness	
   (M.	
   Torres).	
   Proposal	
   #581	  should	  not	  be	
  implemented	
  in	
  FY17	
  because	
  of	
  missing	
  information	
  (D.	
  Weis).	
  For	  2017	
  it	
  is	
  
difficult	
  to	
  reduce	  the	  transit	
  costs	
  for	  the	  Antarctic	
  expedition,	
  i.e.	
  this	
  expedition	
  has	
  to	
  be	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

43	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
implemented	
   after	
   FY17	
   (D.	
   Weis/T.	
   Janecek).	
   ESO	   is	
   able	   to	
   implement	
   two	
   expeditions	
   in	  one	  year	  as	
  the	
  Arctic	
  and	  Antarctic	
  expeditions	
  would	
  be	
  six	  months	
  apart	  (R.	
  Gatliff/D.	
  McInroy).	
   There	
   is	   a	   third	
   option	
   to	
   move	
   the	   Antarctic	
   expedition	
   to	
   FY19	
   with	   an	
  expedition	
   for	   about	
   $7	   M	   USD	   in	
   between	
   (G.	
   Dickens).	
   The	   implementation	
   of	
   proposal	
  #716	
  would	
  cost	
  $4	
  M	
  USD	
  with	  the	
  MeBo	  or	
  $10.5	
  M	
  USD	
  with	  a	
  geotech	
  drill	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  However,	
   this	   expedition	
   cannot	
   be	
   done	
   for	   $4	   M	   USD	   before	
   FY20.	
   The	   proponent	
   of	
  proposal	
  #716	
  does	  not	
  want	  to	
  descope	
  the	
  proposals,	
  but	  prefers	
  to	
  wait	  for	  the	
  MeBo	  (D.	  McInroy).	
   It	
   would	
   be	
   good	
   to	
   keep	
   some	
   money	
   in	
   the	   bank	
   and	   to	
   keep	
   flexibility	
   (D.	
  Weis/G.	
  Camoin).	
  The	
  scheduling	
  for	  an	
  expedition	
  for	
  FY17	
  has	  to	
  be	
  done	  now	  because	
  FY16	
   would	
   be	
   too	
   late	   to	
   schedule	
   for	
   FY17	
   (G.	
   Camoin/D.	
   McInroy).	
   In	
   the	   case	   of	
   not	  implementing	
   an	
   expedition	
   in	
   FY17	
   and	   scheduling	
   two	
   expeditions	
   in	
   FY18,	
   only	
   $1	
   M	
  
USD	
   would	
   be	
   left	   in	
   the	   bank	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   This	
   is	
   not	
   a	
   secured	
   buffer	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   The	  costs	   are	   too	
   close	
   to	
   the	   limit	
   (R.	
   Gatliff).	
   ESO	   sets	
   limits	
   and	   if	
   something	
   gets	
   more	  expensive	   then	
   modifications	
   have	
   to	
   be	
   made	
   and	   the	   program	   has	   to	
   be	
   reconfigured	
   (M.	
  Torres).	
  	
  DISCUSSION	
  on	
  proposal	
  #708	
  Arctic	
  Paleoclimate:	
  The	
   average	
   estimated	
   costs	
   for	   the	   implementation	
   of	
   proposal	
   #708	
   are	   $16.5	
   M	
   USD	  assuming	
  an	
  ice	
  breaker	
  as	
  an	
  IKC	
  and	  including	
  drilling	
  two	
  holes	
  to	
  1200	
  mbsf.	
  However,	
  ECORD	
  has	  to	
  set	  a	
  limit	
  to,	
  for	
  example,	
  $15.5	
  M	
  USD	  to	
  have	  a	
  surplus	
  at	
  the	
  end	  of	
  the	
  FY	
  
(K.	
   Gohl).	
   The	   difference	
   between	
   using	
   a	
   long	
   or	   a	   short	
   pipe	
   is	
   $6	   M	   USD	   and	   the	  proponents	
  can	
  reach	  all	
  objectives	
  with	  a	
  shorter	
  pipe	  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  The	
  only	  difference	
  is	
  
that	
   the	   Neogene	
   section	
   gets	
   slightly	
   expended	
   by	
   200	
   m	
   and	   the	   proponents	
   did	   not	  exactly	
  justify	  this	  component	
  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  	
  
The	
   funding	   agencies	
   expect	
   one	   MSP	   expedition	
   per	   year	
   and	   the	   Arctic	
   expedition	
   should	  not	
   be	
   pushed	
   until	
   it	
   is	
   ready	
   (G.	
   Früh-­‐Green).	
   For	   the	   renewal	
   of	
   ECORD	
   the	   external	
  review	   will	
   be	
   in	
   FY17	
   and	   it	
   would	
   make	   a	
   difference	
   for	   the	   majority	
   of	
   the	   funding	  agencies	
   if	   already	
   one	   expedition	
   to	
   the	   Arctic	
   is	
   scheduled	
   in	
   FY18	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   A	
  provisionally	
  scheduled	
  expedition	
  to	
  the	
  Arctic	
  in	
  FY18	
  would	
  also	  help	
  in	
  trying	
  to	
  involve	
  Russia	  in	
  ECORD.	
  The	
  proponents	
  still	
  have	  time	  to	
  fix	  the	
  problems	
  (G.	
  Camoin/D.	
  Weis).	
  Furthermore,	
   the	   proponents	
   will	
   get	  clear	
  limits	
  and	
  clear	  instructions	
  for	  the	
  pipe	  length	  and	
  two	
  drill	
  holes	  (D.	
  Weis).	
  The	
  proponents’	
  conclusion	
  is	
  that	  the	
  key	
  objectives	
  can	  be	
  reached	
   even	
  if	
  only	  the	
  upper	
  800-­‐900	
  m	
  can	  be	
  penetrated	
  (D.	
  Weis).	
  An	
  upper	
   budget	
  limit	
   of	
   about	
   $15	
   M	
   USD	   has	   to	
   be	   set	   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   The	   Arctic	
   expedition	
   should	
   be	
  scheduled	
  for	
  FY18	
  with	  a	
  fixed	  budget	
  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  The	
  proponents	
  can	
  start	  working	
  on	
  
the	
   IKCs,	
   two	   icebreakers,	
   with	
   this	   provisional	
   schedule	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   Besides	
   IKCs	
   the	  proponents	
  also	  have	  the	  possibility	
  to	
  get	
  financial	
  contributions	  in	
  addition	
  (R.	
  Gatliff).	
  Progress	
  has	  to	
  be	
  made	  in	
  the	
  Arctic	
  (D.	
  Kroon).	
  The	
  proponents	
  indicate	
  that	  they	  want	  the	
   Neogene,	
   but	   the	   EFB	
   said	
   that	   they	   should	
   move	
   to	
   another	
   site	   to	
   get	   the	   whole	
  Cenozoic	
  (D.	
  Kroon).	
  ECORD	
  has	  to	  go	
  back	  to	
  the	
  proponents	
  and	
  put	  a	
  limit	
  on	
  the	
  budget	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

44	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
but	
   indicating	
   the	   two	
   drilling	
   possibilities	
   (D.	
   Kroon).	
   The	   proponents	
   need	
   strategic	
  signals	  to	
  get	
  additional	
  funding	
  or	
  to	
  realize	
  the	
  drilling	
  options	  (D.	
  Kroon).	
  The	
  details	
  and	
  options	
  have	  to	  be	
  discussed	
  with	  the	
  proponents	
  (R.	
  Gatliff).	
  ECORD	
  has	  to	
  decide	
  if	
  
the	
   Neogene	
   is	
   sufficient	
   for	   $15.5	
   M	
   USD	   or	
   if	
   the	   whole	
   Cenozoic	
   should	
   be	
   drilled	
   (G.	
  Früh-­‐Green).	
  The	
  Arctic	
  expedition	
  should	
  be	
  scheduled	
  for	
  FY18	  to	
  convince	
  the	
  funding	
  agencies	
  and	  assuming	
   that	   the	   proponents	
   fulfill	
   the	   conditions	
   (M.	
   Diament).	
   The	   expedition	
   should	
   be	
  scheduled	
   for	
   FY18	
   with	
   a	
   limit	
   of	
   $15	
   M	
   USD	   and	   two	   icebreakers	
   as	
   IKCs	
   (K.	
   Gohl/D.	
  Weis).	
   The	   proponents	
   should	
   be	
   forced	
   to	
   choose	
   between	
   the	   two	
   drilling	
   options,	
   i.e.	
  either	  to	
  stick	
  to	
  the	
  drill	
  string	
  longer	
  than	
  2	
  km	
  and	
  provide	
  further	
  external	
  funding	  or	  change	   the	   location	
   and	   fix	   the	   small	   problems	
   (A.	
   Cattaneo).	
   Deeper	
   water	
   depth	
   and	  deeper	   penetration	
   have	
   a	
   higher	
   risk	
   (D.	
   Smith).	
   They	
   can	   get	   every	
   objective	   at	
   the	  shallower	
   site	
   (G.	
   Dickens).	
   The	   proponents	
   can	
   choose	
   their	   primary	   site	   and	   drill	   the	  expended	
   record	
   of	
   the	   Neogene	
   with	
   a	
   higher	
   resolution	   or	
   they	
   can	
   drill	   the	   entire	  Cenozoic	
  with	  a	
  lower	
  temporal	
  resolution	
  (D.	  Mallinson).	
  A	
  lower	
  resolution	
  would	  lead	  to	  a	
   loss	   of	
   information,	
   e.g.	
   on	
   rapid	
   climate	
   events	
   (D.	
   Kroon).	
   The	   problem	
   is	
   that	
   at	
   the	  time	
  when	
  the	
  proposal	
  went	  throught	  the	
  SEP	  the	
  objective	  was	  to	
  get	  a	
  record	
  through	  the	
  Cenozoic	
  and	  the	
  Neogene	
  was	
  one	
  component	
  of	
  that	  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  If	
  the	
  focus	
  of	
  the	
  proposal	
  suddenly	
  changes	
  and	
  only	  the	
  Neogene	
  would	
  be	
  drilled,	
  the	
  proposal	
  may	
  never	  have	
  gone	  through	
  the	
  SEP	
  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  	
  
	
  
ECORD	  FB	  Consensus	
  15-­‐03-­‐03:	
  	
  
The	
   ECORD	
   Facility	
   Board	
   recommends	
   scheduling	
   proposal	
   708	
   as	
   an	
   expedition	
   for	  the	
  fiscal	
  year	  2018	
  with	  two	
  provisions:	
  (1)	
  that	  the	
  maximum	  ECORD	
  contribution	
  will	  not	
  exceed	
  $15	
  million	
  US,	
  and	
  (2)	
  that	  primary	
  objectives	
  in	
  the	  original	
  proposal	
  and	  addenda	   are	   not	   changed.	
   The	   ECORD	
   Facility	
   Board	
   and	   ESO	   will	
   contact	
   the	  proponents	
  to	
  discuss	
  options	  to	
  make	  this	  happen.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
DISCUSSION	
  on	
  proposal	
  #813	
  Antarctic	
  Paleoclimate:	
  A	
  budget	
  limit	
  of	
  $9	
  M	
  USD	
  would	
  be	
  appropriate	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  At	
  the	
  end	  of	
  FY16	
  after	  the	
  implementation	
   of	
   the	   Chicxulub	
   expedition,	
   ECORD	   will	
   have	
   $9.8	
   M	
   USD	
   (Table	   6).	
   At	
   the	
  
end	
  of	
  FY17	
  $8.6	
  M	
  USD	
  would	
  be	
  still	
  left	  (Table	  6)	
  and	
  $16.4	
  M	
  USD	
  would	
  be	
  available	  for	
   the	   implementation	
   of	
   the	   Arctic	
   expedition	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   In	   order	
   to	
   have	
   a	
   higher	  surplus	
  at	
  the	
  end	  of	
  FY18,	
  a	
  lower	  price	
  for	  the	
  RV	
  N.	
  B.	
  Palmer	
  could	
  be	
  discussed,	
  e.g.	
  the	  mobilisation	
   and	   demobilisation	
   costs	
   could	
   be	
   saved	
   by	
   combining	
   this	   expedition	
   to	  another	
   one	   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   These	   costs	
   could	
   be	
   lower	
   if	
   ECORD	
   can	
   provide	
   enough	
   lead	  time	
  notice	
  to	
  NSF	
  for	
  use	  of	
  N.B.	
  Palmer.	
  This	  lead	  time	  would	
  allow	  NSF	  to	
  possibly	
  find	  additional	
   programs	
   to	
   fit	   into	   the	   ship	
   schedule,	
   thus	
   defraying	
   mobilization	
   costs	
   (T.	
  Janecek).	
  In	
  this	  case,	  after	  the	
  implementation	
  of	
  the	
  Arctic	
  expedition	
  with	  costs	  of	
  $15-­‐
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

45	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
15.5	
   M	
   USD	
   ECORD	
   would	
   still	
   have	
   about	
   $3	   M	   USD	   as	   a	   surplus	   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   The	  Antarctic	
   expedition	
   has	   to	
   be	
   implemented	
   in	
   January-­‐February	
   2018	
   because	
   the	   ice	  window	
  is	
  only	  six	
  weeks	
  for	  the	
  East-­‐Antarctic	
  margin	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  	
  ECORD	  FB	  Consensus	
  15-­‐03-­‐04:	
  	
  
The	
   ECORD	
   Facility	
   Board	
   recommends	
   scheduling	
   proposal	
   813	
   as	
   an	
   expedition	
   for	  the	
  fiscal	
  year	  2018	
  with	  two	
  provisions:	
  (1)	
  that	  the	
  maximum	  ECORD	
  contribution	
  will	  not	
   exceed	
   $9	
   million	
   US,	
   and	   (2)	
   that	   primary	
   objectives	
   in	
   the	   original	
   proposal	
   and	  addenda	   are	   not	   changed.	
   The	   ECORD	
   Facility	
   Board	
   and	   ESO	   will	
   contact	
   the	  proponents	
  to	
  discuss	
  options	  to	
  make	  this	  happen.	
  	
  (10:22)	
  coffee	  break	
  (10:50)	
  
	
  

6.	
  Procedures	
  and	
  issues	  regarding	
  EFB	
  activities	
  and	
  MSP	
  operations	  	
  (9:02)	
  	
  G.	
   Camoin	
   presented	
   the	   system	
   of	
   in-­‐kind	
   contributions	
   (IKC)	
   for	   MSPs.	
   U.	
   Röhl	  reported	
  on	
  the	
  Biological	
  Sample	  &	
  Data	  and	  Third-­‐Party	
  Tool	  policies	
  and	  the	  Nagoya	
  Protocol	
  was	  discussed.	
  Furthermore,	
  the	
  procedure	
  of	
  MSP	
  expedition	
  review	
  meetings	
  was	
  reviewed	
  and	  the	
  duration	
  of	
  the	
  OSP	  was	  discussed.	
  M.	
  Torres	
  presented	
  the	  pre-­‐
expedition	
  webinar	
  series	
  and	  K.	
  Gohl	  reported	
  on	
  the	
  addendum	
  of	
  the	
  EFB	  Terms	  of	
  Reference.	
  A	
  new	
  EFB	
  Chair	
  and	  an	
  EFB	
  Vice-­‐Chair	
  were	  nominated.	
  
	
  

6.1	
  In-­‐kind	
  contributions	
  for	
  MSPs	
  (G.	
  Camoin)	
  (10:50)	
  	
  G.	
  Camoin	
  explained	
  the	  concept	
  of	
  in-­‐kind	
  contributions	  (IKC).	
  Following	
  items	
  can	  be	
  called	  an	
  IKC:	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

46	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
The	
  procedures	
  and	  conditions	  are	  as	
  follows:	
  

	
  

The	
  two	
  upcoming	
  expeditions	
  Atlantis	
  Massif	  and	  (likely)	
  Chicxulub	  have	  IKCs.	
  In	
  2015	  there	
  will	  be	  an	
  IKC	
  from	  the	  UK	  for	  the	
  Atlantis	
  Massif	
  expedition.	
  The	  UK	
  will	  get	
  three	
  extra	
  Science	  Party	
  positions	  and	  maybe	
  one	  or	
  two	  of	
  them	  will	  be	
  taken	
  to	
  mitigate	
  the	  quota	  because	
  at	
  the	
  moment	  the	  UK	
  is	
  overquota.	
  
	
  

6.2	
  Biological	
  Samples	
  &	
  Data	  (U.	
  Röhl)	
  (10:57)	
  	
  
The	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	   Expedition	
   #347	
   ‘Baltic	
   Sea’	
   has	   shown	
   that	   there	
   is	   a	   lack	
   of	
  standard	
   protocols	
   for	   microbiology.	
   A	
   three	
   level	
   approach	
   was	   defined	
   at	
   the	  MagellanPlus	  Workshop	
  “Advancing	  Sub-­‐Surface	  Biosphere	
  and	
  Paleoclimate	
  Research”	
  in	
  August	
  2014	
  in	
  Seoul,	  South	  Korea,	
  to	
  improve	
  the	
  expectation	
  of	
  biological	
  research	
  for	
  upcoming	
  expeditions.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  three	  levels	
  are	  as	
  follows:	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

47	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
Proposals	
  listed	
  at	
  level	
  1,	
  2	
  and	  3	
   will	  not	  receive	  support,	
  some	  or	
  full	  support	
  from	  the	
  biosphere	
  community	
  to	
  improve	
  their	
  rank	  when	
  evaluated,	
  respectively.	
  
	
  
The	
   Nagoya	   Protocol	
   is	
   an	
   international	
   agreement	
   on	
   access	
   to	
   genetic	
   resources	
   and	  sharing	
   of	
   benefits	
   arising	
   from	
   their	
   utilization	
   to	
   the	   convention	
   on	
   biological	  diversity.	
   The	   agreement	
   entered	
   into	   force	
   on	
   October	
   12,	
   2014	
   and	
   applies	
   to	
   the	  countries	
   exclusive	
   economic	
   zone.	
   The	   Nagoya	   Protocol	
   does	
   not	   specify	
   the	   procedure	
  to	
  obtain	
  Prior	
  Informed	
  Consent	
  (PIC).	
  Separate	
  individual	
  contact	
  with	  the	  concerned	
  government	
  agency	
  with	  authority	
  of	
  granting	
  access	
  to	
  genetic	
  resources	
  is	
  necessary	  to	
   find	
   out	   more	
   because	
   different	
   agencies	
   may	   require	
   different	
   documents	
   and	  information	
   depending	
   on	
   their	
   local	
   circumstances.	
   §18	   of	
   the	   Nagoya	   Protocol	  (Mutually	
  Agreed	
  Terms	
   -­‐	
  MAT)	
  says	  that	  there	  are	
  “…simplified	
  measures	
  on	
  access	
  for	  non-­‐commercial	
   research	
   purposes…”.	
   However,	
   these	   “simplified	
   measures”	
   are	   not	  specified.	
  The	
   Nagoya	   Protocol	
   affects	
   all	   microbiological	
   sampling	
   in	
   territorial	
   waters.	
   PIC	   and	  MAT	
  are	
  essential	
  for	
  any	
  proposed	
  microbiology	
  sampling.	
  Otherwise	
  scientists	
  might	  not	
   be	
   able	   to	
   publish	
   their	
   results.	
   Retrospective	   requests	
   cannot	
   be	
   made.	
   Detailed	
  requirements	
   depend	
   on	
   the	   regulations	
   of	
   the	   local	
   authorities	
   and	   might	
   vary	
   for	  different	
  countries.	
  	
  DISCUSSION	
  on	
  the	  Nagoya	
  Protocol:	
  The	
  real	  challenge	
  is	
  that	  the	
  countries	
  can	
  define	
  what	  a	
  genetic	
  resource	
  is	
  (M.	  Malone).	
  For	
  example,	
  India	  says	  that	
  if	
  biology	
  is	
  surveyed	
  it	
  falls	  under	  the	  Nagoya	
  Protocol.	
  There	  was	
   no	
   microbiology	
   part	   on	
   expedition	
   #353	
   ‘Indian	
   Monsoon’	
   and	
   a	
   clearance	
   request	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

48	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
was	
  submitted.	
  It	
  is	
  a	
  real	  challenge	
  if	
  the	
  operation	
  takes	
  place	  in	  a	
  country	
  that	  is	
  part	
  of	
  
the	
   Nagoya	   protocol	
   (M.	
   Malone).	
   Almost	
   200	
   countries	
   signed	
   the	   Nagoya	   Protocol	
   (U.	
  Röhl).	
   Basically	
   this	
   concerns	
   expeditions	
   in	
   coastal	
   territories	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   For	   the	   Chicxulub	
  expedition	
  there	
  is	
  already	
  contact	
  to	
  a	
  person	  in	
  Mexico	
  to	
  get	  the	  permit	
  (U.	
  Röhl).	
  The	
  implementing	
   organisations	
   will	
   have	
   a	
   real	
   challenge	
   because	
   of	
   the	   differences	
   from	
  country	
  to	
  country	
  (M.	  Malone).	
  For	
  India	
  it	
  was	
  clear	  because	
  of	
  individual	
  agreements	
  for	  individual	
  projects	   (M.	
   Malone).	
   For	   example,	
   on	
   expedition	
   #356	
   there	
   is	
   no	
   microbiology	
  part	
   in	
   the	   proposal	
   and	   no	
   microbiologist	
   is	
   staffed,	
   i.e.	
   no	
   sample	
   request	
   for	  microbiology	
  can	  be	
  accepted	
  (M.	  Malone).	
  This	  constrains	  science	
  and	  the	
  level	  depends	
  on	
   the	   country	
   (M.	
   Malone).	
   If	
   an	
   IODP	
   proposal	
   with	
   a	
   microbiological	
   component	
   is	
  received,	
  SEP	
  has	  to	
  give	  advice	
  on	
  this	
  issue	  (F.	
  Inagaki).	
  The	  Nagoya	
  Protocol	
  applies	
  only	  to	
  the	
  exclusive	
  economic	
  zone	  but	  not	  to	
  the	
  open	
  ocean	
  (F.	
  Inagaki).	
  There	
  is	
  already	  a	
  statement	
   on	
   this	
   issue	   in	
   the	   IODP	
   proposal	
   submission	
   guidelines	
   (H.	
   Given).	
   The	   SEP	   has	
  
to	
  be	
  advised	
  if	
  the	
  proponents	
  fail	  to	
  read	  the	
  instructions	
  (M.	  Torres).	
  	
  
	
  
DISCUSSION	
  on	
  the	
  Seoul	  Workshop:	
  The	
  workshop	
  aimed	  at	
  writing	
  guidelines	
  to	
  microbiologists	
  on	
  what	  level	  of	
  support	
  on	
  
the	
  ship	  they	  need	  to	
  have	  when	
  they	  are	
  proposing	
  a	
  proposal	
  (D.	
  Smith).	
  There	
  will	  not	  be	  a	
   change	
   in	
   operating	
   with	   proposals	
   at	
   the	   SEP	
   and	   the	   Science	   Support	
   Office	
   (H.	
  Given/D.	
  Smith).	
  
	
  

6.3	
  Procedure	
  of	
  MSP	
  expedition	
  review	
  meetings	
  (M.	  Torres/G.	
  Dickens)	
  (11:17)	
  	
  G.	
  Dickens	
  presented	
  the	
  outcome	
  of	
  the	  review	
  meeting	
  for	  Expedition	
  #347	
  ‘Baltic	
  Sea’	  that	
  was	
  held	  in	
  Aix-­‐en-­‐Provence	
  on	
  November	
  18,	  2014.	
  The	
  external	
  panel	  members	
  were	
  Marta	
  Torres,	
  Martin	
  Jakobsson	
  and	
  Gerald	
  Dickens.	
  Each	
  MSP	
  expedition	
  needs	
  a	
  review	
  after	  completion	
  that	  is	
  normally	
  one	
  year	  after	  the	  onshore	
   component.	
   The	   rationale	
   has	   to	
   make	
   continuous	
   improvements	
   to	
   the	  programme,	
   to	
   address	
   problems	
   affecting	
   expeditions	
   and	   to	
   review	   the	  implementation	  and	  the	
  potential	
  for	
  outcomes	
  and	  not	  the	
  actual	
  scientific	
  outcomes.	
  The	
   Expedition	
   #347	
   review	
   was	
   overwhelmingly	
   positive	   and	   resulted	
   in	
   six	  recommendations	
   for	   improvement:	
   1)	
   Improve	
   contamination	
   tests	
   for	   microbiology;	
  2)	
  Fully	
  incorporate	
  rhizon	  sampling	
  for	
  pore	  water	
  analyses;	
  3)	
  Broaden	
  the	
  limits	  of	
  seismic	
  data	  interpretations;	
  4)	
  Flexibility	
  in	
  onshore	
  participation;	
  5)	
  A	
  webinar	
  series	
  
and	
  6)	
  Third	  party	
  tools.	
  Reviews	
  are	
  necessary	  and	
  helpful	  for	  the	
  program	
  success.	
  The	  review	
  meeting	
  should	
  be	
   one	   year	
   after	
   the	   expedition	
   and	   it	   should	
   be	
   two	   days.	
   The	   process	
   should	
   be	
  completely	
  transparent.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

49	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Dicussion	
  on	
  recommendation	
  3)	
  Broaden	
  the	
  limits	
  of	
  seismic	
  data	  interpretations:	
  Some	
   of	
   the	   objectives	
   could	
   not	   be	
   reached	
   because	
   of	
   pre-­‐approved	
   specific	
   drilling	
  depths	
   (G.	
   Dickens).	
   A	
   key	   target	
   horizon	
   was	   at	
   250	
   m,	
   but	   the	   drilling	
   depth	
   was	  approved	
  to	
  230	  m	  and	  the	
  proponents	
  had	  to	
  stop	  drilling	
  before	
  they	  reached	
  the	
  main	  target	   although	   there	
   was	
   no	
   hazard	
   issue	
   (G.	
   Dickens).	
   Their	
   interpretation	
   of	
   the	   seismic	
  data	
  was	
  that	  the	
  objectives	
  will	  be	
  met	  at	
  this	  depth.	
  The	
  objectives	
  were	  paired	
  with	  the	  interpretation	
  of	
  the	
  seismic	
  data	  that	  were	  off	  (M.	  Torres).	
  When	
  they	  reached	
  the	
  depth,	
  they	
   run	
   out	   of	
   permission	
   and	   could	
   not	   reach	
   a	
   certain	
   age.	
   It	
   is	   a	   simple	
   question	
   of	  adding	
  a	
  margin	
  of	
  error	  to	
  the	  permit	  (M.	  Torres).	
  EPSP	  recommends	
  to	
  the	
  proponents	
  to	
  
be	
  generous	
  with	  the	
  depth	  and	  to	
  take	  the	
  error	
  of	
  seismic	
  data	  into	  account	
  (D.	  Strack).	
  	
  Dicussion	
  on	
  MSP	
  expedition	
  review	
  meetings:	
  At	
  the	
  next	  ECORD	  Council	
  meeting	
  K.	
  Gohl	
  will	  report	
  on	
  the	  review	
  meeting	
  for	
  expedition	
  #347.	
  The	
  EFB	
  meeting	
  is	
  the	
  right	
  forum	
  to	
  present	
  the	
  outcome	
  of	
  MSP	
  expedition	
  review	  meetings	
  (M.	  Torres).	
  It	
  is	
  important	  to	
  have	  two	
  separate	
  reports;	
  one	
  written	
  by	
  the	
  Co-­‐
chief	
  scientists	
  and	  the	
  other	  one	
  written	
  by	
  ESO	
  (G.	
  Dickens).	
  These	
  reports	
  are	
  specifically	
  written	
  for	  the	  review	
  panel	  (K.	
  Gohl/H.	
  Given).	
  The	  evaluations	  are	  summarized	
  as	
  well	  in	
  these	
  reports	
  (M.	  Torres).	
  ESO	
  encouraged	
  every	
  Science	  Party	
  Member	  to	
  evaluation	
  (D.	  McInroy).	
   The	   response	
   is	
   much	   higher	
   for	   the	   online	
   evaluation	
   compared	
   to	
   the	   paper	
  form	
  evaluation	
  (D.	
  McInroy).	
  
	
  

6.4	
  Discussion	
  on	
  onshore-­‐part	
  of	
  expeditions	
  (G.	
  Dickens/U.	
  Röhl)	
  All	
   MSP	   expeditions	
   likely	
   will	
   have	
   an	
   offshore	
   and	   an	
   onshore	
   component.	
   The	   onshore	
  component	
   involves	
   sampling	
   and	   also	
   analyses	
   for	   obvious	
   team	
   goals	
   and	   for	  personal/small	
  group	  research.	
  G.	
   Dickens	
   presented	
   comments	
   and	   responses	
   on	
   onshore	
   participation.	
   There	
   was	   one	  comment	
   on	
   long	
   working	
   hours	
   for	  the	
   Baltic	
   Sea	   expedition.	
   The	   response	
   from	
   ESO	
   was	  that	
  more	  than	  1.6	  km	  of	
  cores	
  and	
  about	
  27,000	  samples	
  needed	
  to	
  be	
  completed	
  and	
  that	  none	
   of	
   the	   participants	
   agreed	
   to	
   stay	
   longer	
   than	
   four	
   weeks	
   at	
   the	   OSP.	
   Furthermore,	
  there	
   was	
   a	
   comment	
   on	
   the	   mandatory	
   OSP	   attendance.	
   ESO’s	
   response	
   was	   that	
   IODP	  expeditions	  are	
  team	  efforts	
  and	
  that	  all	  participants	
  are	
  obliged	
  to	
  share	
  the	
  work	  load.	
  The	
  universal	
  root	  problems	
  are	
  that	  1)	
  OSPs	  add	
  extensive	
  time	  to	
  the	
  primary	
  expedition;	
  2)	
  some	  people	  do	
  not	  partake	
  on	
  offshore	
  activities,	
  but	  all	
  people	  are	
  expected	
  to	
  partake	
  on	
  full	  onshore	
  activities;	
  3)	
  there	  is	  a	
  huge	  grey	  area	  between	
  group	  and	  personal	
  science;	
  4)	
   OSPs	
   allow	
   the	   collection	
   and	   analyses	
   of	
   far	   more	
   samples	
   than	
   ordinarily	
   can	   be	
   done	  offshore	
   and	   5)	
   item	   4)	
   is	
   being	
   used	   to	
   justify	
   far	   more	
   sampling	
   for	   personal	
   research	
  under	  the	
  auspices	
  of	
  group	  research.	
  The	
   recommendation	
   from	
   the	   Review	   Panel	
   was	   that	   the	   entire	
   scientific	
   party	
   (both	
  offshore	
   and	   anshore)	
   needs	
   to	
   attend	
   the	   onshore	
   components	
   of	
   MSP	   expeditions	
   for	  some	
   minimum	
   amount	
   of	
   time.	
   This	
   should	
   be	
   nominally	
   one	   to	
   two	   weeks	
   and	   might	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

50	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
involve	  restriction	
  of	
  sample	
  collection	  and	  the	
  rotation	
  of	
  schedules,	
  but	
  also	  the	  inclusion	
  of	
  graduate	
  students.	
  	
  DISCUSSION	  on	
  sampling	
  duration	
  at	
  OSPs:	  Expedition	
   #347	
   ‘Baltic	
   Sea’:	
   A	
   question	
   was	
   raised	
   as	
   to	
   whether	
   the	   two	
   complaints	
  about	  the	
  onshore	
  participation	
  represent	
  a	
  universal	
  feeling	
  among	
  people	
  or	
  if	
  only	  one	  or	
   two	   people	
   were	
   complaining	
   (T.	
   Janecek).	
   There	
   was	
   a	
   large	
   group	
   complaining	
   (M.	
  Torres).	
   But	   there	
   was	   also	
   a	
   comment	
   by	   a	   microbiologist	
   stating	
   that	
   it	
   was	   useful	   to	  meet	
  the	
  whole	  science	
  team	  and	  to	
  talk	  to	
  the	
  geochemists	  (U.	
  Röhl).	
  	
  
The	
   general	
   concept	
   of	
   the	   OSP	   is	
   that	
   during	
   this	
   part	   of	
   the	   expedition	
   the	   whole	
   science	
  team	
  comes	  together	
  and	
  works	
  jointly	
  (U.	
  Röhl).	
  The	
  main	  aim	  of	
  the	
  OSP	  is	
  the	
  extended	
  core	
  description	
  acquiring	
  all	
  standard	  IODP	
  measurements	
  and	  the	
  sampling	
  is	
  only	  the	
  bonus	
  (U.	
  Röhl).	
  The	
  OSP	  is	
  also	  the	
  time	  and	  the	
  place	  to	  develop	
  the	
  team	  effort	
  (U.	
  Röhl).	
  The	
   requirements	
   for	   the	   core	
   descritption	
   are	   defined	
   in	
   the	   IODP	
   standard	
   measurement	
  procedures	
  (U.	
  Röhl).	
  Scientists	  are	
  invited	
  to	
  provide	  an	
  expertise,	
  i.e.	
  graduate	
  students	
  cannot	  be	
  sent	  to	
  help	  sampling	
  (U.	
  Röhl).	
  An	
  OSP	  is	
  totally	
  different	
  from	  a	
  sampling	
  party	  (U.	
   Röhl).	
   For	   the	   Baltic	
   Sea	   Expedition	
   more	   than	   two	   people	
   complained	
   specifically	
  about	  the	
  time	  involved	
  in	
  taking	
  samples	
  and	  not	
  about	  the	
  time	  involved	
  in	
  discussions	  (M.	
   Torres).	
   People	
   should	
   also	
   ask	   for	   the	   amount	
   of	
   samples	
   that	
   can	   be	
   sampled	
   in	   a	
  defined	
   amount	
   of	
   time	
   (U.	
   Röhl).	
   Taking	
   samples	
   simultaneously	
   to	
   the	   core	
   description	
  does	
  not	
  make	  the	
  whole	  process	
  slower	
  (U.	
  Röhl).	
  It	
  appears	
  that	  the	
  core	  description	
  is	
  getting	
  progressively	
  more	  complex	  and	
  longer	
  (T.	  Janecek).	
  This	
  issue	  has	  to	
  be	
  addressed.	
  The	
  offshore	
  phase	  of	
  the	
  Atlantis	
  Massif	  Expedition	
  is	
  very	  limited	
  in	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  people,	
  i.e.	
   there	
   is	
   only	   a	
   selected	
   group	
   that	   has	   to	
   do	
   the	   measurements	
   right	
   away	
   (G.	
   Früh-­‐Green).	
   This	
   group	
   of	
   people	
   will	
   also	
   be	
   expected	
   to	
   help	
   onshore	
   (G.	
   Früh-­‐Green).	
   The	  concern	
  is	
  that	   the	   feasibility	
   of	
   doing	
  onshore	
  science	
  does	  not	
  get	
  expanded	
  beyond	
  what	  is	
  needed	
  (M.	  Torres).	
  There	  is	  a	
  minimum	  of	
  core	  length	
  that	  has	  to	
  be	
  processed	
  during	
  a	
  
day,	
  i.e.	
  the	
  core	  describers	
  have	  a	
  time	  limit	
  (U.	
  Röhl).	
  Not	  the	
  scientist	
  alone	  decides	
  on	
  
how	
   much	
   time	
   will	
   be	
   spent	
   on	
   the	   core	
   description	
   because	
   the	   total	
   length	
   of	
   the	   OSP	  has	
   to	
   be	
   planned	
   in	
   advance	
   (U.	
   Röhl).	
   The	   discussion	
   should	
   be	
   continued	
   in	   a	   smaller	
  group	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  
	
  
	
  
MSP	
  Third-­‐Party	
  Tools	
  and	
  Instruments	
  Policy:	
  A	
  third-­‐party	
  tool	  or	
  instrument	
  is	
  any	
  additional	
  tool,	
  observatory	
  or	
  laboratory	
  based	  equipment	
   that	
   a	
   member	
   of	
   the	   science	
   party	
   wishes	
   to	
   use	   during	
   an	
   expedition	  (offshore	
  and	
  onshore),	
  and	  is	
  not	  being	
  provided	
  by	
  ESO.	
  These	
  tools	
  and	
  instruments	
  include	
   downhole	
   and	   specialist	
   coring	
   tools,	
   observatory-­‐	
   and	   laboratory-­‐based	
  equipment.	
   All	   tools	
   require	
   technical	
   support	
   from	
   ESO	   and	   ESO	
   may	   require	   the	  approval	
   of	
   associated	
   operating	
   costs	
   by	
   the	   EFB.	
   ESO	   has	   the	   final	
   responsibility	
   for	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

51	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
the	
  use	  of	  a	
  third-­‐party	
  tool	  or	
  instrument	
  during	
  a	
  MSP	
  expedition	
  or	
  in	
  an	
  IODP	
  core	  repository.	
   Third-­‐party	
   tools	
   and	   instruments	
   must	
   satisfy	
   operational	
   and	   safety	  criteria	
  that	  ESO	
  applies.	
  The	
  principal	
  investigator	
  for	  a	
  third-­‐party	
  tool	  or	
  instrument	
  is	
   responsible	
   for	   providing	
   funds	
   for	   planning	
   activities,	
   shipping	
   the	   tool	
   to	
   the	   port	   of	  mobilization	
   and	   integrating	
   the	   tool	
   deployment	
   into	   the	   expedition	
   work	
   and	   data	
  flow.	
   Funding	
   of	   a	   third-­‐party	
   tool	
   or	
   instrument	
   does	
   not	   guarantee	
   time	
   or	
   space	
   on	
  board	  of	
  an	
  MSP	  or	  at	
  the	  BCR	
  for	  the	
  use	  of	
  that	  tool	  or	
  instrument	
  during	
  an	
  expedition	  (offshore/onshore).	
   The	   data	
   produced	
   through	   the	   use	   of	
   third-­‐party	
   tools	
   are	   the	  property	
  of	
  IODP.	
  The	
  acquired	
  data	  are	
  community	
  data.	
  A	
  draft	
  version	
  of	
  the	
  MSP	  Third-­‐Party	
  Tools	
  and	
  Instruments	
  Policy	
  can	  be	
  found	  in	
  the	
  agenda	  book.	
  	  DISCUSSION	
  on	
  MSP	  Third-­‐Party	
  Tools	
  and	
  Instruments	
  Policy:	
  In	
   the	   previous	
   programme	
   all	   data	   that	
   came	
   from	
   Third-­‐Party	
   tools	
   were	
   community	
  data	
  (T.	  Janecek).	
  The	
   use	   of	   a	   third-­‐party	
   tool	
   or	
   instrument	
   requires	
   discussions	   between	
   the	   principal	
  investigator	
   for	
   a	
   third-­‐party	
   tool	
   or	
   instrument	
   and	   ESO	   about	   the	   feasibility,	
   the	  operating	
  procedures	
  and	  safety	
  aspects	
  (D.	
  Smith).	
  It	
   is	
   critical	
   if	   a	   third-­‐party	
   tool	
   is	
   being	
   supplied	
   for	   the	   benefit	
   of	
   science	
   and	   for	   the	  whole	
  group,	
  but	  the	
  principal	
  investigator	
  has	  to	
  provide	  the	
  funding	
  (G.	
  Früh-­‐Green).	
  If	
  somebody	
   is	
   producing	
   results	
   that	   are	   beyond	
   the	   standard	
   measurements	
   programme,	
  the	
   principal	
   investigator	
   has	   to	
   pay	   for	   the	   shipment	
   and	   also	
   to	   share	
   the	   data	
   (D.	
  McInroy).	
  If	
  funding	
  is	
  available	
  for	  a	
  tool	  or	
  instrument,	
  it	
  does	  not	
  automatically	
  mean	
  
that	
  it	
  will	  be	
  implemented	
  on	
  the	
  expedition	
  (U.	
  Röhl).	
  	
  ECORD	  FB	  Consensus	
  15-­‐03-­‐05:	
  	
  
The	
  ECORD	
  Facility	
  Board	
  accepts	
  the	
  MSP	  Third-­‐Party	
  Tools	
  and	
  Instruments	
  Policy.	
  
	
  
	
  

6.5	
  Pre-­‐expedition	
  webinar	
  series	
  (M.	  Torres/G.	
  Früh-­‐Green)	
  (12:02)	
  	
  
Some	
  problems	
  were	  identified	
  from	  reading	
  the	  evaluations	
  of	  Expedition	
  #347	
  ‘Baltic	
  Sea’	
   (M.	
   Torres).	
   There	
   was	
   a	
   lack	
   of	
   understanding	
   of	
   time-­‐commitments	
   after	
   the	  offshore	
   part	   of	
   the	   expedition	
   (sampling	
   party).	
   A	
   better	
   communication	
   with	
   the	  sailing	
   scientists	
   would	
   assure	
   a	
   proper	
   sample	
   collection	
   at	   sea	   and	
   a	
   good	
  understanding	
   of	   post-­‐cruise	
   wishes.	
   Because	
   of	
   the	   limited	
   time	
   at	   sea,	
   there	
   is	
   less	  opportunity	
  for	  the	
  science	  party	
  members	
  to	
  get	  to	
  know	
  each	  other,	
  to	
  understand	
  the	  different	
   scientific	
   needs	
   and	   to	
   develop	
   collaborative	
   projects	
   and	   sample	
   sharing	
  strategies.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

52	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
A	
  possible	
  strategy	
  would	
  be	
  the	
  intense	
  use	  of	
  webinars	
  at	
  all	
  stages	
  of	
  the	
  expedition	
  (M.	
  Torres):	
  1)	
   An	
   informative	   seminar	
   where	
   the	   Co-­‐chiefs	
   introduce	
   the	   scientific	
   objectives	
   and	  the	
  overall	  plan,	  but	
  also	  the	
  application,	
  funding	
  options,	
  sample	  policies,	
  expectations,	
  
etc.	
  
2)	
   A	
   pre-­‐cruise	
   meeting	
   for	   shipboard	
   and	   shorebased	
   science	
   parties	
   that	
   should	
   be	  mandatory	
   for	   all	   participants.	
   This	   meeting	
   focuses	
   on	   a	   short	
   science	
   introduction,	
  schedules,	
   sample	
   and	   publication	
   policies	
   and	
   a	
   detailed	
   description	
   of	
  duties/commitments	
  of	
  participants.	
  3)	
   Group	
   meetings	
   for	   specialty	
   disciplines	
   depending	
   on	
   the	   objectives	
   of	
   the	  expedition.	
  
4)	
   A	
   post-­‐cruise	
   webinar	
   before	
   the	   sampling	
   party	
   where	
   the	   Co-­‐chiefs	
   can	
   present	
   the	  results	
  to	
  the	
  shipboard	
  and	
  shorebased	
  parties.	
  This	  meeting	
  helps	
  to	
  lay	
  out	
  plans	
  for	  sampling	
  and	  to	
  sort	  out	
  remaining	  sample	
  conflicts.	
  	
  COMMENT	
  on	
  pre-­‐expedition	
  webinars:	
  The	
  first	  Chicxulub	
  webinar	
  will	  be	
  held	  in	
  April	
  2015	
  (D.	
  McInroy).	
  Webinars	
  will	  also	
  be	
  
used	
  for	
  other	  science	  party	
  type	  of	  meetings	
  (D.	
  McInroy).	
  
	
  

6.6	
  Addendum	
  of	  EFB	  Terms	
  of	
  Reference	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  (12:11)	
  	
  K.	
   Gohl	   presented	
   the	   new	
   version	
   of	
   the	   EFB	
   Terms	
   of	
   Reference	
   (changes	
   to	
   the	  current	
  version	  are	  in	
  blue):	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

53	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
Correction	
  1:	
  The	
  Director	
  of	
  the	
  Science	  Support	
  Office	
  and	  not	  the	
  Chair	
  (T.	  Janecek).	
  Correction	
   2:	
   Change	
   to	
   ‘representative	
   of	
   the	   US	
   implementing	
   organisation’	
   and	   to	
  ‘representative	
   of	
   the	   Japanese	   implementing	
   organisation’	
   (N.	
   Eguchi/K.	
   Gohl/G.	
  Camoin).	
  Correction	
  3:	
  Change	
  to	
  ‘Two	
  SEP	
  Co-­‐chairs’	
  (G.	
  Lericolais/G.	
  Früh-­‐Green).	
  Correction	
  4:	
  Include	
  EPSP	
  (N.	
  Eguchi/G.	
  Camoin).	
  	
  COMMENT	
  on	
  the	
  EFB	  Terms	
  of	
  Reference:	
  The	
   major	
   change	
   was	   the	   number	
   of	
   the	   Science	   Board	
   Members	
   that	
   was	   already	
  approved	
  by	
  the	
  Council	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  The	
  final	
  document	
  can	  be	
  produced	
  and	
  put	
  online	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  
	
  

6.7	
  Selection	
  of	
  the	
  next	  EFB	
  Chair	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  (12:17)	
  The	
  next	  EFB	
  Chair	
  will	  start	  on	
  January	
  1st,	
  2016.	
  The	
  EFB	
  Chair	
  has	  to	
  come	  from	  an	
  ECORD	
  member	  country.	
  Gilles	  Lericolais	
  (France)	
  and	
  Dominque	
  Weis	  (Canada)	
  are	  the	  only	
  possible	
  candidates.	
  After	
  discussions,	
  Gilles	  Lericolais	
  is	
  recommended	
  as	
  the	
  next	  EFB	
  Chair	
  and	
  Dominique	
  Weis	  as	
  Vice	  Chair.	
  Dominique	
  Weis	
  will	  be	
  the	  incoming	
  Vice	  Chair	
  and	
  Karsten	
  Gohl	
  will	  be	
  the	
  outgoing	
  Vice	  Chair	
  for	
  one	
  year	  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  	
  ECORD	  FB	  Consensus	
  15-­‐03-­‐06:	
  	
  
The	
  ECORD	
  Facility	
  Board	
  recommends	
  Gilles	  Lericolais’	
  nomination	
  as	
  new	
  EFB	
  Chair	  and	
  Dominique	
  Weis’	
  nomination	
  as	
  new	
  EFB	
  Vice-­‐Chair	
  starting	
  in	
  January	  2016.	
  	
  Antonio	
  Cattaneo	
  and	
  Marta	
  Torres	
  will	  rotate	
  off	  by	
  the	
  end	  of	
  2015.	
  	
  ECORD	  FB	  Consensus	
  15-­‐03-­‐07:	
  	
  
The	
  ECORD	
  Facility	
  Board	
  warmly	
  thanks	
  Marta	
  Torres	
  and	  Antonio	
  Cattaneo	
  for	  their	  contributions	  and	  services.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

54	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
ECORD	  FB	  Consensus	
  15-­‐03-­‐08:	
  	
  
The	
   ECORD	
   Facility	
   Board	
   thanks	
   Karsten	
   Gohl	   for	  his	
   leadership	
   of	
   the	   Facility	
  Board	  from	
   its	   inception	
   in	
   the	   new	
   program.	
   He	
   guided	
   us	
   through	
   challenging	
   decisions	
   with	  patience,	
  professional	
  insight	
  and	
  friendliness.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
(12:29)	
  lunch	
  break	
  (13:50)	
  
	
  

8.	
  Next	  EFB	
  meeting	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	  	
  (13:53)	
  	
  
	
  

ECORD	  FB	  Consensus	
  15-­‐03-­‐09:	
  	
  
The	
   ECORD	
   Facility	
   Board	
   agrees	
   that	   the	   next	
   EFB	
   meeting	
   will	
   take	
   place	   for	   two	   days	  between	  April	
  4-­‐15,	
  2016.	
  	
  
	
  

Brussels	
  would	
  be	  a	
  good	  place	
  for	  the	
  next	  EFB	
  meeting.	
  	
  Ø Action	
   (EFB):	
   to	
   get	   in	
   contact	
   with	
   Jean-­‐Pierre	
   Henriet	
   and	   David	
   van	
   Rooij	
  from	
  Belgium	
  regarding	
  the	
  location	
  of	
  the	
  next	  EFB	
  meeting.	
  	
  Further	  Action	
  Items	
  (K.	
  Gohl/All)	
  	
  (14:00)	
  	
  Another	
   action	
   item	
   is	
   to	
   draft	
   letters	
   of	
   response	   to	
   proponents	
   of	
   proposals	
   that	   are	
  
kept	
  in	
  the	
  holding	
  bin,	
  i.e.	
  #716	
  ‘Hawaiian	
  Drowned	
  Reefs’,	
  #581	
  ‘Coralgal	
  Banks’	
  and	  #637	   ‘New	
   England	
   Hydrogeology’.	
   At	
   every	   EFB	
   meeting	
   letters	
   to	
   the	   proponents	
   of	
  proposals	
  at	
  the	
  EFB	
  should	
  be	
  sent	  to	
  let	  them	  know	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  their	
  proposal	
  and	
  to	
  
ask	
  questions	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  	  Ø Action	
   (K.	
   Gohl):	
  to	
  draft	
  response	
  letters	
  to	
  the	
  proponents	
  regarding	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  their	
  proposals	
  and	
  ask	
  questions	
  to	
  them	
  if	
  necessary,	
  and	  to	
  send	  this	  draft	
  letter	  to	
  the	
  Science	  Board	
  Members.	
  	  Proposal	
  #716	
  ‘Hawaiian	
  Drowned	
  Reefs’:	
  The	
   proponents	
   asked	
   if	   all	   options	
   for	   drilling	
   platforms	
   are	   explored	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   ESO	
  
is	
  in	
  contact	
  with	  the	
  proponents	
  (D.	
  McInroy).	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

55	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Proposal	
  #581	
  ‘Coralgal	
  Banks’:	
  The	
  proponents	
  have	  to	
  be	
  asked	  about	  the	
  status	
  of	
  their	
  site	  survey	
  data.	
  They	  have	  to	
  submit	
   a	
   proposal	
   otherwise	
   it	
   will	
   be	
   out	   of	
   the	   system	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   The	   proponents	
   have	
  
to	
  be	
  encouraged	
  to	
  be	
  proactive	
  with	  ESO	  to	
  find	
  a	
  research	
  vessel	
  for	
  this	  area	  that	  can	
  
hold	
   a	
   seabed	
   drilling	
   system.	
   They	   also	
   need	   to	
   have	
   a	
   plan	
   on	
   how	
   to	
   supply	
   the	  laboratory	
  space	  (D.	
  McInroy).	
  	
  Proposal	
  #813	  ‘Antarctic	
  Paleoclimate’:	
  T.	
   Janecek	
   suggested	
   having	   a	
   discussion	
   on	
   the	   costs	
   of	
   the	
  RV	
   N.	  B.	
  Palmer	   with	   ship	
  schedulers	
   of	
   the	   Polar	
   Division	
   in	
   Arlington	
   during	
   the	   upcoming	
   JR-­‐FB	
   meeting	
   in	
   May	  2015.	  G.	
  Camoin,	
  K.	
  Gohl	  and	  D.	
  McInroy	
  will	
  attend	
  this	  meeting.	
  	
  
	
  
Proposal	
  #708	
  ‘Arctic	
  Paleoclimate’:	  	  Ø Action	
   (M.	
   Torres/D.	
   Weis/G.	
   Dickens):	
   to	
   write	
   a	
   response	
   letter	
   to	
   the	  proponents	
  of	
  proposal	
  #708	
  ‘Arctic	
  Paleoclimate’	
  
	
  
	
  
K.	
   Gohl	   presented	
   an	
   example	
   for	   the	   scheduling	
   of	
  MSP	
   operations	   beyond	
   FY18	
   (Table	
  14).	
   According	   to	
   this	
   plan,	
   in	
   FY19	
   and	   FY20	
   two	   low-­‐cost	
   expeditions	
   will	
   be	
  implemented	
   to	
   save	
   money	
   for	   high-­‐cost	
   operations.	
   A	
   medium-­‐cost	
   expedition	
   could	
  be	
  implemented	
  in	
  FY21,	
  another	
  low-­‐cost	
  in	
  FY22	
  followed	
  by	
  an	
  expensive	
  operation	
  in	
  FY23.	
  
	
  
	
  
The	
   seabed	
   drilling	
   operators,	
   BGS	   and	   MARUM,	
   have	
   to	
   be	
   asked	
   if	
   ECORD	
   can	  provisionally	
   book	   the	   equipment	
   for	   the	   low-­‐cost	
   expedition	
   years	
   because	
   there	
   is	
   a	
  
high	
   demand	   on	
   these	   systems	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   The	   expeditions	
   are	   season-­‐dependent	
   and	  they	
   have	
   different	
   lengths	
   with	   different	
   transit	
   times.	
   Therefore,	
   the	   owners	
   of	
   the	  systems	
  should	  not	  be	
  asked	  for	  a	  particular	
  time	  in	  a	
  particular	
  year.	
  They	  just	  have	
  to	
  
know	
  that	  there	  is	
  interest	
  (K.	
  Gohl).	
  MARUM	  tries	  to	
  increase	
  from	  two	  to	
  three	  MeBo	  expeditions	
   per	   year	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
   Two	   systems	
   for	   shallower	
   drilling	
   and	   two	   years	
   for	  deeper	   drilling	
   with	
   the	   MeBo200	
   could	
   be	
   booked	
   sending	
   a	
   letter	
   of	
   interest	
   (K.	
   Gohl).	
  In	
  addition,	
  a	
  decision	
  for	  a	
  research	
  ship	  has	  to	
  be	
  made	  two	
  years	
  ahead	
  (D.	
  Smith).	
  It	
  should	  be	
  stated	
  that	  in	
  FY19	  there	  is	
  the	
  probability	
  that	  ECORD	
  uses	  one	  of	
  the	
  seabed	
  drilling	
   systems	
   (G.	
   Dickens).	
   Options	
   should	
   be	
   put	   at	
   the	   MARUM	
   and	   the	   BGS	   two	  years	
  ahead	
  (G.	
  Camoin).	
  The	
  first	
  option	
  for	  an	
  expedition	
  using	  the	
  seabed	
  drills	
  would	
  
be	
  in	
  FY19	  and	
  FY20	
  (R.	
  Gatliff).	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

56	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Ø Action	
   (K.	
   Gohl):	
   to	
   address	
   a	
   letter	
   to	
   the	   BGS	   and	   MARUM	
   expressing	
   an	  interest	
  in	
  using	  their	
  seabed	
  drilling	
  systems.	
  
	
  
An	
   application	
   for	   long-­‐piston	
   coring	
   has	   to	
   be	
   done	   two	
   to	
   three	
   years	
   ahead	
   (G.	
  Camoin).	
   There	
   will	
   be	   a	   second	
   review	
   of	
   the	   proposal	
   at	
   the	   French	
   level	
   (G.	
  Lericolais).	
   The	   IPEV	
   will	
   have	
   a	
   booth	
   at	
   the	   EGU	   and	   there	
   the	   new	
   ship	
   Marion	  Dufresne	
   and	   the	   long	
   piston-­‐coring	
   system	
   can	   be	   discussed	
   (G.	
   Camoin).	
   A	
   French	
  principal	
  investigator	
  has	  to	
  apply	
  (G.	
  Lericolais).	
  The	
  principal	
  proponent	
  of	
  the	
  IODP	  proposal	
  does	  not	  have	  to	  be	
  French	
  (G.	
  Lericolais/G.	
  Camoin).	
  	
  
	
  
(14:35)	
  	
  
	
  

7.	
  Review	
  of	
  Decisions	  and	  Actions	
  (K.	
  Gohl/N.	
  Hallmann/All)	
  	
  (14:44)	
  	
  
	
  

9.	
  Any	
  other	  business	
  (K.	
  Gohl)	
  	
  None.	
  
	
  
	
  
K.	
  Gohl	  closed	
  the	
  meeting	  at	
  14:57.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

57	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

ROSTER	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
MEMBERS	
  

NAME	
  
	
  

EMAIL	  	  a)	  ECORD	  Exec.	
  Bureau	  ECORD	
  Council-­‐F	  
ECORD	
  Council-­‐GER	  ECORD	
  Council-­‐UK	
  ECORD	
  Council-­‐UK	
  (Alt.)	
  ECORD	
  Council-­‐CH	  ECORD	
  Council-­‐DEN	
  
EMA	
  
ESSAC	  ESO	  ECORD	
  ILP	  	  b)	  Science	  Board	
  
EFB	
  
EFB	
  
EFB	
  
EFB	
  
EFB	
  
	
  
c)	
  Funding	
  agencies	
  
NSF	
  	
  
MEXT	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
LIAISONS	  	
  Michel	  Diament	
  Guido	
  Lüniger	
  Michael	  Webb*	  Jessica	
  Surma	  (Alt.)	  Martina	
  Kern-­‐Lütschg	
  Anders	  Kjaër*	  Gilbert	  Camoin	
  Gretchen	
  Früh-­‐Green	
  Robert	  Gatliff	
  Andrea	  Moscariello	
  
	
  
	
  
Karsten	
  Gohl	  (Chair)	
  Antonio	
  Cattaneo	
  Gerald	  Dickens	
  Marta	  Torres	
  Dominique	
  Weis	
  
	
  
	
  
Tom	
  Janecek	  Yuzuru	  Kimura*	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

IODP	
  Forum	  Science	  Support	
  Office	
  
SEP	
  
SEP	
  	
  
EPSP	
  
EPSP	
  
JR	
  Facility	
  Board	  Chikyu	  IODP	
  Board	
  
CDEX	
  –	
  JAMSTEC	  	
  J-­‐DESC	
  	
  
JR	
  Science	  Operator	
  KIGAM	  	
  IODP-­‐India	
  
MoES	
  
IODP-­‐China	
  ANZIC	  	
  CAPES	  	
  CAPES	
  	
  
	
  

Keir	
  Becker	
  kbecker@rsmas.miami.edu	
  Holly	
  Given	  hgiven@iodp.org	
  Dick	
  Kroon	  	
  dkroon@staffmail.ed.ac.uk	
  David	  Mallinson	
  mallinsond@ecu.edu	  Barry	
  Katz*	  barrykatz@chevron.com	
  Dieter	  Strack	
  ddhstrack@aol.com	
  Susan	
  Humphris	
  shumphris@whoi.edu	
  Gaku	
  Kimura	
  gaku@eps.s.u-­‐tokyo.ac.jp	
  Nobuhisa	
  Eguchi	
  neguchi@jamstec.go.jp	
  Hiroshi	
  Nishi	  hnishi@m.tohoku.ac.jp;	
  info@j-­‐desc.org	
  Mitch	  Malone	  malone@iodp.tamu.edu	
  Se	
  Won	
  Chang	  swchang@kigam.re.kr	  Dhananjai	  Pandey*	
  pandey@ncaor.gov.in	
  Brijesh	  Bansal*	
  bansalbk@nic.in	
  Shouting	
  Tuo	
  iodp_china@tongji.edu.cn	
  Leanne	  Armand	
  leanne.armand@mq.edu.au	
  Marcio	  de	
  Castro	
  Silva	
  Filho*	  	
  marcio.filho@capes.gov.br	
  Sidney	  Luiz	  De	
  Matos	
  Mello*	
  smello@id.uff.br	
  
	
  
	
  

58	
  

diament@ipgp.fr	
  guido.lueniger@dfg.de	
  mweb@nerc.ac.uk	
  jetc@nerc.ac.uk	
  mkern@snf.ch	
  akj@fi.dk	
  camoin@cerege.fr	
  frueh-­‐green@erdw.ethz.ch	  rwga@bgs.ac.uk	  andrea.moscariello@unige.ch	
  
	
  
	
  
karsten.gohl@awi.de	
  antonio.cattaneo@ifremer.fr	
  jerry@rice.edu	
  marta.torres1@gmail.com	
  dweis@eos.ubc.ca	
  
	
  
	
  
tjanecek@nsf.gov	
  yzkimura@mext.go.jp	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
OBSERVERS/GUESTS	
  

	
  

ESO-­‐BGS	  ESO-­‐BGS	  ESO-­‐BGS	  ESO-­‐MARUM	  ESO-­‐BCR	  ESO-­‐EPC	  ESO-­‐EPC	
  
EMA	
  
EMA	
  
VSEGEI	  	
  VSEGEI	  	
  EFB	
  incoming	  member	  EFB	  incoming	  member	  EFB	  incoming	  member	  David	
  McInroy	  Dave	
  Smith	  Alan	
  Stevenson	
  Albert	  Gerdes	
  Ursula	  Röhl	  Sarah	  Davies	  Sally	
  Morgan	
  Nadine	  Hallmann	  Patricia	
  Maruéjol	  Oleg	
  Petrov*	
  Olga	
  Shneider*	  Fumio	
  Inagaki	  Gilles	  Lericolais	
  Stephen	  Gallagher	  	
  dbm@bgs.ac.uk	
  djsm@bgs.ac.uk	
  agst@bgs.ac.uk	
  agerdes@marum.de	
  uroehl@marum.de	
  sjd27@leicester.ac.uk	
  sm509@le.ac.uk	
  hallmann@cerege.fr	
  maruejol@crpg.cnrs-­‐nancy.fr	
  vsegei@vsegei.ru	  Olga_Shneider@vsegei.ru	
  inagaki@jamstec.go.jp	
  gilles.lericolais@ifremer.fr	
  sjgall@unimelb.edu.au	
  

	
  
*	
  Apologies	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
Andrea	  Moscariello,	
  Martina	
  Kern-­‐Lütschg	
  and	
  Jessica	
  Surma	  left	  on	
  March	  25.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

59	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

LIST	
  OF	
  ACRONYMS	  	  AAPG:	
  American	
  Association	
  of	
  Petroleum	
  Geologists	  ACEX:	
  Arctic	
  Coring	
  Expedition	
  ADP:	
  Amphibious	
  Drilling	
  Proposal	
  AGU:	
  American	
  Geophysical	
  Union	  ANZIC:	
  Australian	
  and	  New	
  Zealand	
  IODP	
  Consortium	
  APL:	
  Ancillary	
  Project	  Letter	
  BCR:	
  Bremen	  Core	  Repository	  BF:	
  Biosphere	
  Frontiers	
  BGS:	
  British	  Geological	
  Survey	
  BOP:	
  Blow	
  Out	  Preventer	  CAB:	
  Curatorial	
  Advisory	  Board	  CAPES:	
  Coordination	
  for	  the	
  Improvement	
  of	
  Higher	  Education	
  Personnel	  CDEX:	  Center	
  for	
  Deep	
  Earth	  Exploration	
  CIB:	
  Chikyu	
  IODP	
  Board	  CO:	
  Climate	
  and	
  Ocean	
  Change	
  COI:	
  Conflict	
  of	
  Interest	
  CPP:	
  Complementary	  Project	  Proposal	
  DIS:	
  Drilling	
  Information	
  System	  DLP:	
  Distinguished	
  Lecturer	  Programme	
  DREAM:	
  Deep-­‐sea	
  Record	
  of	
  Mediterranean	  Messinian	
  Events	
  EC:	
  Earth	  Connections	  ECORD:	
  European	
  Consortium	
  for	
  Ocean	  EFB:	
  ECORD	
  Facility	
  Board	  EGU:	
  European	
  Geosciences	
  Union	  E-­‐ILP:	
  ECORD	
  Industry	
  Liaison	  Panel	  EM:	
  Earth	  in	
  Motion	
  EMA:	
  ECORD	  Managing	
  Agency	
  EPC:	
  European	
  Petrophysics	
  Consortium	  EPSP:	  Environmental	
  Protection	  and	
  Safety	
  Panel	  ESO:	  ECORD	
  Science	  Operator	
  ESSAC:	
  ECORD	
  Science	  Support	
  and	
  Advisory	
  Committee	
  ETH:	
  Swiss	
  Federal	
  Institute	
  of	
  Technology	
  EU:	
  European	
  Union	  FB:	
  Facility	
  Board	
  FY:	
  Fiscal	
  Year	  GEOMAR:	
  Helmholtz	
  Centre	
  for	
  Ocean	
  Research	
  Kiel	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

GESEP:	
  German	  Scientific	
  Drilling	
  Consortium	  IALE:	
  Independent	  Administrative	  Legal	  Entity	  ICDP:	  International	
  Continental	
  Scientific	
  Drilling	
  Program	
  ICDP	  EC:	  ICDP	
  Executive	  Committee	
  IKC:	
  In-­‐kind	
  contribution	  IODP:	  Integrated	
  Ocean	
  Drilling	
  Program	  (2003-­‐2013)	
  &	
  International	  Ocean	
  Discovery	
  Program	
  (2013-­‐2023)	
  IPEV:	
  Institut	
  polaire	  Paul	  Emile	  Victor	
  JAMSTEC:	
  Japan	  Agency	
  for	
  Marine	
  Earth	  Science	
  and	
  Technology	
  JDC:	
  Japan	
  Drilling	
  Company	
  J-­‐DESC	
  :	
  Japan	
  Drilling	
  Earth	  Science	
  Consortium	  JOIDES:	
  Joint	
  Oceanographic	
  Institutions	
  for	  Deep	
  Earth	  Sampling	  JR:	
  JOIDES	
  Resolution	  JR-­‐FB:	
  JOIDES	
  Resolution	
  Facility	
  Board	  KIGAM:	
  Korea	
  Institute	
  of	
  Geoscience	
  and	
  Mineral	
  Resources	
  MARUM:	
  Center	
  for	
  Marine	
  Environmental	  Sciences,	
  University	
  of	
  Bremen	  MAT:	
  Mutually	
  Agreed	
  Terms	  mbsf:	
  metres	
  below	
  seafloor	
  MDP:	
  Multi-­‐phase	
  Drilling	
  Project	  MeBo:	
  Meeresboden-­‐Bohrgerät	
  MEXT:	
  Ministry	
  of	
  Education,	
  Culture,	  Sports,	
  Science	
  &	
  Technology,	
  Japan	  MoES:	
  Ministry	
  of	
  Earth	  Sciences	  MoU:	
  Memorandum	
  of	
  Understanding	  MSCL:	  Multi-­‐Sensor	
  Core	  Logger	
  MSP:	
  Mission-­‐specific	
  platform	
  NanTroSEIZE:	
  Nankai	  Trough	
  SEIsmogenic	
  Zone	
  Experiment	
  NDA:	
  Non-­‐disclosure	
  Agreement	  NERC:	  Natural	
  Environment	  Research	
  Council	  NSF:	
  National	
  Science	  Foundation	
  OSP:	
  Onshore	
  Science	  Party	  PIC:	
  Prior	
  Informed	
  Consent	  QA/QC:	
  Quality	
  Assurance/Quality	
  Control	
  

60	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
RD2:	
  Rockdrill	
  2	
  
SAG:	
  Science	  Advisory	
  Group	  SEDIS:	
  Scientific	
  Earth	  Drilling	
  Information	
  Service	  SEP:	
  Science	  Evaluation	
  Panel	  SSC:	
  Scientific	
  Steering	
  Committee	
  SSDB:	
  Site	  Survey	
  Data	  Bank	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

SSO:	
  Science	  Support	
  Office	
  
TBD:	
  To	
  be	
  determined	
  USAC:	  US	  Advisory	  Committee	
  for	
  Scientific	
  Ocean	
  Drilling	  VSEGEI:	
  A.	
  P.	
  Karpinsky	
  Russian	  Geological	
  Research	
  Institute	
  

61	
  

ECORD news

ECORD membership and mid‐term renewal
In early 2016, ECORD has welcomed back one of its historical members, Spain, who
withdrew from the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program in 2011. Spain is therefore the18th ECORD member country (http://www.ecord.org/pdf/ECORD‐Headlines_7.pdf). ECORD
hopes to increase again its membership soon as contacts with Russia and Turkey havebeen active over the last months. Russian and Turkish representatives have attended the
ECORD Council and ESSAC held in Naples, Italy on October 28th and 29th, 2015. In
addition, an ECORD delegation and three Distinguished Lecturers have presented
ECORD activities and science talks during an ECORD‐IODP day organized on October
15th, 2015 in the frame of the 2nd Coastal and Marine Geology Symposium held in
Istanbul, Turkey.
Like other IODP partners, ECORD will start soon to elaborate its plans for mid‐term
renewal which will take place in 2018 for most of its member countries (13 out of thecurrent 18 members). These plans will include a consortium review, most likely
occurring in 2017, and a mix of criteria for successful renewal involving both significant
science results measured against the Science Plan and success of our financial model for
platform operations. A special attention will be given to the ECORD member countries
expecting a decision regarding further financial commitment earlier than 2018.
The conclusions of the report “Sea Change” Decadal Survey of Ocean Sciences report
released early in 2015 (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21655/sea‐change‐2015‐2025‐decadal‐
survey‐of‐ocean‐sciences) will have major implications for the US JOIDES Resolution mid‐term renewal plans. NSF has accepted the recommendations of the report which were
centered on restoring a healthier balance between research and infrastructure funding
within the Division of Ocean Sciences and including a 10% reduction in JR infrastructure
cost, the use of part of Complementary Project proposal (CPP) expeditions income andan increase in partner contributions to maintain current quotas of partner shipboard
participants for post‐renewal JR operations. A formal renegotiation of MoUs with JR
partners, including ECORD, will be required in early 2018, with preliminary negotiations
beginning even sooner.

Mission Specific Platforms (MSP) expeditions
The IODP Expedition 357 “Serpentinisation and Life” has been implemented in October ‐December 2015 with the aims to better understand the role of serpentinization in
driving hydrothermal systems, in sustaining microbial communities, and in thesequestration of carbon in ultramafic rock. The IODP Expedition 364 “Chicxulub Impact
Crater”, planned in April‐May 2016, will investigate the only known impact structure on
Earth that has been directly linked to a mass extinction event.
Two polar expeditions dedicated to Cenozoic climate changes, “Antarctic Cenozoic
Paleoclimate” (IODP Proposal #813) and “Arctic Ocean Paleoceanography” (IODP
Proposal #708) that will be implemented in 2018, as well as the probable scheduling ofa low‐cost expedition in 2017 complete the 2015‐2018 operational plan for MSP
expeditions that have been recently defined by the ECORD Facility Board. This
demonstrates the ECORD’s commitment to deliver an average of one MSP expedition ayear for the International Ocean Discovery Program. With proposals #581‐Coralgal
Banks, #637‐New England Shelf Hydrogeology and #716‐Hawaiian Drowned Reefs,
there are currently three proposals in the EFB holding bin, and more proposals are
expected to be forwarded from the SEP. The proposal #730‐Sabine Bank has been
forwarded to the EFB in January 2016.

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

758 Atlantis M.
MeBo70 & RD‐II,LC

548 Chicxulub
jack‐up, MC

none
(LC?)

813 Antarctic
RD‐II, LC‐MC

LC

LC

MC

LC

HC

708 Arctic
drill ship, HC

LC = low‐cost (<$8M) MC = mid‐cost ($8‐15M) HC = high‐cost (>$15M)
MeBo70 and RockDrill‐2 (RD‐II) are seabed drilling systems
Long‐term scheduling strategy of the EFB for MSP expeditions

The schheduled MSP expedittions and thet active MSP
M propoosals in IOD
DP evaluattion andoperatiional structtures (ECO
ORD facilityy Board, SEEP) address diverse sscience top
pics (e.g.
geomicrobiology, tectono‐m
magmatic processes,peffects off large im
mpacts on Earth’s
environnment, paleeoceanograaphy, climaate and ice histories) and imply a rapidly evolvinge
MSP technology withw
the usse of a varriety of inn
novative drrilling systeems (seaflo
oor drillg
al vessels)) and the developm
ment of asssociatedtechnollogy, jack up rigs, geotechnica
loggingg capability
y for those drills.
d
The evolution ofo the MSP concept haas been con
nductedin a neew funding environm
ment inclu
uding “in kindkcontrributions” (e.g., icebrreakers,
support vessels) that can be proposedd by any IODP membber or nonn‐member country(see htttp://www.ecord.org//about/abo
outecord.httml) and ad
dditional caash contribution to
help reeducing the direct ECORD
E
fun
nding of th
he MSP op
perational costs. Thee

IODP

Expedittion 357 “SSerpentinissation and Life” has beenb
the firrst IODP exxpedition too utiliseseabed drills (BGSS Seafloor RockdrillR
2 and the MARUM
M
MeBo) that haave been deployed
he NERC ressearch vesssel RRS Jam
mes Cook prrovided as ana in‐kind contributioon.
from thThe EC
CORD Facility Board further developedd its longg‐term sch
heduling strategy,saccountting for th
he large sp
pread of expeditionecosts – whichw
largely depend on therequireed type of drillingdplaatform – annd for budgget limits on average annual exp
peditioncosts. By projecting budget constraints until the end of the current IODP phase in 2023,
the EFB expects that one more high‐cost expedition, one medium‐cost expedition andabout three or four low‐cost expeditions can be scheduled at future meetings.
Provisional reservations have been made for seabed drilling systems MeBo70/200 and
RockDrill‐II to accommodate any proposal demands. The operations of these systems aswell as long‐piston coring can be conducted in the low‐cost category provided that the
research vessels are contributed in‐kind.

ECORD partnership
Thirty nine ECORD scientists, including four co‐chief scientists, were invited to sail on
the IODP expeditions implemented by the JOIDES Resolution (354‐« Bengal Fan » ; 356‐
« Indonesian Throughflow » ; 359‐« Maldives Monsoon » and 360‐« Indian Ridge
Moho » ; http://www.iodp.org/expeditions) as well as the very high number of ECORD
proponents in active proposals (492, including 35 lead proponents, out of 1258 uniqueproponents), reflect the outstanding intellectual contribution of the ECORD science
community to IODP.
At its last meeting which was held on March 12th, 2015 in Stockholm, Sweden, the
ECORD Council has reiterated its strong support to the Chikyu programme but has
expressed concerns about the delay in the implementation of Chikyu expeditions in theInternational Ocean Discovery Program. A first engineering expedition, with a limitedscientific party is scheduled in 2016 and the implementation of the riserless expedition“Nankai Trough Temperature Limit” in January‐March 2017 is subject to fundavailability and not yet secured. ECORD has therefore decided to suspend its
membership contribution of the Chikyu programme for at least the two years, 2015 and2016, with the firm intention to continue its membership as soon as the situation
changes.
ECORD‐ICDP collaboration

The newly defined Amphibious Drilling Proposals (ADPs) that require both onland andat‐sea drilling to fully complete scientific objectives that cross the shoreline shape astronger and closer collaboration between ICDP and IODP, especially through ECORD
given that most ADPs will likely involve MSP operations. The procedures for a joint
evaluation of ADPs have been approved by the IODP Science Evaluation Panel, all three
IODP Facility Boards, and the ICDP Executive Committee and Assembly of Governors.
The final step has consisted in the definition and formalisation of ADP’s implementation
policies by a working group including two representatives of each programme (D.
McInroy and G. Camoin for ECORD/IODP, and Uli Harms and C. Koeberl for ICDP). Thisimplantation plan has now to be approved by the three IODP Facility Boards, and the
ICDP SAG and AOG.
To initiate the writing and submission of such proposals, a specific annual budget has
been assigned to ADPs by ECORD and ICDP for the organization of workshops in theframe of the MagellanPlus Workshop Series Programme.
Gilbert Camoin
Director of the ECORD Managing Agency
camoin@cerege.fr

MEXT Report to CIB #4 Meeting(23-24 March 2016)

1. Personnel Change
Director of Ocean and Earth Division was changed from Mr. Takashi Kiyoura
to Mr. Takahiro Hayashi.
2. Japanese Renewal Plan
National research organizations are renewed every 5 years.

Current term of

JAMSTEC’s five-year-plan was started in April 2014, and will close in March 2019 (3rdterm).

By the end of FY 2018, JAMSTEC’s five-year plan will be technically reviewed

in the light of Chikyu/IODP operations by the committee that are designated by MEXT.
Minister of MEXT makes a decision for the renewal.
Contents of the current JAMSTEC’s Five-year Plan is as follows.
1) Focused on fundamental and strategic researches based on general public needs.
1-1) Research on Marine Resources.
1-2) Research on global environmental change.
1-3) Research on seismo-genic zones.
1-4) Research on life science and technology.
1-5) Research on leading-edge engineering developments.
2) Effective and efficient operation of infrastructures.
3) Information sharing and it’s management.
4) Center Of Excellence for brain circulation and capacity building.
5) Create marine science and technology innovations by collaborations with industries
and academies.
Review Process in JAMSTEC is as follows.
5-year plan has been started from 2014.

The term of current JAMSTEC’s

JAMSTEC evaluates 5-year plan by its own

review committee every year and sends report to Minister of MEXT.

Science andtechnology achievements of the current term will be reviewed by 2018.
closing must due by 31 March 2019.

Financial

No budget shall be carried over between current

term and the next term.
3. JAMSTEC Budget Allocation
Budget allocation is JAMSTEC has been deceased.

Ministry of Finance(MOF) is responsible for its budget allocation, and evaluates several sectors every year.
MOF studied the implementation of Chikyu budget in FY2014, and recommended
several actions for improvement on contract procedures from financial point of view.
In 2015, MOF recommended that MEXT should advise JAMSTEC to revise scope ofwork of the contract between JAMSTEC and Chikyu operator.

Chikyu IODP Board Meeting
23‐24 March 2016, Kobe, Japan
Australia‐New Zealand IODP Governing Council Report
General Comments
ANZIC is very pleased with IODP activities, especially those approved and likely to be approved in our
region. ANZIC is particularly looking forward to JOIDES Resolution's Sumatra Seismogenesis
Expedition (362), and Pacific Warm Pool Expedition (363), and SW Australia Cretaceous Expedition(369) to our region. However, ANZIC was disappointed to receive the news that the JOIDES
Resolution Great Australian Bight proposal (884‐CPP) was deactivated by the IODP ScientificEvaluation Panel (SEP) at its meeting in January 2016. The proponents are now working towardsubmitting a single‐hole OAE2 APL before 1 April 2016. This APL hole could be attached to Expedition
369 in late 2017.
ANZIC welcomes the decision for the JOIDES Resolution Lord Howe Rise (832‐Full2) and Ross Sea(751‐Full2) proposals to be sent to the Environment Protection and Safety Panel. ANZIC are also
pleased to note that there is the potential for significant IODP activity on the JOIDES Resolution
within its region over the coming years, with the Hikurangi Margin proposal (781A‐Full) to be drilled;
and the probable drilling of the Brothers Arc Flux proposal (818‐Full); and both the Lord Howe Rise
(832‐Full2) and West Antarctic Ice Sheet (751‐Full2) proposals being serious possibilities for drilling.
ANZIC is also pleased to note the participation of Prof. Bradley Opdyke (Sedimentologist) and Dr
Jennifer Wurtzel (Petrophysicist), both of the Australian National University, on the Western PacificWarm Pool Expedition (363); and Dr Emanuelle Frery from the Commonwealth Scientific andIndustrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) on the Mariana Convergent Margin Expedition (366).
ANZIC is waiting for Chikyu program, and are finalising arrangements to provide NSF with an extra
US$300K p.a. for two years to give us more JOIDES Resolution positions.
An IODP symposium will be convened at the Australian Earth Science Convention (Australia’s
national geoscience conference) from 27‐30 June 2016 in Adelaide, South Australia. ANZIC is pleased
to note presentations at the symposium from Brad Clement about the JOIDES Resolution program;
Jamie Austin (IODP Forum chair) about IODP’s future plans; Gilbert Camoin (ECORD Director) about
European IODP; Nadine Hallmann (ECORD Assistant Director) about their alternative drilling platform
activities, including the planned Antarctic Cenozoic Climate expedition on the margin south ofAustralia; and Shin’ichi Kuramoto (JAMSTEC) about Chikyu activities.

Lord Howe Rise (Proposal 871‐CPP)
ANZIC was pleased to receive the news that the full proposal for the Chikyu Lord Howe Rise proposal(871‐CPP) was reviewed positively by the SEP at their January 2016 meeting. The SEP has suggested
some minor improvements and requested re‐submission by 1 April 2016. Geoscience Australia and
JAMSTEC are now working closely with the principal proponents to make the required changes andhave identified actions and assigned tasks in revising the proposal to meet the deadline. Geoscience1Australia has received environmental approval for the pre‐drilling site survey. The survey – the firstof two co‐funded site surveys by Geoscience Australia and JAMSTEC – will be undertaken between
23 March 2016 (departure from Brisbane for Leg 1) and 11 May 2016 (arrival back in Brisbane after
Leg 3) to collect deep regional seismic refraction data from across the Lord Howe Rise, and seismicreflection data at all of the proposed drill sites.

Hikurangi Margin (Proposal 781B‐Full)
ANZIC was also pleased to receive the news that the National Science Foundation (NSF) is planningto fund the Hikurangi 3D seismic survey proposal. Co‐funding has been secured from the UK and
New Zealand to support Langseth ship time. A seafloor geodetic experiment (using seafloor absolutepressure gauges to measure vertical deformation) in the drilling transect area has been completed.
During the experiment there was a large slow slip event directly beneath the offshore network. The
results indicate that slow slip extends to much shallower portions of the subduction interface thanpreviously expected – as far up‐dip as 2 km below the seafloor, and possibly all the way to the trench.
A manuscript was submitted to Science and has received positive reviews. Also, new riser drilling
targets that intersect areas of large slow slip (5‐10 cm) at 2‐3 km below the seafloor have been
identified. Plans are to submit an addendum to the Hikurangi riser proposal 781B‐Full, with thesealternative, shallower sites, for the 1 April 2016 IODP deadline. Once the 3D dataset is acquired, theproponents will be able to propose additional alternate drilling sites.

Dr Andrew D. Heap
ANZIC Representative
Geoscience Australia2Proposal to establish the Chikyu‐Science Technology Panel(Chikyu‐STP) for future IODP missions of the Chikyu
Adaptation of the Chikyu's drilling technology to the needs of basic science
will be an important challenge that needs to be addressed as integral
component in plans for future IODP missions of the Chikyu. Implementationof science‐oriented drilling and coring technologies for high‐quality samples,
as well as borehole sensing and in‐situ experimentations as described in
IODP New Science Plan, would provide grand opportunities for Earthsystem sciences.
The Japan‐Drilling Earth Science Consortium (J‐DESC) would like topropose establishing a new advisory panel organization for scientifictechnology under the Chikyu IODP Board (CIB). This advisory body isdesignated as "Chikyu‐STP", which is somewhat equivalent to the ScientificTechnology Panel (STP) in the IODP‐Science Advisory Structure until 2012.
The Chikyu‐STP will identify and recommend useful technologies toaccomplish challenging IODP missions on the Chikyu and has a bridgefunction between scientific community and the CDEX Technical Advisory
Team (TAT: see below).
Background
During the previous phase of IODP, the STP worked as a program
functionality regarding scientific technology. The activities include 1) acontinuous effort to maintain Scientific Technology Roadmap documenting
technological elements required for IODP projects based on scientificdemands and up‐to‐date technologies in the industry, and 2) technicalreview of measurement plans and post‐cruise QA/QC for each drilling
expedition conducted on multiple IODP platforms. In the current IODP
system, the CDEX Technical Advisory Team (TAT) was established under the
CIB to assist CDEX in conducting operational plans from the engineering
viewpoint. However, direct pathways from the science community to
CIB/CDEX have been severely minimized; the functionality for harvestingscientific demands, knowledge, and solution ideas is still missing.
Potential Tasks of “Chikyu‐STP”‐ An expert group, serving as a coordinating role between science
communities and the CIB/CDEX regarding scientific technology.
‐ Identification and evaluation of "project‐specific" needs including upgradeof drilling/coring/sub‐sampling techniques (incl. QA/QC), downhole andshipboard measurements, material and information handling, based on
demands from the proponent group and science community.
‐ Recommendation of new or improved technologies to the science operator

to make the maximum use of Chikyu’s capability and maximize scientificsuccess of each project, by the mutual assistance of the TAT and Chikyu‐STP
in terms of technology development and engineering constraints.
‐ Further communication with the other “STP‐like” organizations among the
program through the facility boards and the IODP Forum for the futureadvancement and innovation of scientific ocean drilling.
‐ Transforming new technologies or technological solutions with scientificcommunities and public societies through IODP publications, Scientific
Drilling journal, etc.
J‐DESC IODP Section

Agenda Item 9
Chikyu Operation/status Updatea. IODP Exp.365 updateb. PCT report
1. Nankai Trough T-Limits PCT report
2. NanTroSEIZE PCT reportInternational Ocean Discovery Program
Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus
NanTroSEIZE Stage 3: Shallow Megasplay Long-Term
Borehole Monitoring System (LTBMS)

Achim Kopf
Co-Chief Scientist
MARUM – Center for Marine Environmental Sciences
University of Bremen
Leobener Strasse
28359 Bremen
Germany

Demian Saffer
Co-Chief Scientist
Department of Geosciences
The Pennsylvania State University
534 Deike Building
University Park PA 16802
USA

Sean Toczko
Expedition Project Manager/Staff Scientist
Program Operations GroupIODP Department
CDEX, JAMSTEC
3173-25 Showa-machi
Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama
236-0001
Japan

Publisher’s notes
This publication was prepared by the D/V Chikyu Science Operator, the Center for Deep Earth
Exploration (CDEX), at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) as
an account of work performed under the International Ocean Discovery Program. Funding for the
program is provided by the following implementing organizations and international partners:
National Science Foundation (NSF), United States
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD)
Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), People’s Republic of China
Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM)
Australian-New Zealand IODP Consortium (ANZIC)
Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), India
Coordination for Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Brazil (CAPES)
Portions of this work may have been published in whole or in part in other International Ocean
Discovery Program documents or publications.
This IODP Scientific Prospectus is based on precruise JOIDES Resolution Facility advisory panel
discussions and scientific input from the designated Co-Chief Scientists on behalf of the drilling
proponents. During the course of the cruise, actual site operations may indicate to the Co-Chief
Scientists, the Staff Scientist/Expedition Project Manager, and the Operations Superintendent that it
would be scientifically or operationally advantageous to amend the plan detailed in this prospectus.

Disclaimer
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication arethose of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the participating agencies or Japan
Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.

Copyright
Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
License. Unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction is permitted, provided the original authorand source are credited.

CitationKopf, A., Saffer, D., and Toczko, S., 2015. Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus: NanTroSEIZE Stage 3: shallow megasplay long-term borehole monitoring system (LTBMS). International Ocean Discovery Program.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14379/iodp.sp.365.2015

ISSN
World Wide Web: 2332-1385

December 2015

A. Kopf et al.

Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus

Abstracttional and layout details of the Chikyu can be found at
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/chikyu/e/chikyuexp. The entire expedition comprises a total of 33 days (including 5 days of contingencytime) for GeniusPlug recovery, drilling to deepen the hole, and longterm borehole monitoring system (LTBMS) installation (Table T1),
as described in this Scientific Prospectus.

The Nankai Trough Seismogenic Zone Experiment (NanTroSEIZE) program is a coordinated, multiexpedition drilling project
designed to investigate fault mechanics and seismogenesis along
subduction megathrusts through direct sampling, in situ measurements, and long-term monitoring in conjunction with allied laboratory and numerical modeling studies. The fundamental scientificobjectives of the NanTroSEIZE drilling project include characterizing the nature of fault slip and strain accumulation, fault and wallrock composition, fault architecture, and state variables throughout
the active plate boundary system.
International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) Expedition 365
will recover temporary monitoring instruments (a “GeniusPlug”)
from previously drilled and cased Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Site C0010 and deploy a permanent long-term borehole monitoring system (LTBMS) in the same hole after deepening it to ~656
meters below seafloor (mbsf ). These operations will complete
preparations begun during Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 319 and continued during Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 332. This expedition will cover a period of 33 days,
beginning on 26 March and ending on 27 April 2016.
Site C0010 is located 3.5 km north of Integrated Ocean Drilling
Program Site C0004 and was first drilled during Expedition 319.
Operations during that expedition included drilling through themegasplay fault zone and into its footwall using logging while drilling (LWD), setting casing with screens spanning the fault zone, andinstallation of a simple temporary observatory (a “SmartPlug”) tomonitor fluid pressure and temperature in the screened interval.
Major lithologic boundaries as well as the location of the megasplay
fault at ~407 mbsf were identified in LWD data and were used to
select a depth interval spanning the fault for placement of the two
screened casing joints. Three distinct lithologic packages were observed at Site C0010: slope deposits (Unit I, 0–182.5 mbsf ), thrustwedge (Unit II, 182.5–407 mbsf ), and overridden slope deposits(Unit III, 407 mbsf to total depth). During Expedition 332, theSmartPlug was recovered and replaced with an upgraded version,
the GeniusPlug, which includes a set of geochemical and biologicalexperiments housed in a 30 cm extension. This GeniusPlug will berecovered and replaced with a permanent LTBMS, which will belater linked to the Dense Oceanfloor Network System for Earthquakes and Tsunamis (DONET) submarine network. This Scientific
Prospectus outlines the scientific rationale, objectives, and operational plans for Site C0010 and describes the contingency plan.

Introduction
Overview of the NanTroSEIZE drilling projectSubduction zones account for 90% of global seismic moment release and generate damaging earthquakes and tsunamis with potentially disastrous effects on heavily populated coastal areas (e.g., Layet al., 2005; Moreno et al., 2010; Simons et al., 2011). Understanding
the processes that govern the strength, nature, and distribution ofslip along these plate boundary fault systems is a crucial step toward
evaluating earthquake and tsunami hazards. More generally, characterizing fault slip behavior and mechanical state at all plateboundary types through direct sampling, near-field geophysical observations, measurement of in situ conditions, and shore-based laboratory experiments is a fundamental and societally relevant goal ofmodern earth science. To this end, several recent and ongoing drilling programs have targeted portions of active plate boundary faults
that have either slipped coseismically during large earthquakes or
nucleated smaller events. These efforts include the San Andreas
Fault Observatory at Depth (Hickman et al., 2004), the TaiwanChelungpu Drilling Project (Ma, 2005), and Integrated Ocean Drilling Program drilling in the Nankai Trough (NanTroSEIZE; Tobin
and Kinoshita, 2006a, 2006b) and in the high-slip region of the
March 2011 Tohoku earthquake (JFAST; Chester, Mori, Eguchi,
Toczko, and the Expedition 343/343T Scientists 2013).
The NanTroSEIZE project is a multiexpedition, multistage
IODP drilling project focused on understanding the mechanics ofseismogenesis and rupture propagation along subduction plateboundary faults. NanTroSEIZE includes a coordinated effort tosample and instrument the plate boundary system at several locations offshore the Kii Peninsula, Japan (Tobin and Kinoshita, 2006a,
2006b) (Figures F1, F2). The main objectives are to understand• The mechanisms and processes controlling the updip aseismic–
seismic transition of the megathrust fault system;• Processes of earthquake and tsunami generation;• Mechanics of strain accumulation and release;• The absolute mechanical strength of the plate boundary fault;and• The potential role of a major upper plate fault system (termed
the “megasplay” fault) in seismogenesis and tsunamigenesis.

Schedule for Expedition 365
The operations schedule for International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) Expedition 365 is derived from the original Integrated
Ocean Drilling Program drilling Proposals 603-CDP3, 603C-Full,and603D-Full2(availablefor
downloadat
http://www.iodp.org/600). The D/V Chikyu IODP Board has
charged the Nankai Trough Seismogenic Zone Experiment (NanTroSEIZE) Project Coordination Team (PCT) with formulating astrategy to achieve the overall scientific objectives outlined in all of
the NanTroSEIZE program proposals. The overarching goals andmultistage implementation strategy are described in Tobin andKinoshita (2006a, 2006b).
Expedition 365 is the fourth NanTroSEIZE Stage 3 expedition
and is currently scheduled to begin on 26 March 2016. Details of theoperational schedule, updates to the drilling schedule, and opera-

The drilling program will evaluate a set of core hypotheses
through riser and riserless drilling, long-term observatories, and associated geophysical, laboratory, and numerical modeling efforts.
The following hypotheses are paraphrased from the original Integrated Ocean Drilling Program proposals and outlined in Tobin andKinoshita (2006a, 2006b):
1. Systematic, progressive material and state changes control theonset of seismogenic behavior on subduction thrust faults.
2. Subduction megathrusts are weak faults.
3. Plate motion is accommodated primarily by coseismic frictional
slip in a concentrated zone (i.e., the fault is locked during theinterseismic period).

3

A. Kopf et al.

Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus

4. Physical properties of the plate boundary system (including thefault system and its hanging wall and footwall) change with time
during the earthquake cycle.
5. A significant, laterally extensive upper plate fault system (themegasplay fault; Park et al., 2002) slips in discrete events that
may include tsunamigenic slip during great earthquakes. It remains locked during the interseismic period and accumulates
strain.

(Ichinose et al., 2003; Baba et al., 2005). Land-based geodetic studies
suggest that currently the plate boundary thrust is strongly locked(Miyazaki and Heki, 2001). Similarly, the relatively low level of microseismicity near the updip limits of the 1940s earthquakes (Obanaet al., 2001) implies significant interseismic strain accumulation on
the megathrust. However, recent observations of very low frequency (VLF) earthquakes within or just below the accretionary
prism in the drilling area (Obara and Ito, 2005) demonstrate that interseismic strain is not confined to slow elastic strain accumulation.
Slow slip phenomena, referred to as episodic tremor and slip, including episodic slow slip events and nonvolcanic tremor (Schwartz
and Rokosky, 2007), are also widely known to occur in the downdip
part of the rupture zone (Ito et al., 2007). In the subducting Philippine Sea plate mantle below the rupture zone, weak seismicity is observed (Obana et al., 2005). Seaward of the subduction zone,
deformation of the incoming ocean crust is suggested by microearthquakes as documented by ocean-bottom seismometer (OBS)
studies (Obana et al., 2005).
The region offshore the Kii Peninsula on Honshu Island was selected for seismogenic zone drilling for several reasons. First, therupture area of the most recent great earthquake, the 1944 Mw 8.2
Tonankai event, is well constrained by recent seismic and tsunami
waveform inversions (e.g., Tanioka and Satake, 2001; Kikuchi et al.,2003). Slip inversion studies suggest that only in this region did pastcoseismic rupture clearly extend shallow enough for drilling (Ichinose et al., 2003; Baba and Cummins, 2005), and an updip zone oflarge slip has been identified and targeted (Figure F2). Notably, coseismic slip during events like the 1944 Tonankai earthquake may
have occurred on the megasplay fault in addition to the plateboundary décollement (Ichinose et al., 2003; Baba et al., 2006). The
megasplay fault is therefore a primary drilling target equal in importance to the basal décollement. Second, OBS campaigns and onshore high-resolution geodetic studies (though of short duration)
indicate significant interseismic strain accumulation (e.g., Miyazaki
and Heki, 2001; Obana et al., 2001). Third, the region offshore theKii Peninsula is generally typical of the Nankai margin in terms ofheat flow and sediment on the incoming plate. This is in contrast to
the area offshore Cape Muroto (the location of previous scientificocean drilling), where both local stratigraphic variations associatedwith basement topography and anomalously high heat flow havebeen documented (Moore et al., 2001, 2005; Moore and Saffer,
2001). Finally, the drilling targets are within the operational limits ofriser drilling by Chikyu (i.e., maximum of 2500 m water depth and7000 m subseafloor penetration). In the seaward portions of the Kumano Basin, the seismogenic zone lies ~4700–6000 m beneath theseafloor (Nakanishi et al., 2002).

Sediment-dominated subduction zones such as the East Aleutian, Cascadia, Sumatra, and Nankai margins are characterized byrepeated occurrences of great earthquakes of ~Mw 8.0+ (Ruff andKanamori, 1983). Although the causal mechanisms are not well understood (e.g., Byrne et al., 1988; Moore and Saffer, 2001; Saffer andMarone, 2003) and great earthquakes are also known to occur
within sediment-starved subduction zones such as the Japan
Trench, the updip limit of the seismogenic zones at these margins isthought to correlate with a topographic break, often associated withthe outer rise (e.g., Byrne et al., 1988, Wang and Hu, 2006). Along
the Nankai margin, high-resolution seismic reflection profiles
across the outer rise clearly document a large out-of-sequencethrust fault system (the megasplay fault, after Park et al., 2002) thatbranches from the plate boundary décollement close to the updip
limit of inferred coseismic rupture in the 1944 Tonankai Mw 8.2
earthquake (Figure F1). Several lines of evidence indicate that themegasplay system is active and that it may accommodate an appreciable component of plate boundary motion. However, the partitioning of strain between the lower plate interface (the décollementzone) and the megasplay system, as well as the nature and mechanisms of fault slip as a function of depth and time on the megasplay
are not understood. As stated in the fifth hypothesis above, one of
the first-order goals in characterizing the seismogenic zone along
the Nankai Trough, which bears on both understanding subduction
zone megathrust behavior globally and defining tsunami hazards, isto document the role of the megasplay fault in accommodating platemotion (both seismically and interseismically) and to characterize
its mechanical and hydrologic behavior.

Background
Geological setting
The Nankai Trough is formed by subduction of the Philippine
Sea plate to the northwest beneath the Eurasian plate at a rate of~40–60 mm/y (Seno et al., 1993; Miyazaki and Heki, 2001). The
convergence direction is slightly oblique to the trench, and sediments of the Shikoku Basin are actively accreting at the deformation
front. The Nankai Trough is among the most extensively studied
subduction zones in the world, and great earthquakes during thepast 1300 or more years are well documented in historical and archaeological records (e.g., Ando, 1975). It has been one of the focus
sites for studies of seismogenesis by both the Integrated Ocean
Drilling Program and the U.S. MARGINS initiative, based on thewealth of geological and geophysical data available. A better understanding of seismic and tsunami behavior at margins such as Nankai
is highly relevant to heavily populated coastal areas globally.
The Nankai Trough region has a 1300 y historical record of recurring great earthquakes that are typically tsunamigenic, including
the 1944 Tonankai Mw 8.2 and 1946 Nankaido Mw 8.3 earthquakes(Ando, 1975; Hori et al., 2004). The rupture area and zone of tsunami generation for the 1944 event (within which the site of thisIODP expedition is located) are now reasonably well understood

Seismic studies and site survey data
A significant volume of site survey data has been collected in the
drilling area over many years, including multiple generations of 2-D
seismic reflection (e.g., Park et al., 2002), wide-angle refraction (Nakanishi et al., 2002), passive seismicity (e.g., Obara et al., 2004), heatflow (Yamano et al., 2003), side-scan sonar, swath bathymetry, andsubmersible and remotely operated vehicle (ROV) dive studies(Ashi et al., 2002). In 2006, Japan and the United States conducted ajoint 3-D seismic reflection survey over a ~11 km × 55 km area, acquired by PGS Geophysical, an industry service company (Moore etal., 2009). This 3-D data volume was the first deep-penetration, fully
3-D marine survey ever acquired for basic research purposes andhas been used to (1) refine selection of drill sites and targets in thecomplex megasplay fault region, (2) define the 3-D regional struc-4

A. Kopf et al.

Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus

ture and seismic stratigraphy, (3) analyze physical properties of thesubsurface through seismic attribute studies, and (4) assess drillingsafety (Moore et al., 2007, 2009). These high-resolution, 3-D data
are being used in conjunction with physical properties, petrophysical, and geophysical data obtained from core analyses and both
wireline and logging-while-drilling (LWD) logging to allow extensive and high-resolution integration of core, logs, and seismic data.
The supporting site survey data for Expedition 365 are archived
at the IODP Site Survey Data Bank (http://ssdb.iodp.org/SSDBquery/SSDBquery.php).

pressure and temperature monitoring system (SmartPlug) attached
to a retrievable bridge plug (Expedition 319 Scientists, 2010). The
hole was revisited during Expedition 332, when the SmartPlug wasrecovered (see Expedition 332 Scientists, 2011) and replaced withthe currently deployed GeniusPlug.
Expedition 319 identified three distinct lithologic packages at
Site C0010. From top to bottom, these are hemipelagic slope deposits composed primarily of mud with minor distal turbidite interbeds(logging Unit I, 0–182.5 m LWD depth below seafloor [LSF]), thrustwedge (logging Unit II, 182.5–407 m LSF), and overridden slope deposits (logging Unit III, 407 m LSF to TD). Logging Unit I is divided
into two subunits: Subunit IA (0–161.5 m LSF), characterized by
gamma ray and resistivity patterns similar to those observed in Unit
I at Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Site C0004 (Expedition 314
Scientists, 2009), and Subunit IB (161.5–182.8 m LSF), interpreted
as slope sediments composed of material reworked from the underlying thrust wedge. The lithologic interpretation was made from Expedition 319 LWD data combined with core descriptions frompreviously drilled Holes C0004C and C0004D (Expedition 316 Scientists, 2009).

Long-term observatories
The installation of a series of long-term borehole observatories
across the study area at Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Sites
C0002, C0010, and possibly Site C0006 (Figures F1, F2) began with
operations at Site C0002 during Integrated Ocean Drilling Program
Expedition 332 (Kopf et al., 2011). These sites are located within
and above regions of contrasting behavior of the megasplay fault
zone and plate boundary as a whole. They include a site above theupdip edge of the “locked” zone (Site C0002), a shallow site in themegasplay fault zone and footwall where slip is presumed to beaseismic (the target of Expedition 365; Site C0010), and at the tip of
the accretionary prism (Site C0006), motivated by observed slip in
the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake indicating that at some margins coseismic rupture may propagate along the plate boundary all
the way to the trench (e.g., Fujiwara et al., 2011). Together, the suiteof NanTroSEIZE observatories has the potential to capture seismic
and microseismic activity, slow slip, and interseismic strain accumulation across a transect from the near trench to the seismogenic
zone. Such temporally continuous and spatially distributed observations are necessary to understand how each part of the plate boundary functions through the seismic cycle of megathrust earthquakes.
Currently, the planned observation system for Site C0010 consists of an array of sensors designed to monitor slow crustal deformation (e.g., strain, tilt, and pore pressure as a proxy for strain),seismic events including VLF earthquakes, hydrologic transients associated with strain events, ambient pore pressure, and temperature. To ensure the long-term and continuous monitoring necessary
to capture events that occur over a wide range of timescales, theborehole observatory will be connected to a submarine cabled observation network called Dense Oceanfloor Network System for
Earthquakes and Tsunamis (DONET) (http://www.jamstec.go.jp/donet/e) after the drilling expedition. The LTBMS installed at Site C0002 is already connected to this network, and thedata can be viewed and downloaded at an open-access observatory
data portal (http://offshore.geosc.psu.edu/about).

Site C0010 objectives
Site C0010 will be the second LTBMS installation during NanTroSEIZE (Kopf, Araki, Toczko, and the Expedition 332 Scientists,2011). The downhole configuration of the observatory includes(1) pressure ports, (2) a volumetric strainmeter, (3) a broadband
seismometer, (4) a tiltmeter, (5) three-component geophones,(6) three-component accelerometers, and (7) a thermometer array(Figure F4). The set of sensors is designed to collect, as a whole,multiparameter observations in a wide period range from months
to 0.01 s and a wide dynamic range covering tectonic and hydrologic
events that include responses to local microearthquakes, VLF
earthquakes, and the largest potential earthquake slips of the
Tonankai plate boundary 6 km below the sensors. The observatory
will be linked to the DONET submarine cable observatory network
so that measurements can be observed in real time from a shorebased monitoring station, though it will be initially operated by seafloor installed batteries and data recorders, with data recovery by
subsequent ROV operations.
As a contingency option in case of unforeseeable problems
during installation of the full LTBMS, a Baker-Hughes retrievablebridge plug instrumented with a GeniusPlug will be installed andfunction as a replacement temporary observatory.

Drilling strategy, operations plan, anddownhole measurements

Scientific objectives

Operations plan

Site C0010 background

The operations plan and time estimate (Table T1) are based on
LWD data collected during previous NanTroSEIZE Expedition 319
drilling operations at this site; they will be used to guide the operations described here. The primary operational plan is to conduct
operations in one hole at Site C0010 (Figure F5).

The primary plan for Expedition 365 is to recover the currently
installed GeniusPlug temporary observatory (Figure F3), deepen
Hole C0010A from 555 to 656 meters below seafloor (mbsf ), underream the hole below the 9⅝ inch casing to a 10 inch diameter, andinstall the LTBMS. The hole was originally drilled with LWD andcased during Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 319;
operations included drilling with measurement while drilling(MWD)/LWD across the megasplay fault to a total depth (TD) of
555 mbsf, casing the borehole (with casing screens at the fault), conducting an observatory dummy run to test strainmeter and seismometer deployment procedures, and installation of a simple pore

Hole C0010A
The LTBMS will be set in Unit III, and the strainmeter will be set
in the newly drilled and reamed section of the hole (Figure F5). To
ensure good coupling of the strainmeter to the formation and toeliminate local fluid motion around the seismic sensors and tiltmeter, the sensors will be cemented in the open hole section below the9⅝ inch casing shoe in Unit III. One pressure port will be installed5

A. Kopf et al.

Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus

below the strainmeter to sample pore fluid pressure in the accretionary prism. Above the cemented sensors in the open hole, the 9⅝
inch casing has a screened interval to sample pore fluid pressure
from the splay fault in Unit II, below a swellable packer that serves
to isolate the monitoring interval from the seafloor. The downhole
sensors are digitally connected to the seafloor where power is supplied and data are recovered, whereas pore fluid pressure is transmitted through hydraulic tubing to sensors and data recorders
mounted at the seafloor wellhead.

a request for data/samples from other Integrated Ocean Drilling
Program expeditions, including Expeditions 316 and 319 (which
cored Holes C0004C and C0004D and logged Hole C0010A, respectively), if they wish to conduct postexpedition research on core materials or LWD data collected during those previous expeditions.

Sample and data requests
All shipboard scientists must submit at least one data or sample
request in advance of the drilling expedition. Additional requests
also may be submitted before, during, or after the expedition as necessary to acquire samples or data that will help address fundamental
questions of Expedition 365 or individual research projects. Sample
or data requests may also be submitted by shore-based scientists,
but in case of overlap or potential conflict, the shipboard scientists
will be given top priority. The initial requests provide the basis for
the SAC and Specialty Coordinators to develop an integrated program to meet all of the essential postexpedition research objectives
and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. The initial plan, ofcourse, will be subject to modification depending upon the actual
material/data recovered and on collaborations that may evolve between scientists before and during the expedition(s). Modifications
to this plan during the expedition require the approval of the SAC.
To provide time for the SAC and Specialty Coordinators to develop
a detailed and integrated sampling strategy, data/sample requests
are due by 28 February 2016. Shipboard and shore-based scientists
shouldusetheSample/Data
Requestform(http://web.iodp.tamu.edu/sdrm) to submit their requests.

Logging/Downhole measurements
strategy
Hole C0010A
Because Hole C0010A was previously drilled with LWD/MWD
tools, no logging (other than with basic LWD) is planned for thebottom-hole section of the existing hole (555–656 mbsf ).

Sampling and sample coordination
Expedition 365 will only generate shipboard pressure and temperature data and geochemical samples from the retrieved GeniusPlug. No other data or samples will be collected during the
expedition, other than the results of sensor system integrity tests
from the newly installed LTBMS. Initial data will become available
from the LTBMS after the drilling expedition, at the time of (as-yet
unscheduled) ROV visits to service the observatory and download
data from memory. All shipboard sample and data requests will becoordinated by the Sample Allocation Committee (SAC), with theunderstanding that the limited data and samples available will require shipboard scientists to collaborate closely. Shipboard andshore-based researchers should also refer to the IODP Sample,
Data, and Obligations Policy & Implementation Guidelines at
http://www.iodp.org/program-policies for additional details
about obtaining and using samples.

Contingency plans
Contingency operations
Details of possible operational priorities or contingencies will bedecided by the Co-Chief Scientists, EPM, and Operations Superintendents according to operational realities on board the ship; however, current preliminary discussion among the NanTroSEIZE PCT
includes a limited contingency plan to deploy a replacement SmartPlug or GeniusPlug in Hole C0010A.

Sample requests and coordination

Expedition scientists
and scientific participants

Because NanTroSEIZE is a long-term multiexpedition drilling
project that includes multiple linked expeditions over several years
that share overarching scientific objectives, sampling and coordination of individual samples and data requests are somewhat different
than for single expeditions. These differences include the recognition of the role of Specialty Coordinators, unique data sharing opportunities, and a more integrated sample and data request
program. The SAC is composed of the expedition Co-Chief Scientists, Expedition Project Manager (EPM), the shipboard curatorial
representative, and the IODP curator on shore. Specialty Coordinators provide advice to the SAC, but the SAC is responsible for all
decisions. The SAC for the expedition must approve access to dataand core/cuttings samples requested during the expedition andduring the 1 y moratorium, which starts at the end of the drilling
expedition.

The current list of participants for Expedition 365 can be foundat http://www.jamstec.go.jp/chikyu/e/chikyuexp.

References
Ando, M., 1975. Source mechanisms and tectonic significance of historicalearthquakes along the Nankai Trough, Japan. Tectonophysics, 27(2):119–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(75)90102-X
Ashi, J., Kuramoto, S., Morita, S., Tsunogai, U., Goto, S., Kojima, S., Okamoto,T., Ishimura, T., Ijiri, A., Toki, T., Kudo, S., Asai, S., and Utsumi, M., 2002.
Structure and cold seep of the Nankai accretionary prism off Kumano—
outline of the off Kumano survey during YK01-04 Leg 2 cruise. JAMSTEC
Journal of Deep Sea Research, 20:1–8. (in Japanese, with abstract inEnglish)Baba, T., and Cummins, P.R., 2005. Contiguous rupture areas of two Nankai
Trough earthquakes revealed by high-resolution tsunami waveform
inversion. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(8):L08305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004GL022320
Baba, T., Cummins, P.R., and Hori, T., 2005. Compound fault rupture during
the 2004 off the Kii Peninsula earthquake (M 7.4) inferred from highly
resolved coseismic sea-surface deformation. Earth, Planets and Space,

Data/Sample sharing
Data sharing across expeditions is normally accommodated
through a formal data/sample request; that is, scientists from one
expedition can apply as a shore-based scientist for shipboard
data/samples from a completed, planned, or ongoing expedition. In
this context, all Expedition 365 scientists will be required to submit

6

A. Kopf et al.

Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus

57(3):167–172. http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/2005/5703/57030167.pdf
Baba, T., Cummins, P.R., Hori, T., and Kaneda, Y., 2006. High precision slip
distribution of the 1944 Tonankai earthquake inferred from tsunami
waveforms: possible slip on a splay fault. Tectonophysics, 426(1–2):119–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2006.02.015
Byrne, D.E., Davis, D.M., and Sykes, L.R., 1988. Loci and maximum size ofthrust earthquakes and the mechanics of the shallow region of subduction zones. Tectonics, 7(4):833–857.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/TC007i004p00833
Chester, F.M., Mori, J., Eguchi, N., Toczko, S., and the Expedition 343/343T
Scientists, 2013. Proceedings of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program,343/343T: Tokyo (Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management International, Inc.). http://dx.doi.org/10.2204/iodp.proc.343343T.2013
Expedition 314 Scientists, 2009. Expedition 314 Site C0004. In Kinoshita, M.,
Tobin, H., Ashi, J., Kimura, G., Lallemant, S., Screaton, E.J., Curewitz, D.,
Masago, H., Moe, K.T., and the Expedition 314/315/316 Scientists, Proceedings of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, 314/315/316: Washington, DC (Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management
International, Inc.).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2204/iodp.proc.314315316.116.2009
Expedition 316 Scientists, 2009. Expedition 316 Site C0004. In Kinoshita, M.,
Tobin, H., Ashi, J., Kimura, G., Lallemant, S., Screaton, E.J., Curewitz, D.,
Masago, H., Moe, K.T., and the Expedition 314/315/316 Scientists, Proceedings of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, 314/315/316: Washington, DC (Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management
International, Inc.).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2204/iodp.proc.314315316.133.2009
Expedition 319 Scientists, 2010. Site C0010. In Saffer, D., McNeill, L., Byrne,
T., Araki, E., Toczko, S., Eguchi, N., Takahashi, K., and the Expedition 319
Scientists, Proceedings of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, 319:
Tokyo (Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management International,Inc.). http://dx.doi.org/10.2204/iodp.proc.319.104.2010
Expedition 332 Scientists, 2011. Site C0010. In Kopf, A., Araki, E., Toczko, S.,
and the Expedition 332 Scientists, Proceedings of the Integrated Ocean
Drilling Program, 332: Tokyo (Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management International, Inc.).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2204/iodp.proc.332.103.2011
Fujiwara, T., Kodaira, S., No, T., Kaiho, Y., Takahashi, N., and Kaneda, Y., 2011.
The 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake: displacement reaching the trench axis.
Science, 334(6060):1240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1211554
Heki, K., 2007. Secular, transient, and seasonal crustal movements in Japan
from a dense GPS array: implication for plate dynamics in convergent
boundaries. In Dixon, T.H., and Moore, J.C. (Eds.), The Seismogenic Zone
of Subduction Thrust Faults: New York (Columbia University Press), 512–
539.
Hickman, S., Zoback, M., and Ellsworth, W., 2004. Introduction to special section: preparing for the San Andreas Fault Observatory at depth. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(12):L12S01
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020688
Hori, T., Kato, N., Hirahara, K., Baba, T., and Kaneda, Y., 2004. A numericalsimulation of earthquake cycles along the Nankai Trough in southwest
Japan: lateral variation in frictional property due to the slab geometry
controls the nucleation position. Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
228(3–4):215–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2004.09.033
Ichinose, G.A., Thio, H.K., Somerville, P.G., Sato, T., and Ishii, T., 2003. Rupture process of the 1944 Tonankai earthquake (Ms 8.1) from the inversionof teleseismic and regional seismograms. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Solid Earth, 108(B10):2497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002393
Ito, Y., Obara, K., Shiomi, K., Sekine, S., and Hirose, H., 2007. Slow earthquakes coincident with episodic tremors and slow slip events. Science,
315(5811):503–506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1134454
Kikuchi, M., Nakamura, M., and Yoshikawa, K., 2003. Source rupture processes of the 1944 Tonankai earthquake and the 1945 Mikawa earthquake
derived from low-gain seismograms. Earth, Planets and Space, 55(4):159–
172. http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/2003/5504/55040159.pdf

Kopf, A., Araki, E., Toczko, S., and the Expedition 332 Scientists, 2011. Proceedings of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, 332. Tokyo (Integrated
Ocean Drilling Program Management International, Inc.).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2204/iodp.proc.332.2011
Kopf, A., Saffer, D.M., Davis, E.E., Hammerschmidt, S., LaBonte, A.,
Meldrum, R., Toczko, S., Lauer, R., Heesemann, M., Macdonald, R.,
Wheat, C.G., Jannasch, H.W., Edwards, K., Orcutt, B., Haddad, A., Villinger, H., Araki, E., Kitada, K., Kimura, T., and Kido, Y., 2011. The SmartPlug and GeniusPlug: simple retrievable observatory systems for
NanTroSEIZE borehole monitoring. In Kopf, A., Araki, E., Toczko, S., andthe Expedition 332 Scientists, Proceedings of the Integrated Ocean Drilling
Program, 332. Tokyo (Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management
International, Inc.). http://dx.doi.org/10.2204/iodp.proc.332.105.2011
Lay, T., Kanamori, H., Ammon, C.J., Nettles, M., Ward, S.N., Aster, R.C., Beck,
S.L., Bilek, S.L., Brudzinski, M.R., Butler, R., DeShon, H.R., Ekström, G.,
Satake, K., and Sipkin, S., 2005. The great Sumatra-Andaman earthquakeof 26 December 2004. Science, 308(5725):1127–1133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1112250
Ma, K., 2005. Slip zone and energetic of a large earthquake from seismologicalmodeling and fault core of TCDP. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 86(52):T43D-02. (Abstract)
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/waisfm05.html
Miyazaki, S., and Heki, K., 2001. Crustal velocity field of southwest Japan: subduction and arc-arc collision. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid
Earth, 106(B3):4305–4326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000JB900312
Moore, G.F., Bangs, N.L., Taira, A., Kuramoto, S., Pangborn, E., and Tobin,
H.J., 2007. Three-dimensional splay fault geometry and implications fortsunami generation. Science, 318(5853):1128–1131.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1147195
Moore, G.F., Mikada, H., Moore, J.C., Becker, K., and Taira, A. 2005. Legs 190
and 196 synthesis: deformation and fluid flow processes in the Nankai
Trough accretionary prism. In Mikada, H., Moore, G.F., Taira, A., Becker,
K., Moore, J.C., and Klaus, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling
Program, Scientific Results, 190/196: College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling
Program), 1–25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2973/odp.proc.sr.190196.201.2005
Moore, G.F., Park, J.-O., Bangs, N.L., Gulick, S.P., Tobin, H.J., Nakamura, Y.,
Sato, S., Tsuji, T., Yoro, T., Tanaka, H., Uraki, S., Kido, Y., Sanada, Y., Kuramoto, S., and Taira, A., 2009. Structural and seismic stratigraphic framework of the NanTroSEIZE Stage 1 transect. In Kinoshita, M., Tobin, H.,
Ashi, J., Kimura, G., Lallemant, S., Screaton, E.J., Curewitz, D., Masago,
H., Moe, K.T., and the Expedition 314/315/316 Scientists, Proceedings ofthe Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, 314/315/316: Washington, DC(Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management International, Inc.).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2204/iodp.proc.314315316.102.2009
Moore, G.F., Taira, A., Klaus, A., Becker, L., Boeckel, B., Cragg, B.A., Dean, A.,
Fergusson, C.L., Henry, P., Hirano, S., Hisamitsu, T., Hunze, S., Kastner,
M., Maltman, A.J., Morgan, J.K., Murakami, Y., Saffer, D.M., SánchezGómez, M., Screaton, E.J., Smith, D.C., Spivack, A.J., Steurer, J., Tobin,
H.J., Ujiie, K., Underwood, M.B., and Wilson, M., 2001. New insights into
deformation and fluid flow processes in the Nankai Trough accretionary
prism: results of Ocean Drilling Program Leg 190. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 2(10):1058.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001GC000166
Moore, J.C., and Saffer, D., 2001. Updip limit of the seismogenic zone beneaththe accretionary prism of southwest Japan: an effect of diagenetic to lowgrade metamorphic processes and increasing effective stress. Geology,
29(2):183–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/00917613(2001)029<0183:ULOTSZ>2.0.CO;2
Moreno, M., Rosenau, M., and Oncken, O., 2010. 2010 Maule earthquake slip
correlates with pre-seismic locking of Andean subduction zone. Nature,467(7312):198–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09349
Nakanishi, A., Takahashi, N., Park, J.-O., Miura, S., Kodaira, S., Kaneda, Y.,
Hirata, N., Iwasaki, T., and Nakamura, M., 2002. Crustal structure acrossthe coseismic rupture zone of the 1944 Tonankai earthquake, the central
Nankai Trough seismogenic zone. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid
Earth, 107(B1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JB000424

7

A. Kopf et al.

Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus

Obana, K., Kodaira, S., Mochizuki, K., and Shinohara, M., 2001. Micro-seismicity around the seaward updip limit of the 1946 Nankai earthquake dislocation area. Geophysical Research Letters, 28(12):2333–2336.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000GL012794
Obana, K., Kodaira., S., and Yoshiyuki, K., 2005. Seismicity in the incoming/subducting Philippine Sea plate off the Kii Peninsula, central Nankai
Trough. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 110(B11):B11311.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003487
Obara, K., Hirose, H., Yamamizu, F., and Kasahara, K., 2004. Episodic slow slip
events accompanied by non-volcanic tremors in southwest Japan subduction zone. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(23):L23602.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020848
Obara, K., and Ito, Y., 2005. Very low frequency earthquakes excited by the2004 off the Kii Peninsula earthquakes: a dynamic deformation process in
the large accretionary prism. Earth, Planets and Space, 57(4):321–326.
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/2005/5704/57040321.pdf
Park, J.-O., Tsuru, T., Kodaira, S., Cummins, P.R., and Kaneda, Y., 2002. Splayfault branching along the Nankai subduction zone. Science,
297(5584):1157–1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1074111
Ruff, L., and Kanamori, H., 1983. Seismic coupling and uncoupling at subduction zones. Tectonophysics, 99(2–4):99–117.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(83)90097-5
Saffer, D., McNeill, L., Byrne, T., Araki, E., Toczko, S., Eguchi, N., Takahashi,K., and the Expedition 319 Scientists, 2010. Proceedings of the Integrated
Ocean Drilling Program, 319: Tokyo (Integrated Ocean Drilling Program
management International, Inc.).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2204/iodp.proc.319.2010
Saffer, D.M., and Marone, C., 2003. Comparison of smectite- and illite-richgouge frictional properties: application to the updip limit of the seismogenic zone along subduction megathrusts. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters, 215(1–2):219–235.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00424-2

Schwartz, S.Y., and Rokosky, J.M., 2007. Slow slip events and seismic tremor at
circum-Pacific subduction zones. Reviews of Geophysics, 45(3):RG3004.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006RG000208
Seno, T., Stein, S., and Gripp, A.E., 1993. A model for the motion of the Philippine Sea plate consistent with NUVEL-1 and geological data. Journal ofGeophysical Research: Solid Earth, 98(B10):17941–17948.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/93JB00782
Simons, M., Minson, S.E., Sladen, A., Ortega, F., Jiang, J., Owen, S.E., Meng,
L., Ampuero, J.-P., Wei, S., Chu, R., Helmberger, D.V., Kanamori, H., Hetland, E., Moore, A.W., and Webb, F.H., 2011. The 2011 magnitude 9.0
Tohoku-Oki earthquake: mosaicking the megathrust from seconds tocenturies. Science, 332(6036):1421–1425.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1206731
Tanioka, Y., and Satake, K., 2001. Detailed coseismic slip distribution of the1944 Tonankai earthquake estimated from tsunami waveforms. Geophysical Research Letters, 28(6):1075–1078.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000GL012284
Tobin, H.J., and Kinoshita, M., 2006a. NanTroSEIZE Project Stage 1 Scientific
Prospectus: Investigations of Seismogenesis at the Nankai Trough, Japan.
Integrated Ocean Drilling Program.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2204/iodp.sp.nantroseize1.2006
Tobin, H.J., and Kinoshita, M., 2006b. NanTroSEIZE: the IODP Nankai
Trough Seismogenic Zone Experiment. Scientific Drilling, 2:23–27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2204/iodp.sd.2.06.2006
Wang, K., and Hu, Y., 2006. Accretionary prisms in subduction earthquake
cycles: the theory of dynamic Coulomb wedge. Journal of GeophysicalResearch: Solid Earth, 111(B6):B06410.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004094
Yamano, M., Kinoshita, M., Goto, S., and Matsubayashi, O., 2003. Extremely
high heat flow anomaly in the middle part of the Nankai Trough. Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth, 28(9–11):487–497.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1474-7065(03)00068-8

8

A. Kopf et al.

Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus

Table T1. Expedition 365 Hole C0010A operations and time estimates. DP = dynamic positioning. LCA = low-current area. RIH = run in hole, POOH = pull out ofhole. CSG = casing, BHA = bottom-hole assembly, F/C = float collar, CMT = cement, TBG = tubing. Download table in .csv format.

Operation

Hole size(inch)

Depth(mbsf )

Drilling
interval(m)

Seabed depth: 2552.2 (m DRF)
Port call and transit
Port call in Shimizu
Sail from Shimizu port to Site C0010
Site preparation
Wellhead/Seabed survey and deploy 4 transponders and DP
calibration
Recover corrosion cap; move vessel to LCA

Subtotal(days)

Total(days)

3.0
1.0

4.0

4.0

1.0

2.0

6.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

4.0

10.0

3.5

13.5

1.0

Retrieve casing packer with GeniusPlug
Make up packer retrieving/running assembly and RIH at LCA
Drifting to the site; reenter hole and RIH
Unseat packer and POOH to above seabed
Drifting to LCA and continue POOH
Drill 8-1/2 inch × 9-7/8 inch hole below 9-5/8 inch CSG
Rig up guide horn
Make up drilling BHA while drifting to the site; reenter hole and
RIH to F/C
Drill out CMT and drill 8-1/2 inch × 9-7/8 inch; underream holefrom 544.3 to 650 mbsf (105.7 m)
Spot gel support fluid; POOH to above seabed; continue POOH
while drifting to LCA

Days(days)

0.5
1.0

518.9
9-7/8
8-1/2

650.0
656.0

105.7
111.7

1.0
1.0

9-5/8 inch CSG scraping
Make up 9-5/8 inch scraper assembly and RIH while drifting to
the site; reenter hole and RIH to 380 mbsf (about 10 m above
screen top)
POOH to above seabed; continue POOH while drifting to LCA
Rig down guide horn

1.0
0.5

2.5

16.0

Completion
Preparation; make up LTBMS assembly and run 3-1/2 inch TBG
Drifting to the site
Reenter hole and RIH; land CORK onto wellhead; cementing
POOH running tool assembly while drifting

6.0
2.0
1.0
1.0

10.0

26.0

Recover transponders
Test pressure logger; recover transponders

1.0

1.0

27.0

TransitSail from the site to Shimizu port

1.0

1.0

28.0

Contingency
Mechanical down time (operation time × 5%)
Wait on weather (2 times × 2 days)

1.0
4.0

5.0

33.0

1.0

Total days:

9

33.0

A. Kopf et al.

Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus

Figure F1. Map of NanTroSEIZE region. Red circle = Expedition 365 site, white circles = other NanTroSEIZE sites. Black outline = region with 3-D seismic data,yellow arrows = estimated far-field vectors between Philippine Sea plate and Japan (Seno et al., 1993; Heki, 2007), stars = epicenter locations of 1944 and 1946
tsunamigenic earthquakes.

35°
N

km
0

Tokai

50

Izu
40°
N

30°

Kii
Peninsula

130°E

140°

150°

34°

1944

C0009
C0002
C0001
C0010 C0003 and C0004

1946

C0006

33°

C0011

Philippine Sea plate(Shikoku Basin)

C0012~4.1–6.5 cm/y
135°E

136°

137°

10

138°

139°

A. Kopf et al.

Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus

Figure F2. A. In-line (IL) 2529 extracted from 3-D seismic volume, showing the relationship between Hole C0010A to other NanTroSEIZE sites, especially Sites
C0002, C0004, and C0006. PSP = Philippine Sea plate. B. Close-up seismic in-line (IL 2488) image of Hole C0010A. C. Cross line (XL) seismic image of Hole
C0010A, with location of Hole C0004D superimposed.

A 0

fa
ult
s

Fore-arc basin fill

4
6

Sp
lay

Depth (km)

Site
Sites
C0001 C0004/8/10
Sites C0018/21/22

Site
C0002

Site
C0009

2

Inner accretionary wedge

fault

Frontal wedge
nt

Site
C0011

Site
C0012

-20

-30

Shikoku Basin

Décollemedsthrust se

Under

ry
nda
bou splay”)
Plate(”Mega

8

Sites
C0006/7tsemen

saltic ba

PSP ba

10
12
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

Distance from deformation front (km)Hole C0010AB

XL 5342
0

2500

100

200

300

400

1:10000

2600
2700

Depth (mbsf)

2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400

IL 2489

3500

Hole C0010A

C
0

2400

Hole C0004D

250 500 750 1000 1250 m
1:30000

2500
2600

Depth (mbsf)

2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400

XL 5335

3500

11

500 m

A. Kopf et al.

Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus

Figure F3. Schematic diagrams of (A) SmartPlug and (B) GeniusPlug OsmoSampler extension, Site C0010. MTL = miniature temperature logger, RTC-PPC = realtime clock pressure period counter.

A
PackerB
Osmo housing

Hydraulic line
Pressure transducer
Osmosampling unit
MTL
AWQ connector
Pressure housing
w/RTC-PPC
data logger
Bottom end cap of
OsmoSampler
Bottom seal
Hydraulic line

GeniusPlug
extension chamber

12

A. Kopf et al.

Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus

Figure F4. A–E. Diagram and images of LTBMS sensor layout, based on the system installed in Hole C0002G, showing the position of various sensors.

A

B
CORK head &ROV platform

Pressure Sensing
Unit (PSU) and hydraulicline valvesE

C
D

Geophone &accelerometer
SAHF digitizer

Tiltmeter(LILY)

Broadbandseismometer(CMG-3T)

Strainmeter

Sensing volume

13

A. Kopf et al.

Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus

Figure F5. Diagram showing operational stages planned for GeniusPlug recovery and LTBMS installation, Hole C0010A. POOH = pull out of hole.

Hole C0010A operation sequence
1

2

4

3

5

6

CORK head

CORK head
Corrosion Cap

Water Depth 41 m
2552 m DRF

20-inch

A3 Casing Packer
GeniusPlug
Fault zone
544 m

41 m

Fault zone
trace

Swellable Packer
3-1/2-inchtubing544 m

9-5/8-inch

Sensor656 m

Recover Corrosion Cap
Retrieve A3 Casing Packer& GeniusPlug

20-inchRun Scraper
Underream to 9-7/8-inch
below 9-5/8-inch casing inside 9-5/8-inch casing

Depth in red = meters below seafloor (mbsf)

14

Run 3-1/2-inch tubing
LTBMS Completionassembly

9-5/8-inch

656 m

Cement and Set LTBMS
Completion assembly,
release and POOH
running toolA. Kopf et al.

Expedition 365 Scientific Prospectus

Site summary
Hole C0010A
Priority:

Primary: Chikyu Expedition 365 (riserless)Position:

32°12.5981′N, 136°41.1924′E

Water depth (m):2552

Target drilling depth(mbsf):

656

Approved maximum
penetration (mbsf):

700

Survey coverage:

Extensive survey data from 3-D seismic data:• In-line 2489
• Cross line 5342

Objective:

Recover GeniusPlug and drill extension for LTBMS
deployment

Drilling, coring, anddownholemeasurement
program:• Drill out hole to TD• Deploy LTBMS permanent observatory

Anticipated lithology:

Hemipelagic mud with turbidite sand, sedimentary breccia,
and hemipelagic mudstone15

Other Project Coordination Team and relevant consensus items

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

CRISP PCTCIB_Consensus_0713-31: The CIB established CRISP Project Coordination Team.
The team member consists of César Ranero (Chief Project Scientist; CPS), Kohtaro
Ujiie (CPS), Susan Bilek (member), Christian Hensen (member), Ikuo Sawada(CDEX), Nobu Eguchi (CDEX), Sean Toczko (CDEX), and Nori Kyo (CDEX).
NanTroZEIZE PCT
CIB_Consensus_0713-32: The CIB established NanTroSEIZE Project Coordination
Team. The team member consists of Harold Tobin (Chief Project Scientist; CPS),
Gaku Kimura (CPS), Kyuichi Kanagawa (member), Demian Saffer (member),
Masataka Kinoshita (member), Michael Strasser (member), Michael Underwood(Science Coordinator), Greg Moore (Science Coordinator), Eiichiro Araki (Science
Coordinator), Yasuhiro Yamada (Science Coordinator), Ikuo Sawada (CDEX), Nobu
Eguchi (CDEX), Sean Toczko (CDEX), and Nori Kyo (CDEX).

IBM PCT
CIB_Consensus_0714-07: The CIB established IBM Project Coordination Team.
The CIB recommends Yoshi Tatsumi (Chief Project Scientist; CPS), Shuichi Kodaira(CPS), Richard Arculus (member), Susanne Straub (member) and appropriate CDEX
staff for the team members.

CIB consensus March 2015
CIB_Consensus_0315-07: The CIB will keep three riser project/proposal (537B,
Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project Phase B; 698, Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc Middle
Crust; 781B, Hikurangi: Riser) without any priority. The CIB will not support PCT
activities until an appropriate window of Chikyu opens.
Nankai Trough T Limits PCT
CIB_Consensus_0315-08: The CIB established a riserless Project Coordination
Team for IODP Proposal 865, Nankai Trough T Limits, for scoping detailed
implementation plan and preparation for its implementation in the future riserless
operation window of D/V Chikyu. The CIB recommends Kai-Uwe Hinrichs (Chief
Project Scientist; CPS), Fumio Inagaki (CPS), Masa Kinoshita (member), TBN(member) and Ikuo Sawada (CDEX), Nori Kyo (CDEX), Nobu Eguchi (CDEX) andYusuke Kubo (CDEX).

Nankai Trough T Limit Project Coordination Team
#1 Meeting Note
1-2 October 2015, MARUM Bremen, Germany
Participants:
Kai-Uwe Hinrichs (PCT, CPS)
Fumio Inagaki (PCT, CPS)
Masa Kinoshita (PCT, member)
Verena Heuer (PCT, alternate)
Ikuo Sawada (PCT, CDEX)
Nori Kyo (PCT, CDEX)
Nobu Eguchi (PCT, CDEX)
Yusuke Kubo* (PCT, CDEX)
Hinrich Villinger* (CIB Liaison)
Achim Kopf (MARUM, Observer)* unable to attend

1	
  

	
  

Day 1: 1 October 2015
1. Meeting Logistics
Meeting logistics were presented by Heuer.
2. Introduction
Self-introductions are made all around the table.
Due to Hinrichs’s schedule, the following agenda change has been made.
Agenda Item 8: Alternate site selection is moved to this morning, followed by
Agenda Item 7: Provisional operation plan.
3. CHIKYU Operation Schedule
Eguchishowedthecurrent
CHIKYU
operationschedule 	
  (Chikyu_Schedule.pdf) according to which the next possible riserless IODP
expedition window will be in January-March 2017. As a general scope of thisproject, Hinrichs, Inagaki, and Heuer strongly supported an earlier executionof this project; maximizing the scientific return is important, even if ashortened expedition means sacrificing some of the proposed objectives, e.g.,observatory installation. The PCT made the following consensus.
T-Limit PCT Consensus_1510-01
The PCT decides that to produce high impact science from the expedition,
glass fiber casing installation (and full observatory installation) is excluded
from the initial expedition objectives.
8. Alternate Site Selection
The originally proposed sites (ODP11-73A and ODP 11-74A) will not be
drilled due to their close proximity to existing seafloor cables (e.g., drill site
distance from cables should at least equal the water depth). CDEX examined
potential alternate sites prior to this meeting and Eguchi showed the CDEX
alternate site proposal for ODP11-74A (AlternateSite.pdf). The following
factors were considered when CDEX examined alternate sites:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Within the Muroto 3D MCS box (a new site survey most likely will nottake place),
Similar tectonic settings as the original site,
Minimal drilling risk, such as from formation disturbance,
High in-situ temperature at the bottom of the sediment layer.

Among these the most important scientific requirement for site selection is theformation temperature at the bottom of the sediment layer, basically requiring

	
  

2	
  

	
  
greater than 120°C. Since no in-situ temperature measurements at the bottomof sediment layer exist in this area, the proposed alternate site (ODP11-74B)
temperature estimation was assumed using existing heat flow data from ODP
Site 1174 and 808. Based on this estimate, the expected temperatures at the
décollement zone and the bottom of sediment layer (basement top) are 103106°C and 133°C, respectively. Hinrichs commented that if the accuracy ofthis temperature estimate is greater than 50%, the proposed alternate site isacceptable.
Summary matrix of the alternate site is below.
	
  	
  

Front
al
Thru
st

Décollement ZoneDepth(mbsf)

Décollement
Zone Temp.
(ºC)

Basement
Top Depth(mbsf)

Site 808Yes

945-964881290

Site 1174

No

808-840

110-115

1194

Alternate Site
ODP11-74B(IL 332 x XL
803)

No

870-900

103-106

1210

Base
ment
Top
Tem
p.
(ºC)

Formation
ComplexitySite 808

112

High

4855

4674

6112.5Site 1174

150

Moderate

3300

4751

6093.5

Alternate Site
ODP11-74B(IL 332 x XL
803)

133

Low

4840

4731

6089.5	  Total Pipe
Distance
LengthWater
from(Basement
Depth
Cable
+ 120 m)(mMSL)(m)(mBRT)

3	
  

	
  
The PCT re-visited this issue on the following day and agreed that new heatflow measurements by SONNE should be taken to create a more accurate
temperature model for the site at her October 2016 cruise in this area once
the location of the alternate site is fixed.
The following consensus and action items were made regarding the alternate
site selection.
T-Limit PCT Consensus_1510-02
The PCT accepts the CDEX proposed alternate site (ODP11-74B) in
exchange for the original ODP11-74A site.
T-Limit PCT ActionItem_1510-01
CDEX will look for an alternate site for ODP11-73A. The PCT recommends
finding a site in a thicker sediment bed.
T-Limit PCT Consensus_1510-03
The PCT recommends that the PIs of this project obtain new heat flow datafrom the exact location of the alternate sites in order to refine the temperaturemodel of the sites. For example, from the planned SONNE cruise scheduledin the area in October 2016.
7. Provisional Operation Plan
Sawada presented a provisional operation plan for this project (Tlimit_Ops.pdf).
Overall operation sequence is:
1. Protect shallow section• Move to low current area. Rig down Upper Guide Horn (UGH)• M/U BHA (Drill in CSG or Under Reamer w/CSG) in Low Current
Area• Rig up UGH and drift vessel to the site
• Drill and Set CSG (±150 m). POOH BHA.
2. Coring HPCS/ESCS/RCB• Move to current upstream and run core BHA (HPCS/ESCS)• Coring 150 m near the main hole.
• Re-entry into Main Hole and core to ***mbsf and POOH
• Change BHA (RCB), re-entry and core to 120 m into basement).
POOH.
3. Logging• Run Guide Pipe and Re-entry to hole.
• Wireline Logging

	
  

4	
  

	
  
•

Spot Kill Mud and POOH.

The original IODP Proposal (IODP Proposal 865-Full), required setting glassfiber casing in the upper 140 m of sediment based on the ODP Leg 190 report.
CDEX also believes casing is needed to cover the upper soft sediment layers(+/- 150 mbsf) based on previous ODP experience; however CDEX does notrecommend using glass-fiber casing. CDEX proposed to set a wellhead with
20-inch steel casing to secure the upper sediment layer and allow re-entry
operations. The PCT science side agreed with the use of steel casing in thisinterval.
Rough estimate of operation days showed 69 days (two sites), 34 days (siteODP 11-73 only), and 41 days (site ODP 11-74 only), assuming 745 mbsf,
1314 mbsf TD for ODP 11-73 and ODP 11-74 with full coring to the TD,
respectively.
The PCT agreed to obtain HPCS core samples and in-situ temperature
measurement using APCT-3 in the upper section (down to 20-inch casing set
depth). To obtain these shallow core samples, as shown in the above
operational sequence, the expedition needs to spud in another hole.
Although the PCT agreed to exclude a full observatory installation from theinitial expedition objectives, as expressed in Consensus Item 1510-01, thePCT also recognized that measuring in-situ formation temperature isnecessary for the success of this project. There were several discussions
about different kinds of temporary observatory solutions and the PCT chose a
J-FAST-type temperature observatory (install several individual temperatureloggers attached to a rope into 3.5/4.5-inch tubing) install into the coredborehole (Ops_Sequence.pdf). The initial idea was to use the same
temperature loggers (Antares and RBR loggers), but the PCT recognized thatthe present logger’s measurement temperature range won’t cover the
expected temperature at this geological setting. Therefore, new loggers mustbe purchased (at least for the deeper part) that can tolerate expected
temperature range. A balance between scientific necessity and budget will
determine how many loggers will be needed.
Kinoshita drew a schematic figure of this observatory the next day(ObservatoryDesign.pdf).
The operation side of the PCT asked about the necessity and/or penetration
depth for basement coring operations. There was no concrete justification but
the PCT agreed upon keep this operation in the plan at the moment. Also, thePCT recognized that at least 50 m drilling into the basement is necessary tomeasure in-situ temperature using a temporary observatory at the sedimentbasement interface. This is because of a need to set a temperature logger at
	
  

5	
  

the depth of sediment-basement interface as well as avoiding cuttings
accumulation at the bottom of the hole disturbing the tubing installation.
The PCT agreed that good recovery of high quality core samples, especiallyfrom deeper sections of the borehole, is important in the effort to detect thelimits of life. An idea was raised about modification/improvement of the HPCS
to recover high quality core samples from the décollement and beyond. Morespecifically, CDEX may re-consider the kind of materials used for the HPCS
cutting shoe and the advance length of piston coring to improve this system.
The PCT made the following consensus:
T-Limit PCT Consensus_1510-04
The PCT recommends that CDEX seek improvements of the current HPCS
(e.g., shorter stroke and harder material for the cutting shoe) to recover better
condition core samples from deep sedimentary sections (e.g., décollement).
In addition to installing a temporary observatory in the borehole to measure insitu formation temperature, the PCT discussed using APCT-3 for theshallower section, as well as DVTP and/or T2P for deeper section to refusal.
--- Lunch break --4. Proposed Science Plan
Scientific Objectives
Measurement/analytical Requirements
After the lunch break, the PCT visited the MARUM warehouse and Achim
Kopf introduced the MeBo and Mebo-200.
The afternoon session began with Kopf’s presentation “T-limit Physicalmeasurements (in situ & on core) to support deep biosphere work”(Measurements.pdf). His presentation started with a general question about
expected measurement requirement, “Which parameters are crucial to be
known?” and raised the following items:
•
•
•
•
•

Temperature
Porosity (distinction between primary and secondary porosity, effect of
tortuosity, etc.)
Pore pressure (and stress state)
Permeability / flow
Mineralogical transformations and their repercussions6	  He also categorized these measurements into cruise, post-cruise, and longterm phases:•••

Cruise: T during coring, logging/LWD, index properties on core, XRD,PW chemistry, etc.,
Post-cruise: deformation experiments to simulate certain PT paths(maybe combined with biology), quantitative XRD, more PW chemistry(e.g. stable isotopes), permeability (and hydrofrac) testing, and,Long-term: T array, pore P tubes, osmo-samplers and flowmeters,
FLOCS, etc.

He introduced the results from previous experience regarding formation
temperature inducing physical property changes in sediment rocks:
1. Temperature is highest at Muroto, and illitization of smectite is
documented by XRD and PW chemistry,
2. Deep seated fluids are channelized seaward through permeable
turbidites of LSB,
3. Flow in these units is highest, but pore pressure may be lowest since
excess values cannot be maintained,
4. Porosity decrease is enhanced by T-driven compaction, as has beenshown experimentally,
5. Primary porosity decreases more rapidly, secondary porosity may wellincrease as a result of hydrofractures in clay-rich mudstones or alteredbasaltSee details in the presentation (Measurements.pdf).
Heuer presented the scientific objectives of this project (Tlimit_SciObjectives.pdf). Cell concentrations below the seafloor decrease withdepth, but the absolute limits of deep life are not well constrained. Formation
temperatures of 80-90°C are considered the critical temperature range but
this temperature is usually observed 3-4 km below seafloor (kmbsf; assuming
the common geothermal gradient of about 25°C/km). However, ca. 100°C at 1
kmbsf is expected at the proposed site where abnormal high heat flow isobserved. This geothermal setting and the application of cutting-edge
technologies are expected to expand the envelope of the limits of life in thisproject. The PCT members all shared the scientific objectives of this project.
See details in the presentation (T-limit_SciObjectives.pdf).
The PCT briefly discussed the onboard science party (this item was re-visitedon day 2, see agenda item 12). There will be several micro-bio related
onboard measurements during the expedition. To ensure these time sensitive7	
  measurements are collected during the expedition, other onboard
measurements would be reduced, and some might be conducted on-shore
after the expedition. Organizing a good science party requires a long timeline,
so the PCT agreed on making an earlier announcement of the call for
application to the community, although the PCT also understands the current
CDEX/JAMSTEC budgetary situation. This will require publishing the scientificprospectus as early as possible. Based on these discussions, the PCT madethe following consensus and action items:
T-Limit PCT Consensus_1510-05
The PCT recommends to CIB/CDEX that the call for participation for thisexpedition should open as soon as possible, to help ensure that a strong
science party is created.
T-Limit PCT ActionItem_1510-02
Following Consensus_1510-05, Scientific Prospectus will be drafted by PIs
and CDEX prior to the Goldschmidt conference in late July 2016.

5. Summary of Previous Drilling Operation in the Area
• ODP Leg 131• ODP Leg 190• ODP Leg 196
6. Operational Concerns• Hole Stability• Kuroshio Current• Seafloor Cables• Weather/fishery Window
Agenda items 5 and 6 (above) were combined for Sawada’s presentation(ODP_Experiences.pdf). Site 808 was drilled during ODP Legs 131 and 196;
9 holes were drilled/cored/logged but several operational problems wereencountered. Site 1173 and 1174 were drilled during ODP Legs 190 and 196,
and also encountered several operational problems. Because the shallower
sediment layer is fragile and collapses easily, the JR installed 20-inch (or 113/4-inch) casing in the shallower sediment zone at all sites. The drill-in-casing(DIC) system was used, while casing shoe depth varied but was usually
deeper than 120 mbsf. In addition to the shallow formation issues, several
other operational concerns were raised and are summarized below:
Kuroshio current• VIV (Risk of losing core tools/BHA/CSG running tools)• Drifting the vessel to run string (Longer Operation)
8	
  

	
  
Submarine cables near Site 1174
• The distance between the location and a submarine cable is less than
the water depth at the site (JAMSTEC regulations prohibit drilling
operation in this situation).
• The location needs to be shifted.
• Cable search prior to operation.
Limited operation window• Fishery union doesn't accept drilling operations from December to May.
• The operation shall be conducted during typhoon season (increase
wait on weather days. In case of drilling operation, hole may deteriorate
while evacuation).
Seabed obstacles• 476 m of Drill String laid down (dropped) on the seabed around Hole
1174B
Shallower casing installation to 150 mbsf or so is necessary for protecting theborehole, and CDEX is considering preparing smaller size casing as acontingency option for secure deeper section coring operation, if bore holeconditions worsen in the deeper section.
7. Provisional Operation Plan (Discussed in the morning session)
The first day finished at 1615 h.

Day 2: 2 October 2015
8. Alternate Site Selection
This agenda item was discussed in the first day morning session.
9. Scientific Priority• Target Depth• Coring Interval• Priority of Sites
The second day session started with the scientific priority discussion. Fullrecovery of the sediment section, with expected formation temperature higher
than 150°C at the bottom of the hole, is desired. The final TD (target depth)
will be determined but how much basement recovery will be needed has notbeen clearly decided yet. The important section for coring and temperature
measurement is the bottom of the sediment (sediment – basement interface).
In any case, sediment coring has higher priority than basement coring.

	
  

9	
  

Two sites were proposed in the original IODP proposal, ODP11-73A andODP11-74A. Among these sites, ODP11-74A had higher priority than theother; full sediment coring in the deeper section here also has the highest
priority. Basement coring at this site is demanded, but has lower priority andthe penetration depth is still under discussion. A Temporary Temperature
Observatory (TTO) installation in the original hole has the next priority, and
the PCT recognized that to measure the sediment/basement interface
temperature, a minimum of 50 m drilling into basement is needed (asdiscussed under Agenda Item #7: Provisional operational plan). Wireline
logging and shallow hole coring (shallower than 20-inch casing, different hole)
has lower priority than TTO installation.
The PCT decided the following priority for this project:
1. ODP11-74A coring,
2. ODP11-74A TTO installation,
3. ODP11-74A basement coring,
4. ODP11-74A shallow coring, and5. ODP11-73A coring.
Note; 1) could be spot coring, 2) keep about 2 weeks for this installation at theend of expedition, 5) below formation temperature exceed 50°C, e.g., 450 –750 mbsf.
T-Limit PCT Consensus_1510-06
The PCT decides that scientific operation priority for this project will be
ODP11-74 coring > ODP11-74 Temporary Temperature Observatory
installation > ODP11-74 Basement coring > ODP11-74 Shallow coring >ODP11-73 coring.
Based on these priorities, CDEX will make and circulate an operation decisiontree.
T-Limit PCT ActionItem_1510-03
CDEX will create a decision tree and new time estimates based on thescientific operation priority mentioned in the Consensus_1510-06 anddiscussion during this PCT meeting.
Kinoshita mentioned that it would be nice to have LWD data from thisexpedition, although it would require a dedicated hole.
Wolfgang Bach joined the meeting and the PCT discussed the basement
coring operation. According to this discussion, the PCT recognized that theminimum requirement for basement coring is 50 m, assuming 60% core

10	
  

	
  
recovery. This means at least 30 m of basement core sample is required to
avoid heterogeneity of the nature of basement. This is normally expected
penetration for basement rock with one bit.
The ODP11-73A observatory installation will only take place after successful
observatory installation at ODP11-74A. If time and budget allows, or if
significant difficulty is encountered while drilling ODP11-74A, the expedition
will shift to ODP11-73A operations:
1. Sediment coring (may be spot coring),
2. Basement coring, and
3. Shallower sediment coring with a different hole.
10. Future Observatory
The PCT understood it is a bit early to discuss details of the future permanent
observatory installation but briefly reviewed the TTO. First of all, TTO
deployment will be a minimum of 1-2 years. After retrieving the data from TTO,
those data and data obtained from core samples will be compared anddiscussed at the 2nd post expedition meeting. Based on thosecomparisons/discussions, the full observatory configuration will be discussed
at the same meeting (or could be earlier than this meeting).
T-Limit PCT Consensus_1510-07
The PCT agrees that the minimum deployment duration of the TTO would be
1 – 2 year. The full observatory configuration will be discussed based on the
TTO and other data at the 2nd post expedition meeting.

11. Onboard Measurement Plan
As discussed the previous day, the PCT considered using the KCC facility tomaximize time-critical measurements onboard during the expedition, andmade the following consensus:
T-Limit PCT Consensus_1510-08
The PCT recommends that CDEX consider use of shore-based facilities for
maximizing the capacity to conduct time-critical onboard measurements andsample processing.

12. Science Party Organization
The PCT briefly discussed the organization of the science party for thisexpedition. This will be hybrid model of JR and MSP expeditions, i.e. those
who only work on shore also will be a member of the science party, and madethe following consensus:

	
  

11	
  

	
  

T-Limit PCT Consensus_1510-09
The PCT recommends to CDEX that the constitution of the science party forthis expedition be a hybrid model of the JR and MSP. Scientists who only
work on shore will be full members of the science party.
13. AOBThis project is already deeply connected with the Deep Carbon Observatory(DCO), and will continue this connection. There will be a joint DCO-IODP
workshop for the deep biosphere in conjunction with the Goldschmidt
conference in July 2016. The next PCT meeting will follow this workshop.
T-Limit PCT Consensus_1510-10
The PCT decides that the next PCT meeting will take place after a scientificworkshop of this project, scheduled in conjunction with the Goldschmidt
conference in July 2016. The PCT also considered a telephone (Skype)conference after the next CIB meeting to discuss the outcome of that meeting.
The final action item raised in this meeting was on finding an appropriate
temperature logger for the TTO:
T-Limit PCT ActionItem_1510-04
CDEX will investigate a suitable temperature logger for the TTO.	
  The meeting adjourned at 1500 h

	
  

12	
  

NanTroSEIZE PCT #4
12 December 2015
San Francisco, USA
Adagio Hotel, 1F Ensemble Mtg Room
550 Geary Street, SF
Agenda (0900 – 1800)
1. Meeting Logistics
2. Chikyu Updatea. Dock refit(Kyo)
After returning to Japan from the Indian Ocean on 28 August, Chikyu
immediately entered the MHI shipyard for a mandatory 5-year inspection &servicing period, from September 2015 to February 2016. Computer anddrilling infrastructure have been repaired, updated, and replaced. Lab layout
modifications and equipment upgrades have also been completed, as well as
adding facilities for better cuttings processing & handling. Deck space has
been modified to allow easier change of lab layouts as expedition
requirements require. Core splitting room moved, and core flow through thecore processing deck has been revised.
b. 2016 – 2020 scenarios(Nobu)
c. NanTroSEIZE windows(Nobu)
d. Funding(Nobu)
Early 2016 will have a non-IODP Japanese government SIP project toOkinawan hydrothermal vents (re: IODP Exp 331). IODPE Exp 365 will follow
immediately after. A potential CPP riser project is the Lord Howe Rise (LHR),
which is being supported by Australia. The 2017-2018 drilling window(currently showing a riser expedition) depends on getting the 2017 industry
contract. If the contract is not obtained, then the 2017-2018 C2 window will go
forward. The CIB has endorsed 3 riser projects, CRISP, IBM, and
NanTroSEIZE, as Chikyu projects. Hikurangi is also in the CIB; for riserless
drilling, the Muroto T-limits project is also in the pipeline. How firm is the CIB
commitment to NanTroSEIZE? Can that possible funding be used on otherprojects? Of all these projects, NanTroSEIZE is the priority. The CIB riser
ranking for 2017-2018 drilling will be to finish Site C0002. The next CIB
meeting will be held at the end of March 2016.
The 2016 Exp 365 is scheduled and in the final planning stages. The 2016
IODP riserless window could be problematic for C6 installation, since 3rd party
tool funding will not be timely. Should this be pushed back to post-2018?
Postponed? Currently, the expedition is scheduled one year from today.
The current funding situation for CDEX/Chikyu expeditions was reviewed. Last
year, 70 m USD for Chikyu base costs was approved by JAMSTEC mgmt.
Current budget projections for next fiscal year changed (from this year) by -7%(~23 m USD), so the entire JAMSTEC budget has returned to levels from 10
yrs ago. JAMSTEC management has stated their intentions to keep 70 m USD
for 2016, but at the moment this is not confirmed. MEXT has provided about
100 m USD annually for ocean drilling. But from next year, the MEXT
allocation will be reduced to <100 m USD. This can affect the whole of
JAMSTEC. What is the lowest level of funding needed to keep operating
Chikyu? 65 m USD seems to be the floor with MQJ contract.
A brief discussion ensued, where CDEX emphasized that getting better
1

Japanese political support for Chikyu operation is crucial. Keeping
NanTroSEIZE in the Japanese public’s mind is also a good path towards doing
this. Scientific community support is vital, but getting the science explained, inlayman’s terms, needs to be better.
NanTroPCT_Consensus_1215-01: “The PCT understands that Japanese politicalsupport needs to be better developed to help NanTroSEIZE and Chikyu IODP
operations in general. The PCT will assist in any way to support this.”Money from commercial projects is being affected by current rig prices andoverproduction, and the glut of vessels is reducing potential commercial
contracts.. Another related item concerns the current JAMSTEC presidents’term, to end in 2018.
Budget concerns in Japan and the US have affected Japanese scientist berthexchanges with JR: Japanese berths will go from 4 to 3. NSF will no longer
provide funding for KCC; instead, NSF will fund CDEX IODP publications (atTAMU).
Another concern is that as other IODP/drilling projects mature, the PIs may
have other commitments, taking them away from focusing on NanTroSEIZE.
Note: above funding is calculated as $1 = 100 JPY.
3. Update on past action items
a. Mateable connector termination contract(Araki)
C0010 LTBMS sensor update: pressure and vibration tests completed(broadband, tiltmeter, geophones), with the strainmeter due for testing in DecJan 2015-2016, and again in Jan-Feb 2016. Issues found with strainmetervibrations tests, so redesign of sensor carrier & mounting structure performed.
Thermistor string nodes at C2 failed, so redesign of thermistor completed, withdrifting & failure issues seemingly solved. Final system integration test willtake place in Feb-Mar 2016 window. Cement flow through the sensor carrier
needed to be improved, and changes have been completed. An ROV mating
check is also under way.
The C0010 LTBMS DONET connection plan currently is proposing to use RV
Shinsei (and hyperdolphin) in a schedule to be decided by Feb 2016.
Otherwise, they will need to consider the RV Kaimei schedule in Oct 2016. A
data
management
systemhas
beencompleted(http://joinweb.jamstec.go.jp/borehole/borehole_top_e.html) for C0002. DONET will betransferred to NEID in April 2016, but JAMSTEC will maintain an “important
position”/ role, as well as maintain the existing seafloor infrastructure.
So NEID will oversee DONET, but downhole data & infrastructure remains
JAMSTEC responsibility, even though DONET/NIED are in charge. What will
the “important position” mean? This is important, especially for an international
science community. The group discussion came to a consensus that the dataneed to remain free and open to the science community. Once this is done,
this can be forwarded to the CIB for further endorsement.
NanTroPCT_Consensus_1215-02: “The PCT recommends that the data from the C2
and C10 (and future) LTBMS observatories linked to DONET continue to be open
access in real-time to the scientific community.”b. 3D seismic reprocessing (C0002)(Greg/Masa)
The 3D MCS reprocessing and depth imaging will focus on 290 km2. The
2

project (& funding, approx. $200-250k USD) is tendering for a 2 years contract
crossing 2 fiscal years, and funding will come from Gaku Kimura (Kakenhi)
and from Yamada of ODS. Potential contractors include CGG/Veritas inSingapore, PGS in Kuala Lumpur, and Paradigm in Houston. All threecompanies have the skill and capacity to perform reprocessing. Tender will beawarded on 5 Feb 2016, 10:30. The call is now open, with a deadline of 18
Dec 2015.
The contract will include improved de-ghosting, multiple suppression, PSTM,
velocity model building, and then PSDM. The hope is to improve the imagingof the crucial zone that surrounds the drill site to the decollement/splay/plateboundary interaction.
Key scientific questions for potential papers and collaboration:• 3D geometry & relationship• Reprocessing
There will be a discussion about this on Tuesday afternoon, Moscone Westmeeting from 3-5 PM. An important issue will be the data access policy for thisreprocessed data? The PCT will need access to help refine drilling plans.
Maybe the PCT can make some statement on what will be needed from the
3D reprocessing data. Harold and Greg are also part of Gaku’s science teamfor the reprocessing funding, so maybe this is a non-issue.
NanTroPCT_Consensus_1215-03: “The PCT requests that 3D Seismic processing
results be shared by the PIs with the PCT for future C2 riser drilling planning.”c. NanTroSEIZE Matrix(Masa)
Masa presented a short overview of the matrix, with some slight revisions.
After the #3 PCT last year, there was consensus about making a brief for
MEXT and JAMSTEC upper management. The question on whether this has
been shared with MEXT & JAMSTEC mgmt. came up. CDEX and Gaku
stated that while this matrix has been effective for securing funding fromgovernment and upper JAMSTEC management, and preventing
NanTroSEIZE from being dropped, it hasn’t been shared with JAMSTEC
upper mgmt. This should be continuously revised, with periodic translations
into Japanese.
NanTroPCT_ActionItem_1215-01: The NanTroSEIZE PCT approves NanTroSEIZE
matrix for translation to Japanese. Investigate making a “picture book” version.
d. NanTroSEIZE special issue - PEPS
(Gaku)
Use PEPS to review and update NanTroSEIZE papers for bringing projectback into view. The PCT can coordinate, but should be open to all
NanTroSEIZE scientists. Would be good to get some new work out in a new
special issue. There is still work that needs to be completed and highlighted.
Might help reignite interest in getting people to complete papers that alreadyhave data produced. Will this be better to include other subduction zones?
Might be better to draw in other comparisons to get a bigger audience andgenerate more interest.
There will be a joint JPGU/AGU meeting in 2017, so this is something thatshould also be considered. Planning is underway for what kind of focus should
be made for presentation – especially for convincing Japanese government
about the scientific interest regarding the NanKai drilling project.
NanTroPCT_Consensus_1215-04: “The PCT endorses the concept of a special
3

PEPS edition for NanTroSEIZE or more general subduction-related research.”
NanTroPCT_ActionItem_1215-02: Propose and organize a PEPS special edition on
NanTroSEIZE.

4. Expedition 365 C0010 LTBMS/GeniusPlug
a. Operations update
i. Operation plan
(Sawada)The C0010 operation plans have not much changed since the last PCT. Pull
the GeniusPlug, drillout to 656 mbsf, ream out to 9-7/8-inch. Scrape out & run
the completion assembly, place CORK head, and cement in place. 26 March
to 29 April, leaving and returning to the Port of Shimizu. 3 days loading period
in port before Chikyu sails at on 29 March. Details are available online in the
IODP Exp 365 Scientific Prospectus. Sawada-san presented some details on
engineering and technical developments designed to ease deployment of the
LTBMS and completion string.
NanTroPCT_ActionItem_1215-03: Provide CDEX Drilling Program for C10 to the
PCT.
b. Science Preparations(Sean)
i. Prospectus(Sean)
ii. Staffing, Roles & Responsibilities(Sean)
iii. SP Schedule confirmation(Sean)
iv. Outreach plans(TBD)
The science party staffing is complete, with 12 scientists to sail. The co-chiefs
will crossover during the expedition. Achim Kopf will board first, then crossoverwith Demian Saffer, then (possibly) return again at the end of the expedition.
Exact dates for Achim remain to be fixed. The science party is due to leave
Tokyo for Shimizu on 26 March.
5. LTBMS updatea. Sensor configuration & procurement (Araki/Masa/Demian)b. Plans for DONET hookup (ROV)(Araki/Kyo)c. Other observatory hardware(TBD)
No news to report, beyond screens & umbilicals already procured or
assembled.
6. IODP Exp 358 – Deep Riser Extension
a. Operations update
i. Current well plan
(Sawada)No new changes in the well planning for the C0002 deep riser hole. Following
recommendation from the TAT, a Norwegian consulting company (Sekal),
performed and analysis and prepared a report on the C0002P drilling andborehole stability problems. No new information was gained, beyond what was
already provided by Insight Geomechanics. CDEX will make the Sekal reportavailable to the PCT members.
NanTroPCT_ActionItem_1215-04: Provide Sekal drilling analysis to PCT.
b. Science(Mike)
Mike presented some slides discussing the clay mineral composition by Mike,with C0002P clays not looking like an easy correspondence to the Shikoku
basin record. Also, below ~2000 m, thermal effects are seen in the clay
mineral smectite content, and by 3000 m, only ~10% smectite is still present.
4

At fault target depth, very little smectitie may be present, at least in the
hanging wall. We discussed the complexity of sediment provenance withrespect to the triple-junction passage.
c. Triaxial tests results and conclusions (Demian)
OYO tests, Penn State, TAMU/AIST, GFZ/Wisc all done or doing tests. OYO
tests were very good, defined clear failure envelope and UCS value. Overall,
mu = 0.48-0.58, and UCS about 6.5 MPa. Note how low that UCS is, much
lower than predicted from e.g. Chang (2011) velocity-based method. Meetingof a working group on breakouts, strength and in situ tests, on Wednesday
here at AGU.
7. Future LTBMS
a. C0006 LTBMS preparation(Kyo/Araki)
All sensors (except pressure loggers) are ready for C0006 LTBMS installation.
The packer needs to be acquired, which takes some lead-time. All hydraulics
need to be arranged. Parasci pressure sensors are available (inside)
GeniusPlugs, but their repurposing needs to be approved by Achim. A
pressure package could be installed later. Screened casing is needed, and will
also require some lead-time.
b. Operation plans(Sawada)
The PCT recommends that CDEX make a decision about the possible IODPJan 2017 non-riser drilling. When is the earliest the expedition can be decided
so planning and staffing can get going? PCT urges CDEX to make a decision
as soon as possible.
NanTroPCT_ActionItem_1215-05: CDEX chooses which IODP proposal will beassigned to the Jan-Mar 2017 IODP drilling window.
NanTroPCT_Consensus_1215-05: “The PCT urges CDEX to determine, as soon as
possible, which IODP proposal will be assigned to the proposed IODP window in Dec
2016.”
8. Other business
The possibility of holding a “mini-PCT” to be held during JpGU in May 2016
was discussed, and agreed upon.
NanTroPCT_Consensus_1215-06: “The PCT recommends that a “mini-PCT”
meeting will be held among the PCT members joining the May 2016 JpGU.”CONSENSUS ITEMS
1. NanTroPCT_Consensus_1215-01: “The PCT understands that Japanesepolitical support needs to be better developed to help NanTroSEIZE and Chikyu
IODP operations in general. The PCT will assist in any way to support this.”
2. NanTroPCT_Consensus_1215-02: “The PCT recommends that the data from theC2 and C10 (and future) LTBMS observatories linked to DONET continue to beopen access in real-time to the scientific community.”
3. NanTroPCT_Consensus_1215-03: “The PCT requests that 3D Seismic
processing results be shared by the PIs with the PCT for future C2 riser drilling
planning.”

54. NanTroPCT_Consensus_1215-04: “The PCT endorses the concept of a special
PEPS edition for NanTroSEIZE or more general subduction-related research.”
5. NanTroPCT_Consensus_1215-05: “The PCT urges CDEX to determine, as soon
as possible, which IODP proposal will be assigned to the proposed IODP
window in Dec 2016.”
6. NanTroPCT_Consensus_1215-06: “The PCT recommends that a “mini-PCT”
meeting will be held among the PCT members joining the May 2016 JpGU.”ACTION ITEMS
1. NanTroPCT_ActionItem_1215-01: Review and approve NanTroSEIZE matrix by
15 Jan 2016 for translation to Japanese. Periodic updates should be made as
required. Investigate making a “picture book” version.
2. NanTroPCT_ActionItem_1215-02: Propose and organize a PEPS special edition
on NanTroSEIZE.
3. NanTroPCT_ActionItem_1215-03: Provide Drilling Program for C10 to PCT.
4. NanTroPCT_ActionItem_1215-04: Provide Sekal drilling analysis to PCT.
5. NanTroPCT_ActionItem_1215-05: CDEX chooses which IODP proposal will beassigned to the Jan-Mar 2017 IODP drilling window.

6

Attendees*
Gaku Kimura
Harold Tobin
Demian Saffer
Eiichiro Araki
Greg Moore
Michael Underwood
Masa Kinoshita
Yasu Yamada
Ikuo Sawada
Nori Kyo
Nobu Eguchi
Sean Toczko

CPS
CPS
PCT Member/365 CC
Science Coordinator
Science Coordinator
Science Coordinator
PCT Member
Science Coordinator
PCT Member
PCT Member
PCT Member
PCT Member

University of Tokyo
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Pennsylvania State University
DONET, JAMSTEC
University of Hawaii-Manoa
University of Missouri
ODS, JAMSTEC
ODS, JAMSTEC
CDEX, JAMSTEC
CDEX, JAMSTEC
CDEX, JAMSTEC
CDEX, JAMSTEC*Not attending: Kyu Kanagawa, Michael Strasser, and Achim Kopf.

7

NanTroSEIZE Science Matrix
Depth Range

3,000 3,600
3,000~
mbsf

3,600~4,800
3600~4 800
mbsf

4,800 5,200
4,800~
mbsf

Expected zone definition

Upp plateUpper
pl t hhostt (1)( )Upper plate host (2)D
Damagedg d & Fault
F lt Z
Zone

Expected condition

Scientific Objectives

Required Tools

Required Measurements

2-ship 3D VSP

Disrupted,
p , old (>10(Ma)) accretionaryy prismpsediment, randomly-oriented
randomly oriented fracreus/veins
Temperature reaching ~100°C~100 C
Onset of opal & clay mineral dehydration
I
Increasingi g poreppressurep
Increasing differential stress for reverse
faulting
High pore pressure conditions favorable for
slow
l
slip
li eventst

Understanding
g the role of deformation,, diagenesisgand lithification in the host environment, which areimportant to reveal strength and seismic potential ofthese rocks
rocks.
I situIn
it ttemperaturep t
andd pressurepestimates
ti t are alsolimportant to predict conditions at greater depth.
Integration of structural geology
geology, lithology
lithology, age
age, andphysical conditions including temperaturetemperature, pressurepressure,
pore pressure andd stress,tandd materialt i l propertiestisuch as lithology,
gy, clayy mineralogy,
gy, density,y, porosity,py,acoustic velocity and frictional strength.

VSP/MWD/LWD (p(pore ppressure,,
gamma-ray,
gamma
ray, resistivity, resistivity
image sonic velocity
image,
velocity,
density/porosity and in situ pressure)
WL llogging
ggi g (dipole((dip l sonic,
i resistivity
i ti ity
imager, spectral gamma andpressure tester)

3D Seismics ReprocessingpgStructural geology, lithology, clay mineralogy,
age physical properties (pore pressureage,pressure,
stress density
stress,density, porosity
porosity, acoustic velocity
velocity,f i tifrictionall strength,
t gth thermalthl conductivity
d ti ity etc.),t )ambient temperature, formation pressure,
LOT (or XLOT)XLOT).
Spot coring if possible
possible.

Needed to establish velocityy
structure and look-ahead
look ahead tofault zone target; operationally
may be required prior to start
off thithis casingi g depthd pth rangegactivity.

Temperaturee pe atu e reachingeac g ~120°C
0C
Moderate clay mineral dehydration & peak
dehydration of opal
I
Increasing
i pore pressure
Decreasing
g differential stress for reverse
faulting
Increasing Vp
Transition from trench
trench-perpendicularperpendicular tension
t compressiontopiSeismic/aseismic transition zone

C a ges of
Changeso ttheep
physicalys ca conditions
co d t o s anda d material
ate aproperties from the upper plate host (1) to upper
plate host (2)
(2).
Th
These
data
d t are integrated
i t
t d tot understandd t d andd forfmodeling
g of seismogenic
gfaulting
g processes.
p

VSP/MWD/LWD
S /
/
(pore
(po e ppressure,essu e,gamma-ray resistivity
gamma-ray,resistivity, resistivity
image sonic velocity
image,
velocity,ddensity/porosity
it /it andd ini situit pressure))

3 Se
3D
Seismics
s cs Reprocessing
ep ocess g
Structural geology
geology, lithology
lithology, clay mineralogy
mineralogy,
age physical properties (pore pressureage,pressure,
stress,tddensity,
it porosity,
it acoustic
ti velocity,
l it
frictional strength,
g , thermal conductivityy etc.),),
ambient temperature, formation pressure,degree of lithification
lithification, rock damage
damage,diagenetic featuresfeatures, fluid chemistrychemistry, LOT (orXLOT))
Spot coring if possible.

Temperature
Temperat
re reaching ~150°C
150°C
Peak of clayy mineral dehydrationy
Pore pressure ~ lithostatic
Minimum differential stress for reverse
faulting (below 4900 mbsf)
C
Complexl fault
f lt zone spanningi severall
hundred meters, with one or several localized
fault strands with various records of slip
weakening mechanisms

Material properties
properties, especiall
especially frictional strength
strength, inthe pplate boundaryy fault zone is the #1 prioritypy goalgof
NanTroSEIZE.
Main target in this zone is to sample and reveal
material properties of the plate boundary fault zone
zone,
as wellll as tot reveall its
it physicalh i l conditions,
diti
from
f
which we would be able to evaluate the effective
shear stress acting on the fault relative to theeffective fault strength
strength, ii.e.
e the degree of potential
f lti
faulting.

VSP/MWD/LWD (pore press
pressure,regamma-ray,gy, resistivity,y, resistivityy
image, sonic velocity,
density/porosity and in situ pressure)
WL logging for coring track (in ordert have
to
h
logs
l
from
f
the
th identical
id ti lborehole as the cores)

3D Seismics Reprocessing
Structural geology,ggy, lithology,
gy, clayy mineralogy,gy,age, physical properties (pore pressure,stress density
stress,density, porosity
porosity, acoustic velocity
velocity,
frictional strength
strength, thermal conductivity etc
etc.),)
ambient
bi t temperature,ttformationfti pressure,degree of lithification, rock damage,
diagenetic featuresfeatures, fluid chemistrychemistry, pore fluidpressure across the main fault zone
zone, LOT (orXLOT)
About 400 m of core requiredq
to fullyy samplep
the fault and damage zone, plus a significant
thickness of hanging wall and foot wall rockand fluid materials
materials.

Ideally, when
Ideallhen boreholecomplete,p, a 2nd 3D VSP
would be acquired tomaximize geophysical volume
imaging and allow datacollected
ll t d att boreholeb h l tot bebextrapolated to larger volumeof plate boundary
boundary.

Agenda Item 10
JR Advisory Panels Report/Proposal Overview
1. Science Support Office
2. Science Evaluation PanelSEP	  Outcomes	
  (All	  Platforms)	
  since	
  last	  CIB	
  Meeting	  Proposal#
730
771
796
832
834
847
852
857A
878
879
885
886
887
888
889

Type
Full2
Add.(Full2)
ADP
Full2
Full2
Full2
CPP
Full
Add
Full
Pre
Pre
CPP
Full
Pre.(ADP)

	
  
SEP	
  Actions,	
  June	  2015	
  Meeting	
  

PI
Stage
Title
Sabine.Bank.Sea.Level
TaylorSEP
Iberian.Margin.Paleoclimate
HodellSEP
NADIR:.Nice.Amphibious.Drilling
Kopf
SEP
Tasman.Frontier.subduction
Sutherland
SEP
AgulhasWTranskei.Transect
UenzelmannWNeben SEP
Drake.Passage.paleoenvironment
Weber
SEP
North.Sea.GlaciStore
StewartSEP
DREAM:.DeepWSurface.Connection
Rabineau
SEP
South.China.Sea.RiftingSun
HB
Corinth.Active.Rift.Development
McNeill
SEP
Ulleung.Basin.Gas.Hydrates
Bahk
SEP
NW.Pacific.BendWFault.Hydrology
Morishita
SEP
Gulf.of.Mexico.Methane.Hydrate
Flemings
SEP
Aleutian.Basin.Formation
Stern
SEP
HAITIWDRILL:.SlidingWDoors.Fault.System EllouzWZimmerman SEP

Platform

Theme

Result

MSP
JR
MSP
JR
JR
JR
MSP
ChikyuJRMSP
JRChikyu
JR
JR
JR

CO
CO
EM
CO
EC
CO
CO
BF
EC
EC
EM
EC
EM
EC
EC

External.review
Forward.to.JRFB
ReviseExternal.review
External.review
Deactivate
ReviseDeactivate
Forward.to.JRFB
Holding.Bin
Develop.Full.
Develop.Full.
ReviseReviseDeactivate:.Came.back.from.external.review:.Revised:.New
Proposal# Type

730
732
832
834
835
846
848
871
880
884
887
890
891
892
893
894
857B

Title

SEP	
  Actions,	
  January	  2016	
  Meeting	
  

Full2
Sabine.Bank.Sea.Level
Full2
Antarctic.Peninsula.Sediment.Drifts
Full2
Tasman.Frontier.subduction
Add.(Full2) Agulhas.Transkei.Transect
Full2
Japan.Trench.Tsunamigenesis
APL2
Falkland.water.depth.record
Full
Weddell.Sea.History
CPP
Lord.Howe.Rise.continental.ribbon
APL2
Drilling.parameters.for.Lithology
CPP2
Southern.Australia.Cretaceous.Anoxia
CPP2
Gulf.of.Mexico.Methane.Hydrate
Pre
Walvis.Ridge.Hotspot
APL
Indonesian.Throughflow.Makassar.Strait
Full
Reykjanes.Mantle.Convection
APL
Taiwan.arcQcontinent.collision
APL
S.Pacific.Quaternary.paleoproductivity
PreDREAM:.Balearic.Promontory

PI

Stage

Frederick.Taylor
SEP
James.Channell
JRFB
Sutherland
SEP
Gabriele.UenzelmannQNeben SEP
Shuichi.Kodaira
SEP
Victoria.Peck
SEP
Michael.Weber
SEP
Ron.Hackney
SEP
Kyaw.Moe
SEP
Simon.Holford
SEP
Peter.Flemings
SEP
William.Sager
SEP
Kyung.Eun.Lee
SEP
Ross.ParnellQTurner
SEP
Tim.Byrne
SEP
Gavin.Dunbar
SEP
Johanna.LOFI
SEP

Platform

	
  
Theme

MSP
CO
JR
CO
JR
CO
JR
EC
NRQChikyu EM
JR
CO
JR
CO
ChikyuEC.(All)
NRQChikyu n/aJREC.(CO)
JR
EM
JR
EC
JR
CO
JR
EC
JR
EC
JR
CO
JR
BF.(EC)

Results
EFB.(excellent)
Stay.in.JRFB
HB
JRFB.(good.to.excellent)
External.Review
HB
ReviseReviseDeactivate
Deactivate
External.Review
Full
Deactivate
ReviseDeactivate
Deactivate
Full.

:.Came.back.from.external.review:.Revised:.New:.Only.data[Type	
  text]	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Office	
  	
  *	
  	
  Scripps	
  Institution	
  of	
  Oceanography	
  	
  *	
  	
  www.iodp.org	
  

	
  

[Type	
  text]	
  

35	
  

	
  

Proposal	
  Submission	
  History	
  New	
  program	
  

30	
  

25	
  

20	
  

15	
  

10	
  

17	
   19	
  
16	
  

New	
  	
  
Revised	
  
5	
   6	
  

5	
  

10	
   11	
   9	
   8	
   7	
  
Oct-­‐04	
  Apr-­‐05	
  Oct-­‐05	
  Apr-­‐06	
  Oct-­‐06	  Apr-­‐07	
  Oct-­‐07	
  Apr-­‐08	
  Oct-­‐08	
  Apr-­‐09	
  Oct-­‐09	  Apr-­‐10	
  Oct-­‐10	
  Apr-­‐11	
  Oct-­‐11	  Apr-­‐12	
  Oct-­‐12	
  Apr-­‐13	
  Oct-­‐13	  Apr-­‐14	
  Oct-­‐14	  Apr-­‐15	
  Oct-­‐15	
  

0	
  

IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins<tu<on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Active proposals: 94
by science plan themes

Earth in Motion
20

Climate and Ocean
Earth Connections

46

17

Biosphere
11

As	
  of	
  2	
  February	  2016	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins<tu<on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Active proposal status: 94
by target ocean
Mediterranean:
Southern: 4
Arctic: 7

7
Pacific: 39

Indian: 13
Atlantic: 24

As	
  of	
  2	
  February	  2016	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins<tu<on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  

How	
  many	  proposals	
  address	
  which	
  challenges?	
  
45	
  

1	
  :	
  CO2	  2	  :	
  Ice	
  sheets	  and	
  sea	
  level	  3	
  :	
  Precipita<on	
  
4	
  :	
  Chemical	
  perturba<ons	
  

40	
  

35	
  

8	
  :	
  Upper	  mantle	
  
9	
  :	
  Crustal	
  architecture	
  
10	
  :	
  Chemical	
  exchanges	
  
11	
  :	
  Subduc<on	
  zones	
  

5	
  :	
  Subseaﬂoor	
  communi<es	
  
6	
  :	
  Life	  limit	  7	
  :	
  Ecosystems	
  

30	
  

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

25	
  

FB	
  
20	
  

SEP	
  

15	
  

10	
  

5	
  

0	
  

1	
  

2	
  

3	
  

4	
  

5	
  

6	
  

7	
  

8	
  

9	
  

10	
   11	
   12	
   13	
   14	
  
As	
  of	
  2	
  February	  2016	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins<tu<on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Active proposal status: 94
by review stage
Holding Bin:
8
EFB: 7
CIB: 7
JR-Chikyu Umbrella: 2

SEP: 43

FB: 42
JRFB: 27

As	
  of	
  2	
  February	  2016	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins<tu<on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Active proposals: 94
by lead proponent’s member affiliation
Korea: 2

India: 1 China: 1 Brazil: 1

Japan:
8
ANZIC:
7

US
39

ECORD
35

As	
  of	
  2	
  February	  2016	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins<tu<on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Active proponent distribution
India:10
Brazil: 26 Korea:18
China: 37

1258 unique proponents

Others:55

ANZIC: 72

US: 411

Japan: 137

ECORD: 492

As	
  of	
  2	
  February	  2016	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins<tu<on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Drilling Platforms for 94 Active Proposals

MSP
17

JR
67

1
0
0

5

Chikyu16

Multiple:
6

MSP: 16!

Chikyu: 11!

JR: 61!

As	
  of	
  2	
  February	  2016	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins<tu<on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Active proposals: 94
by proposal category
ADP: 1

APL: 16

Umbrella:7

Pre: 22

Full: 48 (incl. 4 CPPs)

As	
  of	
  2	
  February	  2016	
  IODP	
  Science	  Support	
  Oﬃce	  •	
  Scripps	
  Ins<tu<on	
  of	
  Oceanography	  •	
  www.iodp.org	
  	
  Agenda Item 11
TAT ReportCDEX Technical Advisory Team Meeting #2
March 17 to 18th, 2016
CDEX, Yokohama
AgendaThe primary goals of this meeting are to:
Presentation and review Chikyu projects with technical challenges
Presentation and review of current/future engineering developments
Discuss the FY2016 engineering development plan
Discuss emerging technologies from industry and their applicability
AGENDADAY One9:00 1.Greetings, Introductions, Safety instruction, Conflict of interest, and Logistics
9:10 2.Approval of Agenda
9:15 3.Approval of Last Meeting Minutes
9:20 4.Presentation of JAMSTEC Mid‐term Plan
a. JAMSTEC budget reality
b. Chikyu Future Operation Planc. Feasibility of Riser Operation
9:40 5.Presentation and review of future projects with technical challenges ‐1
a. Chikyu proposal summaryb. Nankai Trough T‐limits (IODP proposal 865)
Science proposal
HPCS improvement
Temperature observatory
10:30 Break
11:00 6.Presentation and review of future projects with technical challenges ‐2
a. JTRACK (IODP proposal 866)
Science proposal
Deep water drillingb. Lord Howe Rise (IODP proposal 871)
Science proposalc. NanTroSEIZE C10 LTBMS(IODP exp.365)
Observatory plan
Some improvements compared with C0002 riserless LTBMS

12:00 Lunch break
13:00 7.Presentation and review of future projects with technical challenges ‐3
a. NanTroSEIZE Deep Riser
Borehole Instability (will be presented by David)
Expandable Casing/Small Diameter Coringb. Mantle Project
Science proposal
Project/Engineering development plan
15:00 Break
15:30 8.Presentation and review of current engineering developments ‐1
a. CFRP riser
Scale model test result
4,000m riser system FS
b. Drill pipe
Fatigue test
Drill Pipe Planning Softwarec. LTBMS
High‐temperature life test of borehole‐telemetry PCB
ROV platform deployment by UWTV
17:00 Adjourn
18:00 Reception

Day Two
9:00 9.Presentation of Chikyu operation results from the previous TAT meetinga. Okinawa SIP 1/SIP2
9:30 10.Presentation of Chikyu 5‐year inspection and refurbishment reporta. Vessel/Drilling infrastructureb. Subsea systemc. Laboratory
10:30 11.Other business
11:00 Break
11:30 12.Final thoughts and review of consensus recomendations
12:00 13.Adjourn
Note that If more time is needed, resume meeting after lunch.

Agenda Item 12
JAMSTEC Budget and Mid-term Plan-1

12-­‐1.	
  Background	
  of	
  Chikyu	
  Opera8on	§ Governmental	
  Funding	
  has	
  declined	
  over	  the	
  last	  7	
  years	  § Average	
  3%	
  cut	
  every	
  year	  § Even	
  deeper	
  budget	
  cut	
  for	  the	
  next	  FY2016:	
  by	
  6%	
  	
  
Governmental	
  Fund	  in	
  USD	  In	
  millions	  (¥)	(*)USDJPY@120	

325	
  	
  

320	
  	
  

307	
  	
  

304	
  	
  
295	
  	
  

300	
  	
  

296	
  	
  
279	
  	
  

Averag
e	
  3%	
  cu
t	
  /	
  year
	

280	
  	
  

272	
  	
  
255	
  	
  

260	
  	
  
240	
  	
  
220	
  	
  
200	
  	
  
JPFY2009	
  JPFY2010	
  

JPFY2011	
  JPFY2012	
  JPFY2013	
  JPFY2014	
  

JAMSTEC	
  Budget	
Governmental	
  funding	
  for	
  operaMng	
  expenses	
  	
  (excl.	
  mission	  speciﬁc	
  fund	  and	
  supplementary	  budget)	
  	  	

JPFY2015	
  

JPFY2016	
  12-­‐2.	
  CHIKYU	  Funding	
  Structure	
Source	  of	
  Fund	  (1) Gov.	
  Fund(USD58m/year)	
  (2) Chikyu	
  member	  Fees	  	  (3) Commercial	
  OperaMon	  (4) CPP	
  (5) 	
  DonaMon	  (Budget	
  Amount)	

Carry	
  forward	

operaMon	
(4)CPP	

OperaMon	  Cost	  (variable	
  cost)	

IODP	
  ExpediMon	  	
  (3)	  Commercial	
  OperaMon	
  (2)	
  Chikyu	  	
  member	  Fee	USD58m 	
  

	
  	
  	
  (1)	
  Gov.	
  Fund	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  (Basic	  Cost)	
  	
  

Ship	
  crew/Ship	
  maintenance/CDEX	
  AdministraMon	
  Basic	  Cost			
  Fiscal	
  Year	12-­‐3.	
  Market	
  condi8ons	
  surrounding	
  Chikyu	
  Opera8on	
WTI	
  Crude	
  Oil	  in	
  USD	  WTI(USD/bbl)	
  120.00	  	
  CompeMMve	
  Rig	  Fleet	
  UMlizaMon	
  (based	
  on	
  HIS	  Petrodata	  Weekly	
  Rig	
  Count)	
  100.00	  	
  80.00	  	
  60.00	  	
  40.00	  	
  20.00	
  	
  
0.00	
  	
  
Jan-­‐14	  Apr-­‐14	
  Jul-­‐14	
  Oct-­‐14	
  Jan-­‐15	
  Apr-­‐15	
  Jul-­‐15	
  Crude	
  Oil	
  Market	
  has	  been	
  down.	
  (Pros)	
  § Cost-­‐cuang	  in	
  operaMng	
  expenses,	
  i.e.	
  personnel	
  cost,	
  fuel,	
  subcontractors	
  and	  so	
  on.	
  Oct-­‐15	
  Jan-­‐16	
  

§
§

Rig	
  uMlizaMon	
  rate	  also	  declining.	
  Rigs	
  are,	
  namely,	
  working	  less.	
  (Cons)	
  § Less	
  opportunity	
  for	
  commercial	
  drilling.	
  § Day	  rates	
  will	  be	
  much	  lower.	
  	
  	
  

Pros	
  &	
  Cons:	
  however,	
  overall	  impact	
  on	
  Chikyu	
  Opera8on	
  rather	
  nega8ve	
  	

12-­‐4.	
  Actual	  Performance	
  of	
  Chikyu	
  Opera8on	
  (2005～2015)	
April	

May	

June	

July	

August	 September	
 October	
 November	
 December	
 January	 February	

2005	

Shakedown	
  Cruise	
  1	

2006	
  

R&M	

2007	
  

DOR@Australia	

Annual	  Survey	ProducMon	
  of	
  Azimuth	
  Thruster	  Gear	  Outreach	
  AcMvity	

2009	
  

IODP	
  	
  Exp319/322	
  NanTro	
  SEIZE	

2011	
  
2012	
  

Regular	
  InspecMon	

2013	
  
2014	
  

R&M	

Exp343	
  JFAST2	  	

DOR@Japan	

SIP	
  

Okinawa	

DOR@India	

IODP	  Exp.337	
  Shimokita	

Shakedown	
  Cruise	ConstrucMon	
  of	
  Azimuth	
  Thruster	  Gear	
Shakedown	
  Cruise	IODP	  Exp.332	
  NamTro	
  SEIZE	

Maintenance	
  OperaMon	  Training	
  
DOR	
  
@Japan	

DOR@Sri	
  Lanka	  

DOR@Japan	

DOR@Japan	

Annual	  Survey		

DOR@Japan	

IODP	
  Exp.338	
  NanTro	
  SEIZE	  C2	
  DOR@Japan	
  

IODP	
  Exp.348	
  NanTro	
  SEIZE	
  C2	
  Maintenance	

Maintenance	
Regular	
  InspecMon	
  Open	
  ship	  	
@Yokohama	

Tohoku	  Earthquake	  DOR@India	

Shakedown	
  Cruise	SIP	
  Okinawa	
  II	

365	

2015	
  

IODP	
  Exp.314/315/316	
  NanTro	
  SEIZE	

IODP	  Exp.331	
  Shakedown	   IODP	  Exp.326	
  Cruise	 NanTro	
  SEIZE	
  C2	
 Deep	
  Hot	
  Biosphere	ConstrucMon	
  of	
  repairing	
  ship’s	
  bomom	
IODP	
  Exp.343	
  (JFAST）	

Overseas	
  Drilling	
  Shakedown	
  @Kenya	Shimokita	
  Shakedown	
  Cruise	
  2	
  

2008	
  

2010	
  

March	

12-­‐5.	
  Plan	
  aXer	  NGHP-­‐02	
  (Commercial	
  Opera8on	
  @	
  India)	
=Commercial	
  OperaMon	
4

	

2014
	

Japan

6

7

8

R&M

SIP

9

10

11

12

NGHP-02@India

R&M

10M

	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
4

	

2015
	

5

Retained
Earnings
2015/1 2015/2 2015/3
carried forward

5

6

7

8

NGHP-02@India

	
Retained
Earnings
9
10
11
12
2016/1 2016/2 2016/3
carried forward
Nan
Tro
Regulatory Shipyard Maintenance
SIP
20M
C10

	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
	

4

2016

NanTro
	
C10

	

	

6

7

8

Japan

9

10

11

12

2017/1 2017/2 2017/3

IODP or Commercial Operation Window

Retained
Earnings
carried forward
21M

	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
4

	

2017

5

	

5

6

Japan

	

7

8

9

10

11

12

IODP or Commercial Operation Window		
Retained
Earnings
2018/1 2018/2 2018/3
carried forward
IODP or
R&M
23M
	
 Japan 	 Commercial
Operation

	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
	
2018

4

5

6

IODP or Commercial
R&M
Operation
Window

78

9Regulatory
Shipyard Maintenance

10

11

12

	
Retained
Earnings
2019/1 2019/2 2019/3
carried forward

IODP or Commercial
Operation Window
R&M

EsMmated	
  costs:	
  10M	

13M

12-­‐6.	
  Plan	
  with	  prospect	
  for	  Commercial	
  Opera8on	
=Commercial	
  OperaMon	
4

	

2014
	

Japan

6

7

R&M

SIP

8

9

10

11

12

2015/1 2015/2 2015/3
NGHP-02@IndiaR&M

Retained
Earnings
carried forward
10M

	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
4

	

2015
	

5

5

6

7

8

NGHP-02@India

9

10

11

12

	

Retained
Earnings
2016/1 2016/2 2016/3
carried forward

Regulatory Shipyard Maintenance

SIP

Nan
Tro
C10

20M

	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
	

4

2016

NanTro
	
C10

	

	

6

7

Japan

8

9

10

11

12

IODP or Commercial Operation Window

Commercial Ops

34M

	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
4

	

2017

5

	

Retained
Earnings
2017/1 2017/2 2017/3
carried forward

5

6

Japan

	

7

8

9

10

11

12

Commercial Operation

		Retained
Earnings
2018/1 2018/2 2018/3
carried forward
IODP or56M
	
 Japan 	 Commercial
R&M
Operation

	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
 	
	

2018

4

5

6

IODP or Commercial
Operation
Window
R&M

7

8

9

Regulatory
Shipyard Maintenance

10

11

12

IODP or Commercial Operation Window
R&M

EsMmated	
  costs:10M	

	

Retained
Earnings
2019/1 2019/2 2019/3
carried forward
46M

CDEX/JAMSTEC	  	
  • JAMSTEC	
  needs	
  IODP	
  expediMon	
  in	
  2016-­‐2017	
  window.	
  

– No	
  signiﬁcant	
  IODP	
  operaMon	
  in	
  last	  two	
  years.	
  – Earlier	
  execuMon	
  of	
  high	  scienMﬁc	
  impact	
  IODP	
  project	  has	
  big	
  impact	  on	
  MEXT	
  budget	
  allocaMon.	
  • Complementary	  Project	  Proposals	
  (CPP)	
  more	  than	  welcome.	
  – Even	  a	
  riserless	
  proposal,	
  CPP	
  accelerates	
  execuMon	
  of	
  future	
  projects.	
  • “Road	
  to	
  Mantle”	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  started.	
  	
  – SMll	  the	
  fundamental	
  target	
  of	
  Chikyu	
  IODP	
  operaMon.	
  – Basic	
  engineering	
  development	
  funds	
  requested.	
  – No	
  hard-­‐rock	
  drilling	
  experience	  yet.	
  • Mediterranean	
  Salinity	
  Crisis	
  (DREAM)	

– Several	
  internaMonal	
  workshops	
  were	  held.	
  – ExpecMng	
  ECORD	
  contribuMon	
  and	
  drilling	
  proposal.	
  Science	  Theme	  CategorizaMon@	
  Chikyu+10	
  WS	
Science	
  Theme	

Flagship	
  (Large)	
  Project	

Discovery	  (Small)	
  Project	Japan	  Trench	
  KAP	Other	
  Opportuni8es	

Dynamic	
  Fault	
  Behavior	

NanTroSEIZE	  CRISP	
  Hikurangi	
  Margin	Ocean	
  Crust	  &	
  Earth’s	
  Mantle	

M2M	
  
Life	
  Cycle	  of	
  the	
  Oceanic	
  Lithosphere	

AtlanMs	  Bank	  Ontong	  Java	  Plateau	
  
IBM	
  
Godzilla	
  Megamullion	Deep	
  Life	  &	  Hydrothermal	  System	(Habitable	
  Zone	  Drilling)	

4500	
  m	
  hole	
  oﬀ	
  Hachinohe	
  Shikoku	  Basin	
  (High	  Temp.)	
  Décollement	
  Hydrology	
  (JFAST)	
  Mud	
  Volcano	
  in	
  the	  Kumano	
  Basin	
  Brothers	
  Volcano	
  (Kermadec	
  Arc)	
  Eastern	
  Manus	
  Basin	
  SerpenMnizaMon	
  System	ConMnent	
  FormaMon	

IBM	

AleuMan	Sediment	  Secrets	

Mediterranean	
  Salinity	
  Crisis	  (DREAM)	

Lord	
  Howe	  Rise	  Challenger	
  Plateau	
  Pegasus	
  Basin	
  South	
  China	  Sea	
  Santos	  Basin	
  Bering	  Sea	
  FaulMng	  in	
  Oceanic	  Crust	  Monitoring	
  Nicoya	  Peninsula	  Paciﬁc	  Guyots	  Deep	
  Paciﬁc	
  Somali	  Basin	
  Eastern	  Mediterranean	
  Santa	  Barbara	
  Basin	
  West	
  Caroline	
  Basin	
  Bohai	
  Basin	
  Queen	
  Maud	  Land	Approximate	
  operaMon	
  days	  	
  and	
  cost	  esMmaMon	  	
  Proposal	
  #	
   Proposal	
  Title	  Approx.	
  days	  Approx.	
  cost	  (USD)	  537	   CRISP	
  

300	
  

160M	
  

603	
   NanTroSEIZE	
  C2	
  Deep	
  

100	
  

35M	
  

698	
   IBM	
  

500	
  

260M	
  

781	
   Hikurangi	
  

400	
  

200M	
  

603	
   NanTroSEIZE	
  C6/7	
  Obs.	
  

45	
  

10M	
  

865	
   T-­‐Limits	
  Min.	
  

40	
  

9M	
  

865	
   T-­‐Limits	
  Full	
  

90	
  

20M	
  

NB:	
  Bold	  text	  =	
  Riser	
  expedi8on;	
  Normal	
  text	  =	
  Riserless	
  expediMon.	
  781	
  Hikurangi	
  costs	
  do	
  not	  include	
  mob/demob	
  costs.	
  Agenda Item 13
Science Talk

Agenda Item 14
JAMSTEC Budget and Mid-term Plan-2

Agenda Item 15
Chikyu Proposals (update and discussion)
a.
b.
c.
d.

Potential Chikyu Proposals at CIB and SEP
Recommendation for Future Chikyu IODP Window
Feed-back to Chikyu Proposal Proponents
Bend-Fault Serpentinization (Proposal 876) Workshop

Chikyu	
  IODP	
  Proposals	
  as	
  of	
  February	  2016At	
  CIB:	
  NumberType

Short	
  TitleLead	
  Proponent Affiliation

Platform

537
537B
603
603C
603D
698
781
781B
865

CDP7
Full4
CDP3
Full
Full2
Full3
MDP
Full
Full

Costa	
  Rica	  Seismogenesis	  Project	
  Overview
Costa	
  Rica	  Seismogenesis	  Project	
  Phase	  B
NanTroSEIZE	  Overview
NanTroSEIZE	
  Phase	
  3:	
  Plate	  Interface
NanTroSEIZE	  Observatories
Izu-­‐Bonin-­‐Mariana	
  Arc	
  Middle	
  CrustHikurangi	
  subduction	
  margin
Hikurangi:	
  RiserNankai	  Trough	  Temperature	
  Limitvon	
  HueneRaneroKimuraTobin
Screaton
TatsumiWallaceWallace
Hinrichs

USA
Chikyu+JR
ECORD:	
  Germany
ChikyuJapan
ChikyuJapan
ChikyuUSA
NR-­‐Chikyu
Japan
ChikyuANZIC:	
  New	
  Zealand Chikyu+JR
USA
Chikyu
ECOR:	
  GermanyNR-­‐Chikyu

CDP3
MDP
Full2
MDP2
CPP
Pre
Pre
MDP

Kanto	
  Asperity	
  Project:	
  Overview
MoHole	  to	
  the	  Mantle
Japan	  Trench	
  Tsunamigenesis
DREAM:	
  Mediterranean	
  Salt	  Giant
Lord	
  Howe	  Rise	  Crustal	
  Evolution
Bend-­‐Fault	
  Serpentinization
NW	
  Pacific	
  Bend-­‐Fault	
  Hydrology
Indian	  Ridge	
  MohoKobayashi
Umino
KodairaCamerlenghi
Heap
Phipps	  MorganMorishita
Dick	
  

Japan
Japan
Japan
ECORD:	
  Italy
ANZIC:	
  Australia
ECORD:	
  UK
Japan
USA

Rabineau
Moe
Yamamoto

Resubmit	
  after	
  workshop
Dormant

Status
PCT
PCT
PCT

PCT

PCT

At	
  SEP:
707
805
835
857
871
876
886
800

JR+Chikyu
ChikyuNR-­‐Chikyu
Chikyu+JR
ChikyuJR+Chikyu
ChikyuChikyuDeactivations	
  since	
  last	  CIB:
857A
880
782	
  

pre
APL2
Pre

DREAM:	
  Deep-­‐Surface	  Connection
Experiment:	
  Drilling	
  parameters	
  for	
  Lithology
Kanto	
  Asperity	
  Project:	
  Plate	  Boundary	
  Deformation

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

Ext	
  Rev
REVISEFull
proposaldevelopment
Stage
ChikyuExp. Planning
Process (Stage
1)
Stage 1(from pre‐proposal to full proposal)
Proponents((Re)submit) b
pre proposal

SEP

Evaluatelpre proposal

Submitb
WS
proposals

Hold aworkshop on
their own

resul
ts

Confirm preproposals

CIB

Developlfull proposal

Recommend/encourage
to write WS
proposalReview
WS proposall

resul
ts

1.Decide WS funding
for full proposal development
2 E t bli h P
2.Establish
Proposall Ad
Advisoryi
Team(PAT)

PAT

1.Coordinate WS
2.Give technical and operational
advice to p
proponentspat the WS

TATGive engineering anddevelopment advice toproponents at the WS

ProjectChikyuExp. development
Planning ProcessStage(Stage 2)
Stage 2(from full proposal to implementation)
Proponents(Re)submit
full proposal

SEP

Evaluate full
proposal withadditional expertisep

Reviewfull proposals

resul
ts

Reviewfull proposals

Designatea project

Establish Project
Coordination
Team(PCT)

Prioritize
projects

reportt

PCT

TAT

Holing Bin

Reviewfull proposals

External
review

CIB

resul
ts

resul
ts

Holdingpool
Incorporate into an
implementation plan

Investigate expedition
specific operationalandd technologicalh l i lfeasibilities, etc

Start expedition
coordination

Give necessary
engineering anddevelopment advices

Give necessary
engineering anddevelopment advices

[871-­‐CPP]	
  Lord	  Howe	  Rise	  IODP	  Science	  Planning	
  Workshop	  8-­‐9	
  April	
  2015,	
  Sydney	
  University,	
  Australia	  	  Workshop	
  Report	  	
  Nearly	  40	
  scientists	
  attended	  a	
  two-­‐day	
  science	
  planning	
  workshop	
  to	
  begin	
  development	
  of	
  a	
  full	  International	  Ocean	  Discovery	
  Program	  (IODP)	
  proposal	
  for	
  deep	
  stratigraphic	
  drilling	
  to	
  test	  Early–Late	
  Cretaceous	
  sequences	
  on	
  the	
  Lord	  Howe	  Rise,	
  offshore	
  of	
  Eastern	
  Australia.	
  The	
  workshop	
  was	  organised	  by	
  the	
  two	  major	
  proponents	
  Geoscience	
  Australia	
  (GA)	
  and	  the	  Japan	  Agency	
  for	
  Marine-­‐Earth	
  Science	  and	
  Technology	
  (JAMSTEC)	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  IODP	  Science	  Evaluation	
  Panel’s	
  positive	
  appraisal	
  of	
  Pre-­‐
proposal	
  871-­‐CPP	
  (Gondwana	
  Margin	
  Deep	
  Drilling)	
  in	
  January	  2015.	
  If	
  approved	
  by	
  the	
  IODP,	
  and	
  funding	
  is	
  agreed,	
  the	
  proposal	
  is	
  for	
  four	  months	
  of	
  riser	  drilling	
  using	  the	  DV	  Chikyu,	
  which	  is	
  owned	  by	
  JAMSTEC.	
  
	
  
The	
  workshop	
  attendees	
  from	  Australia,	
  Japan,	  New	
  Zealand	
  and	  New	  Caledonia,	
  spanned	
  a	
  broad	  range	  of	
  scientific	
  capabilities,	
  including	
  crustal	
  tectonics/structural	
  geology,	
  reflection	
  seismic,	
  igneous	
  petrology,	  paleo-­‐oceanography,	
  organic	
  geochemistry,	
  and	
  geomicrobiology.	
  Discussions	
  in	
  the	
  plenary	  and	
  break	
  out	  groups	  largely	
  surrounded	
  the	
  globally	
  significant	  scientific	
  arguments	
  and	
  developing	
  testable	
  hypotheses	  for	
  drilling	
  the	
  first	
  stratigraphic	
  core	  into	  the	  Cretaceous	
  strata	
  of	
  the	
  Lord	  Howe	  Rise.	
  The	
  facilitator,	
  Prof.	
  Mike	
  Coffin	
  from	  the	
  University	
  of	
  Tasmania,	
  demonstrated	
  his	
  broad	
  IODP	
  experience	
  –	
  keeping	
  the	  meeting	  on	
  track	
  to	
  prepare	  a	
  final	
  submission.	
  
	
  
Key	
  science	
  questions	
  from	  three	  themes,	
  Earth,	
  Ocean	  &	
  Climate,	
  and	
  Life,	
  to	
  be	
  addressed	
  from	  a	
  deep	  stratigraphic	
  well,	
  with	  core	  from	  up	
  to	
  3500	
  m	
  below	  the	
  seabed	
  include:	  	
  • Earth	  o As	
  the	
  tectonic	
  link	  between	  supercontinent	  Pangea	
  and	  the	  Panthalassic	
  Ocean	
  what	  can	  the	
  Lord	  Howe	  Rise	  tell	  us	
  about	  the	
  timing	
  and	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  Eastern	
  Gondwanan	
  margin	
  break-­‐up;	
  and	  o What	  is	
  the	
  nature	
  and	
  composition	
  of	
  the	
  basement	  to	
  the	
  submerged	
  Zealandia	  continent;	
  	
  • Ocean	  &	
  Climate	  o Are	
  Oceanic	
  Anoxic	
  Events	
  (OAEs)	
  present	
  in	
  southwestern	  Panthalassa;	
  and	  o Was	  there	  a	
  low	
  climatic	
  temperature	
  gradient	
  between	
  the	  poles	
  and	  the	
  equator	
  during	  the	
  Mid	  to	
  Late	  Cretaceous;	  	
  • Life	  o Is	  microbial	
  life	  preserved	
  in	
  Cretaceous	
  and	
  deep	
  sediments	
  and	
  what	  does	  it	
  tell	  us	
  about	  evolution	
  in	
  extreme	  environments?	
  
	
  
It	
  was	
  reported	
  at	
  the	
  workshop	
  that	  planning	
  is	
  well	  underway	
  for	  the	
  detailed	
  site	  surveys,	
  to	
  be	
  carried	
  
out	
  by	
  the	
  JAMSTEC	
  research	
  vessel	
  Kairei	
  in	
  2016	
  and	  2017.	
  Key	
  data	  sets	  to	
  be	
  acquired	
  include	
  multichannel	
  seismic,	
  long	  piston	
  cores,	
  multibeam	
  bathymetry,	
  seafloor	
  images,	
  and	
  gravity	
  and	
  magnetic	
  data.	  It	  is	
  also	
  possible,	
  subject	
  to	
  funding,	
  that	  a	
  long	  deep-­‐crustal	
  seismic	
  refraction	
  survey,	
  traversing	  west-­‐to-­‐east	  across	
  the	
  Lord	  Howe	  Rise	  over	  the	
  primary	  deep	  well	  site,	  will	  also	  be	
  part	  of	
  the	
  site	  surveys.	
  
	
  
A	
  proposal	
  writing	
  group	
  has	  been	
  established	
  and	
  intends	
  to	
  have	  a	
  full	  proposal	
  submitted	
  to	
  the	
  IODP	  Science	
  Evaluation	
  Panel	  by	
  the	  1	  October	
  2015	
  deadline,	
  providing	  a	  good	  chance	
  of	
  drilling	
  by	
  late	  2017-­‐early	  2018	
  if	
  all	  the	
  key	
  elements,	
  including	
  funding,	
  fall	  into	  place.	
  A	
  second	
  workshop	
  for	  the	
  proposal	
  writing	
  team	  will	  be	
  held	  in	
  Japan	  in	
  August.	
  In	
  the	
  meantime,	
  the	
  draft	  proposal	
  will	  be	
  extensively	
  reviewed	
  by	
  the	
  science	
  community.	
  1

From: Greg Moore gmoore@hawaii.edu
Subject: CIB meeting
Date: February 20, 2016 at 07:12
To: Nobu Eguchi neguchi@jamstec.go.jp
Nobu-san,As expected, USAC is not convinced that C0002 will be completed. Here is what they asked after reviewing my small proposal
for participation in Kumano 3D reprocessing:

There is not an IODP expedition currently scheduled for riser drilling to depth at Site C0002. USAC
would be more comfortable recommending investment of resources in activities that support
scheduled drilling. Can you provide any information about the programmatic intent to schedule anexpedition to drill C0002 or any relevant activities (beyond the reprocessing work) being carriedout that would further promote the likelihood that the proposed drilling operations will takeplace?
We understand that you may not be able to speak definitively on either of these issues but any
information you can provide would be helpful in the continuing review of your proposal. USAC may
prefer to defer decision on your proposal until after the next meeting of the Chikyu IODP Board,scheduled for March 23-24, 2016.
I hope someone will say pretty strongly that CDEX is committed to finishing C0002!
Cheers,GregFrom: Laura Wallace lwallace@utexas.edu
Subject: update on Hikurangi for CIB
Date: February 20, 2016 at 04:08
To: Nobu Eguchi neguchi@jamstec.go.jp
Cc: Sean Toczko sean.jamstec@gmail.com

Hi NobuI just wanted to give you few recent important updates on the HIkurangi riser proposal that the
CIB might want to discuss at their next meeting (I think your next CIB meeting is coming up
soon?) We've had some really exciting developments lately that might make Chikyu drilling at
HIkurangi more attractive to the CIB.
(1) We just found out earlier this week that NSF is planning to fund the HIkurangi 3D proposal.
Nathan Bangs is lead PI, with Greg Moore, Harold Tobin, and Eli Silver. Shuichi Kodaira, Rebecca
Bell, and Lisa McNeill are Japanese and UK collaborators on the 3D project, and several folks in NZ(Stuart Henrys, Phil Barnes) are also involved. There is also some co-funding being contributed
from the UK and NZ to support Langseth ship time. This is very exciting that they have finallyagreed to do the survey!! I think NSF is looking at doing the 3D survey in early 2018 (similar
timing to the Hikurangi JR drilling...yikes.)(2) We had a seafloor geodetic and OBS experiment in the drilling transect recently (the Hikurangi
Ocean Bottom Investigation of Tremor and Slow Slip; HOBITSS) that has revealed much shallower
slow slip on the subduction interface than we originally expected. Slow slip appears to occur along
the plate interface to within ~2 km of the seafloor. Based on these results, we have defined somenew slow slip riser drilling targets ~2.5-3 km below the seafloor, where our seafloor geodetic
experiment suggests large (5-10 cm) of slow slip. This is much more tractable than the 5.5 km
target we originally proposed in 781B-Full. This could mean a comparatively easy drilling target
for Chikyu, with the really high scientific reward of penetrating an area of large slow slip.
(3) We are planning to submit an addendum to the Hikurangi riser proposal 781B-Full, with thesealternative, shallower sites, for the April 1 IODP deadline. Once the 3D dataset is acquired in2018, we will be able to propose even more alternate sites.
Anyways, I just wanted to update you guys since all of this information is pretty important for CIB
to have, if Hikurangi is still being considered.
Also, FYI, the HOBITSS seafloor geodetic results are in review at Science right now, and they havestrict embargo policies on releasing results before publication. If you could tell the CIB groupknow about the seafloor geodetic results suggesting much shallower slow slip, but please don't
include specifics about the results in written meeting minutes that will be posted on the web.
See you guys next month, I guess?
cheers,LauraAgenda Item 16
Chikyu Outreach Activities

CDEX Outreach and Education, JPY2015
1. Chikyu 10th Anniversary
2015 marked D/V Chikyu’s 10th anniversary, and. JAMSTEC/CDEX held several
anniversary events and celebrated ten years of Chikyu activities to various
stakeholders, including government agencies, mass media, the general public,
the science community, etc. These events included;

10th anniversary special symposium (12 November Tokyo, 357
participants)

10th anniversary event for youth (4 October Yokohama, 207participants)Special open ship event for government agencies, diet members,
related industries, and foreign embassies (20 & 23 November Port of
Yokohama, 600 visitors)

Open ship event for mass media (27 October at dry dock, 19 November
at Port of Yokohama, 36 media outlets)

Open ship event for general public (21-22 November Port of Yokohama,
6673 visitors)Special media ship tour during dry dock.

Also several publications and video footage:“D/V Chikyu 10th Anniversary” special booklet (in Japanese)Special volume of “Blue Earth” (official JAMSTEC magazine, inJapanese)Special “D/V Chikyu” volume of “Blue Earth” in English.

New promotional video for D/V Chikyu.

In addition to those activities, several mass media outlets, e.g., National
Geographic Magazine (Japan), NHK, celebrated the 10th anniversary inmagazines, web blogs and on TV programs. Overall, CDEX provided opportunity
for filming or interviews about Chikyu for 16 media groups, and provided
photographs or movies for 56 different companies or organizations.
2. Exhibition booth at scientific conferences
Direct communication with scientists is always important and therefore exhibitionbooths at large scientific conferences are one of the main ways to achieve thisgoal.
CDEX/JAMSTEC exhibited booths at JpGU (May) and AGU (December) to
provide face-to-face communication with scientists and broad stakeholders
regarding D/V Chikyu’s activities.
3. AGU ICDP-IODP Joint Town Hall Meeting
The 2015 AGU ICDP-IODP joint town hall meeting was co-organized withUSSSP, CDEX/JAMSTEC, ECORD, and ICDP. Approximately 400 participants
helped make the event successful. Although there were some outstanding
issues (e.g., noise level in the venue), the overall meeting was successful. Afterconcluding the meeting, IOs and PMOs conducted a postmortem meeting todiscuss ways to better organize the proposed 2016 town hall meeting.
4. ECORD Outreach & Education task force meeting
CDEX outreach staff were invited to attend the ECORD outreach and education
task force meeting in Potsdam Germany, along with USSSP representatives, in
October 2015. This was a good opportunity to share each organization’s O&E
efforts, difficulties, and also helped finalize the planning for the AGU 2016
ICDP-IODP joint town hall meeting.
5. Education
CDEX created opportunities for Japanese high school students at Tagajo highschool in Miyagi prefecture to experience geological field excursions andparticipate in laboratory work for disaster science, including natural disaster andprevention. CDEX staff also visited Japanese high schools and junior highschools to lecture on Chikyu and Earth Science. CDEX coordinated internet
lectures during IODP Exp. 360 between D/V JR and a Japanese junior highschool at Nachi-Katsura near the area affected by the Nankai Troughearthquakes.
6. Upcoming activities
Promotion video of Chikyu: Science Media Netherlands crew will be onboard

Chikyu during IODP Exp. 365 to make promotional videos of the vessel and its
operation.
Exhibition booth: A CDEX/JAMSTEC exhibition booth is planned for the 2016
JpGU (22 – 26 May, Makuhari), Goldschmidt (26 June – 1 July, Yokohama), andAGU (12 – 16 December, San Francisco) meetings. CDEX will also support the
ECORD-organized booth at EGU and IGC.
Chikyu onboard school: JAMSTEC and J-DESC are co-organizing a Chikyu
onboard school soon after the Goldschmidt conference for international young
scientists, students, and educators.

Agenda Item 17
KCC Report

IODP core curation
at Kochi Core Center (KCC)KCC’s
KCC’ Role
R l & Responsibility
R
ibilitAs a member of CIB
CIB, we at the KCC conduct following tasks:•

Curation of core samples as per IODP geographical model– Legacy & IODP cores, cuttings and DeepBIOS•

Chikyuy mirror site
– Complement sampling & measurements pending from Chikyu
expeditions•

Encourage intensive use of core and related information– Core inventory, Virtual Core Viewer, and Sample availability•

Provide access to KCC analytical facility for IODP core study•

Contribute in Pre‐cruise training and J‐DESC core school•

Collaborate with 2 other IODP core repositories: BCR and GCR

Curation tasksk Core storage
g managementg Sample request evaluation
 Sampling plan for Chikyu IODP expeditions
 Organize sampling party Sample data management
 Education & OutreachCuration off core materiall in KCC
IODP Expedition  IODP core curation
Including Legacy (DSDP/ODP) core curation

Non‐IODP Expedition  JAMSTEC core curation
including• Chikyu shakedown cruises
y domestic cruises byy non‐IODP budgetg• Chikyu• Sediment cores taken by JAMSTEC fleet

Kochi Core Center

Bremen Core Repository

Gulf Coast Repository

ASIA

KCC

Geographic model: 3 oceanic regions, 3 IODP core repositories

IODP & Legacy (ODP/DSDP) cores
Repository

Institution

Amount of core

BCR

University ofBremen154 kmGCR

Texas A&M
U i
Universityit

128 kmKCC

JAMSTEC & Kochi
University

111 km

NJ Geological
SurveyRutgers University

0.62 km
ODP Leg 150X

(as of Feb. 2016)

Curation off core materiall
IODP cores (including Legacy cores) : ca. 111 km of core

IODP
15%

New IODP
10%

DSDP
20%

ODP
55%

(as of Feb. 2016)

Curation of core material~1.5 m long core sections (AH & WH) 10 cm long whole rounds
at +4
+4˚C
C, ~80%80% humidity(DeepBIOS) at ‐80
80˚CC
ca. 111 km
296 nos.

Cuttings
at +4˚C, ~80% humidity
1242 nos.

Shipboard sample residues and unused samples returned by sample requesters
Stored in +4˚C reefer and air‐conditioned container(as of Feb. 2016)

IODP Sample Data & Obligation Policy
Implementation plan
• KCC implements the new IODP policy approved by the 3 FBs• Curatorial Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is available
through the KCC website

http://www.kochi‐core.jp/en/iodp‐curation/curation‐sop.html

Sample requests
Legacy core

IODP core

2008

2010

ChikyuJR (Sampling party)

300
2 0
250
200
150
100
50
0
2007

2009

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

US FY

Total
(as of Feb. 2016)

1706

2016

Samples shipped
LegacyIODPJR (Sampling party)

Exp.323
60000

Exp.353
45000

E 346
Exp.346

30000

Exp.354
15000

0
2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

US FY
Total
(as of Feb. 2016)

208,515

Visitors
Legacyg y

IODP

JR ((Samplingp g pparty)y)100
Exp.346

Exp 354
Exp.35475

Exp.353

Exp.323

50
25
0
2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

US FY
Total
(as of Feb. 2016)

445

2016

Additional repositorypysince October 2014
K C C

New
repositoryCCore
repositoryi

Aerial view of KCC

Extra storage space for 150 km of core material
Total capacity : 250 km
New IODP cores being stored in new reefer
Transfer some Legacy cores from old to new reefer

Core racks in new reefer

Exp.
E 353 andd 354 samplingli partytExp. 354

Exp. 353

Total core length

1727 m4280 mNumber of core sections

3704

7464

Number of sample requests

24

32

S
Sampling
li partyt scheduleh d l

S 2015Sep.

O t 2015
Oct.

Number of sampling party members

21

36

Number of samples taken

7706

40822**>10000 samples remained to be taken
Sampling by the KCC staff in progress, expected to complete in Mar. 2016
2nd sampling party for Exp.
Exp 353 cores scheduled in April 2016 due to new spliceExp. 353 and 354 sampling party
Exp. 353 (Indian Monsoon)

Exp. 354 (Bengal Fan)IODP cores to be received
IODP Expedition

Exp. #

Core delivery in

Drilling
VesselA bi S
ArabianSea M
Monsoon355

M 2016
Mar.

JR

Indian Ridge Moho

360*

Mar. 2016

JRIndonesian Throughflow

356

May 2016

JR

M ldi
Maldives
M
Monsoon359

J l 2016
July

JRSouthern African Climates …

361

Sep. 2016

JR

Sumatra Seismogenic Zone

362*

Oct. 2016

JR

Western Pacific Warm Pool

363

Mar. 2017

JR

Note: Onshore sampling party for the JR expeditions will be organized at the GCR.
*No onshore sampling party

Education and Training
Aboutb
IODP policyl andd shipboard
h b d measurements basicsb• Pre‐cruise training for IODP participants in Japan
IODP Expeditions: 356, 357, 359, 360, 361• J‐DESC core schoolh l (basic(b i course))
Once everyy yyear• Sakura
S k
Science
S i
ProgramP(Asian(A i young scientists)i i )skipped this year

Samplep managementgsystemy
Pilot study with Tsukuba University (2015)
・Mobile input‐interface (Android Tablet)
・PrintPrint server unit for sample label
・Sample check function for shipping・Shipping document generator

Collaboration with BCR & GCR• Sample request evaluation– Multi‐repository sample requests• Curatorial
C ratorial polic
policy /proced/procedure
re related discussions
disc ssions– Uniform policy and procedures across the repositories• Sample shipping coordination– Cores from JOIDES Resolution or GCR / MSP or BCR– Archive
h Halflf scanning b
by XRF core lloggers in Europe / USA• Technical assistance‐ Assistance for sub‐sampling of frozen microbiological samples
from MSP Exp. 357 (Atlantis Massif)• Curatorial meeting – occasionallyAnalyticalA l ti l facility
f ilit utilizationtili tiOOpen
forf IODP community
i outside
id Japan
J
since
i
June
J
2012

Logging equipment :XCT scanner
MSCL S -color,
MSCL-S,l -NGRNGR
XRF core scanner
Core Imageg Scanner

Some researchers showed interest in utilizing it; some have actually utilized it.
it
Two to three requests fulfilled annually.

Curatorial
C t i l budget
b d t
especially for the Legacy and JR cores
USFY 2014: supported by the COL and NSF
USFY 2015: supported by the TAMU and NSF
USFY 2016 onwards: supported by JAMSTEC(based on the interim agreement between TAMU and JAMSTEC)
Chikyu Partnership may be another funding source for
additional service (e.g., capacity building) in future.

FurtherF th actions
ti
・Secure the budget for curatorial activities
・StreamlineSt
li th
the IODP andd JAMSTEC core curatorial
t i lactivities for more simple implementation
・Transfer some Legacy cores from old to new reefer
・Test / develop new database for sample registration
・Promote utilization of cores and DeepBIOS in thescience community
・Discuss how to deal with the Nagoya Protocol on
Access and Benefit-sharingg ((ABS)) of g
genetic resources

Agenda Item 18
Access and Benefit-sharing (ABS) update

Agenda Item 19
Chikyu Safety Review Committee Update

19 Chik19.
Chikyu Safety
S f
Review
R i
Committee
CiR
ReportSafety Review Committee
Update The Committee Structure and Recent activities

4th Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) Meeting
23 24 March 2016
23–24
Shigemig
Matsuda (CDEX-HSE)
Committee Secretariat

Chikyu Safety Review Committee Structure 2016
Sub‐committees (responsibility):
1) Drilling Safety SubCo. (Riser andRiserless)
2) Geo‐hazard SubCo.
(Riser)

JAMSTEC President&
CDEX Director General
Recommendations

Review Request

3.

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

2. Drilling Safety
SubCo.
(5 experts)(Currently active)

Result1.

Study

Geohazard
SubCo.

(To be active)

Mandate : After the project is shifted tothe implementation stage,
stage
1. Geo‐Geo‐hazard SubCo shall study the site
survey data submitted by the
proponent to review potential shallow
geo‐hazard and deep geological safety.
2 Drilling Safety SubCo shall study the2.
drilling plan, drilling hazard and thetechnologies employed in that drillingt verifyto
if drillingd illi safety
f t
3. Chikyu Safety Review Committee shallprovide advice and suggestion
p
gg
based
on the committee meeting discussion
and the feed back from each sub‐committee prior to carrying out the
expedition

Activities ::Chikyu Safety Review Committee and Sub‐committee
Sub committee#

1

Drilling SubCo mtg. was held in Mar. 2015 to discuss the possible countermeasures CDEX so far
studied for NanTroSEIZE final stage drilling

2

CSR Co mtg. was held in Nov. 2015 to discuss the operation plan of SIP Hot II and Exp‐365 :Shallow Megasplay Long‐Term Borehole Monitoring System (LTBMS)

3

Drilling SubCo mtg. was held in Jan. 2016 to investigate the possible causes of Drill Pipe failure &drop incident during DCIS commissioning

4

D illi SubCo
Drilling
S bC mtg.
t willill evaluate
l t ththe fi
finall IIncident
id t reportt maded b
by CDEX thi
this year

5

CSR Co mtg. is planned this year after JMH commercial drilling job to review the safety of thepossible scientific drillingg scheduled this year.
p
y
2015

2016

2017

JFY H27
JFY H28
JFY H28
Jan Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

CIB#3
１
Commercial Drilling(ONGC)

CIB#4
２
R&M in Dock
Open Ship
DCIS Renewal
FMEA ２

３

４ ５
S
I
P

C
1
0

J
M
H

Follow up action by
Chikyuh k Safety
f Review Committee andd Sub‐committeeb
2014 CSR Co mtg. was held to review
the result of Exp 348

 1st Drilling SubCo mtg. was held toinvestigate Borehole Instability
problem encountered C2 drilling in
Ex348.

2015

 CSR Co mtg. was held in２

 Drilling SubCo mtg. was held in１

November to discuss theoperation plan of SIP Hot
II and Exp‐365 : Shallow
Megasplay Long‐Term
Borehole Monitoring
System (LTBMS)March to discuss the possible
countermeasures CDEX so far
studied for NanTroSEIZE final
stage drilling2016

g is pplanned CSR Co mtg.
５

Action Drillingg SubCo mtg.
g was held in
３
January to investigate thepossible causes of Drill Pipe drop
incident during DCIS
commissioning Drilling SubCo mtg. will evaluate
４
the final Incident report made by
CDEX this year

Drill PipeP
drop
Incident investigatioon

this year after JMH
commercial drilling job toreview the safety of thepossible scientific drilling
scheduled this year.

Drilling Sub‐Committee

Evaaluation of future sccientific drillingdplan

Safety Review Committee

348 Resultt
reviewYear19. Chikyu Safety Review Committee Report

Safetyy Review Committee
Update1. NanTroSEIZE Exp. 348 C2 riser hole problem
2. Drill Pipep failure & drop
p incident during
g offshorecommissioning
4th Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) Meeting
23–24 March 2016
Shigemi Naganawa
Chair of Drilling Safety Sub
Sub-Committee
Committee

1. NanTroSEIZE Exp. 348 C2 Hole Problem
NanTroSEIZE Exp. 348 C2 riser hole in 2013/2014 encountered drillingproblem caused by borehole instability with time
time-dependent
dependent
borehole breakout in complex structured Nankai accretionary prism
At theth 1st1 t Drilling
D illi SubCo
S bC meeting
ti on 28 M
March
h 2014
2014, following
f ll iactions were recommended
1
1.
KNPP (water-base(water base inhibited) mud system with sealing additives
to prevent shale instability
22.
Real-time
Real
time downhole monitoring for early detection of borehole
breakout, update of formation pressure/stress prediction andpromptp
p action to maintain mud weightg (MW)() rangeg(Collapse/breakout press<MW<Shmin)
3. As management issue, making the most use of in-houseengineering studies
4. Feasibility of new technologies, expandable casing, forcontingency
CIB #4 Meeting 23-24 March 20166

1. NanTroSEIZE Exp. 348 C2 Hole Problem

CIB #4 Meeting 23-24 March 2016

Pore Peressure/Stress Projection
Casing/Liner

ECD (sg)

rrent Configuration and Future P
WD: 1939mMSL (1967.5mbsf)
36"
53.9mbsf

1.00
0

1.20

20"
860.3mbsf

1000m

1.40

1.60

2500m

10-5//8"
x 12-1/4"hole11-3//4"Exp.

Length=±650m

3000m

Length=±500m'SHmax(est.)'applied
MW

Sv

Shmin

SHmax

3000
Pp

4000m

Length=±650m

2000

3500m

9-1/2"
x 11-3/8"hole9-3/8Liner

11-3/4"2922.5mbsf

2.20

Collapse/Breakoutpress.(estimated)

4000<Contingency liner>
8-1/2"x9-1/2"hole8-1/2
x9-1/2 hole
9-3/8"Exp.

4500m

5000m

2.40

Shmin 1.42sg(Injection
Test Result)'SHmax
SHmax 1.65sg（Packoff
Event)'
Shmin(est.)

Depth (mmbsf)

13-3/8"2010.0mbsf

2.00

1.39sg_from LOT

1000

1500m
T.O.L.
1915.35mbsf
2000m

1.80

Pore pressure (海水柱圧)
Mud Specific Gravity(17,12.25, 14.5 in hole)
1.15sg_from LOT

Sv

500m

7-1/2"
x 81/2!"holeAt the 2nd Drilling SubCo meeting on
13 M
March
h 20152015, ffollowing
ll iactionsiwere recommended
1
1.
P of Morita
Prof.
Mo ita gave
ga e an important
impo tantcomment on geomechanicalinterpretation report from iGM
2. Pore pressure/stress predictions andMW window should be updated
3. Improved drilling fluid management
proposedpp
was agreedg
4. New drilling plan and casing
program proposed by CDEX werediscussed
Further improvements are ongoingfor future C2 riser operation

5000

6" hole below this Org line
Target interval including7

1. NanTroSEIZE Exp. 348 C2 Hole Problem

New Drilling Plan and Casing Program

New drilling plan Case A is most
realisticli i one
 Drill fast and immediately set
casing every 650m interval(3 casings+1 contingency)
to maintain safe mud window
6” hole will be drilled through target
formation of mega
mega-splay
splay fault

Following recommendation wasprovided: To reduce time for underg and the risk of usinggreaming
expandable casing, drill 1,000m in
one interval( 2 casings+1i
contingency)i

CIB #4 Meeting 23-24 March 201611-3/4”Liner(already installed)2922.5mbsf

Hole Size:
10-5/8” x 12-1/4”

9-5/8” x 11-3/4”
Expandable Casing
Hole Size:
9-1/2” x 11-3/8”
9-3/8” Liner
Contingency
7-5/8” x 9-3/8”
Expandable Casing

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

7” Liner

Mega-splay fault
6” hole8

2. Drill Pipe Drop during DCISDCIS* Commissioning On 16 January 2016 during DCIS commissioning, drill

pipe failure & drop incident occurred and approximately
1,400 m of drill pipes lost in the sea*DCIS: Drilling Control Instrumentation System
 Estimated possible causes

 Bending moment was generated at the fixed contact

point of drill pipe with insert bowl as the fulcrum
because of tidal current during commissioning Drill pipe rotation in the seawater without verticalmovement resulted in repeated bending stress at the
fixed point of drill pipe and in fatigue failure within arelatively short time Frictional heat might have reduced the material strengthof the drill pipe in the vicinity of the contact point

CIB #4 Meeting 23-24 March 20169

2. Drill Pipe Drop during DCIS Commissioning

Incident Circumstances and Estimated Causes
Usual Drillingp
Operation

Commissioning
This TimePower Swivel(Top Drive)
Bushing
Saver

Large Loadand Fatigue
FailureInsert
Bowl

Photo after Hoist Up
Drill Floor

Fi d B
Fixed
BoundarydFixed Length
F
Free
B
Boundaryd

CIB #4 Meeting 23-24 March 2016

Uneven Contact/Wearinside the Insert Bowl

10

2. Drill Pipe Drop during DCIS Commissioning

Recommendations for Future Actions
 At the Drilling SubCo meeting on 28 January 2016,

following recommendations were provided

 Detailil technicalh i l iinvestigation,i ianalyseslandd simulationi l i workk

for specification of the cause should be continued
 Commissioning under similar offshore operation condition
should not be conducted until the incident cause will becompletelyl l specified
ifi d
 It was concluded that occurrence of similar incident
during Chikyu riser/riserless drilling operations was
extremely low Sufficient and careful risk assessment, and review ofoperation plan, procedures and monitoring system shouldb properlybel implementedld ffor effectiveff
HSE management
CIB #4 Meeting 23-24 March 201611

Agenda Item 20
Review of Consensus Statements and Action Items

Agenda Item 21
Next CIB meeting

Agenda Item 22
Any Other Business