Chikyu IODP Board #3 meeting
30 – 31 March 2015
Miyoshi Memorial Auditorium
JAMSTEC Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences (YES)
Draft Agenda ver. 1.6
Day-1

Monday, 30 March 2015

0900-0905

1. Welcome Remarks(Hotta)0905-0915

2. Introductions and Logistics(Kuramoto/Eguchi)

0915-0925

3. Approval of Agenda(Chair - Kimura)

0925-0930

4. Introduce New CIB Members(Yamada)0930-0940

5. Approval of Last Meeting Minutes(Chair - Kimura)

0940-0950

6. CIB Decisions since Last Meeting(Chair - Kimura)

0950-1000

7. CIB Action Item Status(Chair - Kimura)

Coffee Break
1030-1130

8. Chikyu Operation/status Update(TBN)

Current Status
NanTroSEIZE Update
NanTroSEIZE PCT reports
CDEX C0002 Task Force update
C0010 Observatory (Exp. 365 Summary)

1130-1145

9. Chikyu 5year inspection and refurbishment plan (Kyo)
Shipyard and Sea Trial Schedule
Major Work Items

1145-1200

10. Chikyu Membership Status(Kuramoto)

Update since the last meeting

LUNCH

1330-1445

11. Other FB, IODP Forum, and Agency Activities
JR Facility Board
ECORD Facility Board
IODP Forum
MEXT
NSF
ECORD
ANZIC

1445-1500(Humphris)(Gohl)(Becker)(Kimura)(Janecek)(Camoin)(Heap)

12. Chikyu Safety Review Committee Report
Chikyu Safety Review Sub-committee Update
Chikyu Safety Review Update

Coffee Break1(Naganawa)(Matsuda)

1530-1700

13. JR Advisory Panels Report/Proposal Overview
Science Support Office
Science Evaluation Panel(Given)(Mallinson)

1700-1730

14. Chikyu Scientific Highlight (NanTroSEIZE)

1800-

Reception

Day-2
0900-0930

Tuesday, 31 March 2015
15. Chikyu Long-term Ops models(Kuramoto)

Outlook for the Future Operation Windows
Potentials for New External Funding Sources

0930-1030

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

Chikyu Project Update (CRISP, IBM)New Proposals from SEP
865-Full: Nankai Trough T Limit
871-Pre: Lord Howe Rise Crustal Evolution
876-Pre: Bend-Fault Serpentinization
CIB Workshop

Coffee Break
1100-1115

17. Mantle Drilling Working Group(Chair - Kimura)

Draft Terms of Reference

1115-1130

18. Usage of Membership Fee (ECORD and ANZIC) (Kuramoto)
LUNCH

1300-1430

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
Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing: Implications for IODP

1430-1500

20. KCC report(Kinoshita)

Coffee Break
1530-1545

21. Outreach Activities (10th anniversary activities) (Omata)1545-1600

22. Review of Consensus Statements and Action Items

1600-1615

23. Next CIB meeting

1615-1630

24. Any Other Business
Adjourn meeting

2

CIB positions to be open
• Chair (one)• US member (one)()• Japanese member (one)All two‐year term

CIB nomination committee• Ryo Matsumoto; Professor, Meiji University• Hiroshi Nishi; Professor,
Professor Tohoku University• Gretchen
G t h Fruh‐Green;F hG
Professor,
P f
Dr.,
D ETH Zurich
Z i h• John Jaeger; Associate Professor, University of Florida• Yasuhiro Yamada (Chair); Director, Ocean Drilling
Science Center, JAMSTEC

Nomination process• Dec. 15; Open call to the community• Jan. 31; End call, 6 applicants received• Feb. 1; start discussions• Mar.; consensus

New CIB Chair and members
Yoshiyuki Tatsumi(Chair)

Bernardus Adrianus(Ben) van
der Pluijm

James J. Mori

Kobe university, Japan

University of Michigan‐Ann Arbor

Kyoto University

2 year‐term

2 year‐term

2 year‐term

Evolution of the solid Earthbased on analysis
y ofpetrological and geochemical
characteristics of arc andhotspot magmas, high‐pressure experiments,
i
t and
d
modeling.

Structual Geology, Tectonophysics,
Tentonics.

Earthquake seismology withstudies about the earthquakeqsource processes from waveform
analyses and tectonic structuresusing tomographic
methods.
th dChikyu Current Status
Shin’ichi
Shin
ichi Kuramoto

Agenda 8

Chikyu Current Schedule
4

5

6

JFY non‐IODP2014 Commercial‐1

R&M

2015

7
non‐IODP
Sciencenon‐IODP
Commercial‐2

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

R&M

R&M

non‐IODP
Science

IODP
Science1) Chikyu is off India for a commercial operation which started from early February and will finish by
the end of August 2015.
2) 5 years large maintenance,
maintenance inspections and certifications are required by low in
September through October.
3) Significant engineering works required from safety point of view in November to mid‐January (replace DCIS, UWTV, etc).
4) Non‐IODP science operation in mid‐January to late‐March 2016 will going to the Okinawa Troughby using a SIP fund.
*SIP: Cross‐Ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion Program5) IODP science operation (NanTroSEIZE C0010 Obs.) in late‐March to April 2016.

Agenda 8

C0002 Task Force Update
Operations Department
Ikuo Sawada

Agenda 8

Task Force Update
Exp338/ 348
ResultSidetrack

Exp348 Cause of Hole Instability• Steep Formation• Invasion of Drilling Fluid into bedding planes• Improper mud
d property (High( i h viscosity,ii pH Control)l)• Vibration of bottom hole assemblySidetrack

Plug back 2006m

13‐3/8"2010m
Plug back 2330m

Sidetrack

11‐3/4"L 2923m
Plug back 3058m

Expandable CSG
9‐3/8"Liner
Expandable CSG
7"Liner 4700m
Mega‐splay
6" Hole 5200m

Countermeasures• Expandable
pa dab e Casing
Cas g Technology（2sections）+
ec o ogy（ sect o s） Co
Conventionale t o a Cas
Casing(2g( Sections)Sect o s)– Increase number of casing section– Past Record for deepwater wells (2008~2012 : 142wells , Success ratio 97%)
• Improvement of Mud Property– Re‐design of mud property (Glycol contents, pH Control etc..)– Add Seal/Plugging Agent– Improve Cutting transport capability• Update proper mud density while drilling operation.
– Use Geo‐mechanics software– Conduct Extended Leak Off Test
• Precise monitoring real time LWD/MWD Data
• Use special stabilizers to mitigate vibration of drill string• Continuous circulation system• Establish Onshore Back‐up Team including service contractor specialists.
Issues• Unknown formation structure/formation pressure– Unable to set proper Mud weight prior to drilling– Collapse/Burst of Expandable Casing– Unknown open hole condition during disconnecting BOP.(10BOP (10～14days)
14days)– Non Stop Driller will not be available while coring operation• Complicated casing design/operation procedure

Agenda 8

Operation Guideline(1)
1.
2.
3.

Plug back 2006m

13‐3/8"2010m
Plug back 2330m
Sidetrack

11‐3/4"L 2923m
Plug back 3058m

Expandable CSG

Recover Corrosion Cap
Run and land BOP
Run 12‐1/4" Bit (Slick BHA) and drill out cement
inside 13‐3/8" CSG(3405 – 3505mBRT)
4. Continue to run to top of 11‐3/4"Liner@3883.8mBRT
55.
Temperature Survey inside 11
11‐3/4
3/4"Liner
Liner w/Drill
String
6. Run 10‐5/8" (Slick BHA) and drill out shoe.
7. Conduct ELOT
8. Run scraper
9. Run CBL/UCI
10. Walk Awayy VSP
11. If both Poor Bonding and leak off pressure result
are acceptable, set Whipstock and sidetrack.
* If not acceptable, spot cement in the open hole and/ shoe.
sidetrack from jjust below 11‐3/8"

12. Take spot cores in vertical section.
13. Drill 10‐5/8" hole to XXXXm and open the hole to12‐1/4"
14. Run and set Expandable Casing (9‐5/8" x 11‐3/4")
Mega‐splay fault ±5200m

Agenda 8

Operation Guideline (2)
15.
16.
17.
18.
Sidetrack

13 3/8"2010m
13‐3/82010m
Plug back 2330m
Sidetrack

11‐3/4"L 2923m
Plug back 3058m

Expandable CSG
9‐3/8"Liner

19.
20
20.
21.
22.
23
23.
24.
25.
26
26.
27.
28.

Expandable CSG
7"Liner 4700m

Mega‐splay
g p y fault ±5200m

29.
30.
31.
32.
33.

Drill out cement and conduct ELOT.
Drill 9‐1/2"hole to XXXXm (Spot cores)
Open the hole to 11‐3/8"
Run and set 9‐3/8" Liner (9‐5/8" Tie‐back ifnecessary)
Drill out cement and conduct ELOT.
D ill 8Drill
8‐1/2"hole1/2"h l to XXXXm
XXXX (Spot(Scores))
Open the hole to 9‐1/2"
Run and set Expandable CSG (7‐5/8" x 9‐3/8")
Drill out cement and LOT
Drill 7‐1/2"hole to 4700m(Spot Cores)
Open the hole to 8‐1/2"
Run and set 7"
7 Liner
Drill out cement and conduct ELOT
Nudge the hole and drill 6" hole to XXXXm tog p y Fault
identifyy Mega‐splay
Plug back the hole
Drill 6" vertical hole to deflect the original hole.
Take core to Mega‐splay Fault.
Wireline Logging
Plug back and suspend the hole.
Agenda 8

Expandable Casing(1)Agenda 8

Expandable Casing (2)• Clarification in progress.
– Preparation (Properties of special tool, subs, etc..)– Detail running procedure– Emergency countermeasure– Cementing• Detailed calculation for casing strength/hydraulics in progress– Limitation of mud weight– Limitation of setting depth– Appropriate circulation pressure• Selection of Liner Hanger (Special size 9‐3/8")

Run Launcher

Make up Exp CSG

Run Anchor Hanger

Run inner string
inside Exp CSG.

Monitor pressure/Hook
Load during Expansion

Agenda 8

I
Investigatingti ti D
Drilling
illi Fl
Fluid
id P
Properties
ti
No.

Task

Progress(1)

Re‐design of Rheology<Target> MW=1.36sg, Minimize PV value, Maintain pH < 10.5
Select Sealant additives and PPG 0% or 3%

Not commenced

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Alternative sweeps instead of high viscosity sweeps
Reduce glycol, reduce/eliminate lubricants, test cloud point
Use citric acid to treat out cement contamination
Use Particle Plugging Test to select proper sealantDone , BAROLIFT
U d iinvestigating
Under
i i
Available in domestic
In progress,
Under consideration for composition. Need renewing thelaboratory equipment(6)

Erosion Test and Immersion Test with low and high pH drilling
fluidsDone,
pH10.5 mud is more effective for preventing
dispersion/erosion than pH12.5

Sealant
Product name<Supplier>

POROSEAL<Mi SWACO>Classification

Latex

Particle size
Density< 10micron
1.02

STEEL SEEL50<Halliburton Baroid>
Graphite(Resilience up to 120%)
50micron
1.75

Astex‐S<Telnite>
Soltex70‐300micron
1.2 ‐ 1.5

Agenda 8

No Stop Driller(Continuous Circulation System)
Continuous
Circulation System

Standard
Procedure

Pump
ポンプ
ポ

Agenda 8

6" Wireline Core Service
6• NOV Slimhole Express(Wireline Coring System)
Barrel Size

5‐1/4" x 3"

Hole Diameter

6"

Core Diameter3" (Drill String ID morethan 4.00")

Outer TubeOD : 5.25
ID : 4.375"

Connection

VS Slimhole

Length9m, 18m or 27m

Make up Torque8000 ft‐lbs

Yield Torque13 440 ft‐lbs
13,440ft lbsTensile Yield

285,185 lbs

RPM

30 ‐ 150* Special Drill Pipe has to be used inside 6" hole & 7" Liner

Agenda 8

Mitigate Drill String Vibration• V‐Stab® ‐ Asymmetric Vibration Damping Tool
(NOV)

Agenda 8

C0010 Observatory
Exp365 Summary
Ikuo
uo Sa
Sawadaada

Agenda 8

C10 Operation Plan

Agenda 8

C10 Operation Period
Total Operation days

30 days

1 Transit, Set Transponders, Retrieve Corrosion Cap

3 days

2 Retrieve Casing Packer w/Genius Plug

5 days3 Drill 8‐1/2”hole w/ 9‐7/8”underreamer* LWD will not be run.

3.5 days

4 Run 9‐5/8”Casing Scraper.

3.5 days

5 Set Completion String

10 days

6 Recover Transponder, Transit

2 days7 Contingency

3 daysAgenda 8

Planned Completion Schematic
Assumption:
Sensor BTM @ 850mbsf
WD:3904.0mBRT
13‐3/8”CSG
pp HC110 TSH Wedge
g 521
68ppf
& 68ppf N‐80 ER& 68ppf L‐80 BTC (Combination)@4454mBRT (550mbsf)

17‐1/2”OH

Swellable Packer@4545.9mBRT(641.9mbsf)

Perforation@4562.6‐4581mBRT(658 6 677 0 b f)
(658.6‐677.0mbsf)
42.4m
Est. TOC in Annulus@4647.7mBRT(743.7mbsf)
9‐5/8
95/8”Shoe
Shoe@4717.7mBRT(813.7mbsf)

Liner Top
@4404mBRT(500mbsf)

12 1/4”OH
12‐1/4OH
TOC@4623.7mBRT(719.7mbsf)
8‐1/2”OH@4719.7mBRT(815 7 b f)
(815.7mbsf)

20.7m
150m

20m

Protect Zone
50m
9‐7/8” Open hole@4823.4mBRT(919.4mbsf)

Sensor@4738.7‐4754.0mBRT(834.7‐850.0mbsf)

CMT Port@4774mBRT(870.0mbsf)
BTM Bull Nose
@4784mBRT(880 0mbsf)@4784mBRT(880.0mbsf)
40m

Sensors
 Seismometer Strain Gauge Tiltmetert ete Temperature Gauge
 Pressure Gauge（US pprovides))8‐1/2”OH@4829.4mBRT(925.4mbsf)

Agenda 8

Newly Developed Handing Equipment
Guide Roller

Packer installation
platformC
Completionl ti Guide
G id Roller
R llWorking
Platform

Sheavefor Flatpack

Agenda 8

Chikyu 5 year inspection andrefurbishment planpTechnology Department
Nori KYO

Agenda 9

Schedule
Sep
Shipyard maintenance@MHI Yokohama
@MHI,

Oct
Dry dock

Nov

Dec

Jan

Wharf

Wharf repair work
@Shimizu port

DCIS

Shake down cruise
BOP R&M@MHI,, Yokohama

R&M (‐ 2014Sep)@Singapore,

Loading

Riser R&M*
@MHI, Yokohama

Loading

TTensioner
i
R&M@MHI, Yokohama

Maintenance

Assemble / Stack up / Function test

Test

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

Agenda 9

Major Work Items (1/3)
•

Class
C
ass NK / ABSS required
equ ed inspections
spect o s & maintenancesa te a ces– 6,600 V high voltage instruments– Navigation instruments, Radio– DynamicyPositioningg Systemy– Explosion proof instruments– Water tight door/hatch– Azimuth thruster– Ship construction– Main generator– Mooring gear
– Ballast tank
– Life boat
– Crane– ElevatorEl– Derrick– CMC– Traveling
Tra elin block
blo k
Agenda 9

Major Work Items (2/3)• 5 year certification works– Mud circulation facilities– Pipe handling facilities– Power swivel– Draw works– Riser– Tensioner– BOP

Agenda 9

Major Work Items (3/3)• Replacement of deterioration instruments– DCIS(Drilling Control Instrumentation System)– IAS (Integrated Automation System)– Laboratory– Intake exhaust facilities– Air conditioning facilities– Pump

Agenda 9

R&D
•
•
•

Ultra deep water Drill Pipe: Fatigue test and analysis, model test for stick‐slip/whirl/VIV
Turbineu b e Driven
e Co
Coringg System(TDCS):
Syste ( CS): O
On‐landa d coringco g test using
us g experimental
e pe e ta prototypep ototype
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) Riser: Tensile/fatigue/collapse test, evaluationfor 4,000 m application•

Long Term Borehole Monitoring System (LTBMS): Preparation for high temperature life
test on borehole telemetry, On‐land test for deployment tool of C6 LTBMS••High Voltage Pulse Drilling: Feasibility study
Chikyu Under Water TV Camera system ROV (CU(CU‐ROV):
ROV): Performance test at flow tank

Agenda 9

C
Conceptst andd majorj themes
th
for
f lab
l b modifications:difi ti
1 O
1.
Optimizeti i forf DeepD
Ri
Riser D
Drilling
illi
1.1 Efficient treatment for Cuttingsp Drillingg Samples
p (Lithified(
and igneousgrocks))
1.2 Deep
1.3 Deep Drilling Samples (Limit of Life)
2 More Flexibility in Lab Operation2.
2.1 Simple Path of Samples
2.2 Efficient Layout in Each Area
2.3 Spare Space for layout customization and Third Party Tool ineach Expedition
3. Safe and Comfortable Work Environment

Agenda 9

New Design
g for Lab Layouty1.1 Efficient treatment for Cuttings
 Space for Cuttings Treatment in Core Processing Deck
 Large Sink for Cuttings Washing and Wet Sieving
 Separate Sample Flow Route from Core Sample
1.2 Deep Drilling Samples (Lithified and Igneous Rock) Space for Core Sampling Room
1.3 Deep Drilling Samples (Limit of Life)
 New Equipment: Cell Alive System
 Table KOACH Reduced
R d d Dust
D t fromf
Ai
Air Conditioning
C diti i SSystemt

Agenda 9

New Design for Lab Layout
2.1
2
1 Simple Path of Samples
 Separate Work Space for Working and Archive
Halves Simplified Sample Flow Path for Powdered
Solid Samples(New X
X‐ray
ray Lab for XRD,XRD XRF)2.2 Efficient Layout in Each Area
 New Layout for
f PP Lab,b GeochemistryhLabb New GC Lab
 New Gas pipes
 More Monitors to display Drill Floor Operation
and Real‐time Data
2.3 Spare Space for layout customization andp
Third Partyy Tool in Each Expedition
 Additional desks in Library Spare space in each Lab

Agenda 9

Chikyu Membership Status• Current Members– ECORD (USD1M/yr)(/y )– ANZIC (USD0.3M/yr)• UnderU d negotiationti ti– Taiwan (received LOI on March 2014)– China (planning next meeting through MEXT)– Malaysia,
Malaysia Myanmar
Myanmar, Vietnam
Vietnam, Indonesia
Indonesia,
Philippines (talking)
Agenda 10

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board Report

Susan E. Humphris
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Chikyu IODP Board: 30‐31 March 2015, Yokohama, Japan

Role of JOIDES Resolution Facility Board• Determine the operations schedule of the JOIDES Resolution• Approve the JOIDES Resolution Annual Program Plan
• Approve the IODP Science Support Office Annual Program Plano de oversighto e s g ofo thee JOIDESO S Resolution
eso u o Facility’s
ac y s adadvisoryso y panels
pa e s• Provide‐‐ Maintain communications with, and receive feedback from, other FBs regarding
the effectiveness of the advisory panels in meeting their needs• Develop and monitor policies for data collection, pre‐ and post‐cruise
publications, and core curation associated with the JOIDES Resolution
Meetings:

March and August 201323‐24 April 2014

Next Meeting:

12‐13 May 2015

JR Facility Expedition Status
Expeditions Completed Since Last EFB Meeting:
30 March–30 May 2014:

350: Izu‐Bonin Mariana: Rear‐arc

30 May–30
May 30 July 2014:

351: Izu
Izu‐Bonin
Bonin Mariana: Arc Origins

30 July–29 September 2014:

352: Izu‐Bonin Mariana: Forearc

29 November 2014–29 January 2015:

353: Indian Monsoon

29 January–31 March 2015:354: Bengal Fan

Expeditions Scheduled:
31 March–31 May 2015:
355: Arabian Sea Monsoon CPP*
31 July–30 September 2015:
356: Indonesian Throughflow
30 September–30 November 2015:
359: Maldives Monsoon
30 November 2015–30 January 2016: 360: Indian Ridge Moho
30 January
January–31
31 March 2016
2016:
361 South African Climates &361:
Agulhas Current Density Profile APL
31 July–30 September 2016:
362: Sumatra Seismogenic Zone
30 September–30 November 2016:
363: Western Pacific Warm Pool
* Not included in the base budget; dependent on external funding sourceLong‐Term
Long
Term JOIDES Resolution
Cruise Track

In 2014,2014 the JRFB reaffirmed that
that, based on current andanticipated proposal pressure, the JOIDES Resolution will follow apath from the western and southwestern Pacific Ocean, throughthe Southern Ocean,
Ocean and into the Atlantic Ocean for opportunities
for drilling there starting in 2018 and 2019.
This will be revisited/updated at the May 2015 JRFB meeting.

JOIDES Resolution Facility Board Membership
Susan Humphris, Chair

WHOI, USA (Extended to 9/30/2015)

James Allan

National Science Foundation, USA

Ryo Anma

University of Tsukuba, Japan

B.K. Bansal

Ministry of Earth Science, India

Gilbert Camoin

European Management Agency, CEREGE, France

Manoel Cardoso

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nivel(CAPES), Brazil

B d Clement
Brad
Cl

JR Implementing
I li O
Organization,i iTTexas A&M U
University,ii USA

Mike Coffin

Australia‐New Zealand IODP Consortium

Gil Youngg Kim

Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources ((KIGAM),),
Republic of Korea

Anthony Koppers

Oregon State University, USA

Heiko Pälike

University of Bremen
Bremen, Germany

Christina Ravelo

U. California, Santa Cruz, USA

Andrew Roberts

Australian National University, Australia

Qing Sun

Ministry of Science and Technology, China

Items for CIB Attention• Feedback
db k regarding
di theh effectiveness
ff i
off theh advisoryd ipanelsl in
i meetingithe needs of the Chikyu IODP Board• Proposal and site survey confidentiality policies – clarifications regarding
handling of proprietary data and information• Amphibious IODP‐ICDP drilling proposal procedures and guidelines• Curatorial Advisory Board: Curators make recommendations,recommendations FBs approve
3 new members to start October 2015
• Suggestionsiregarding
di retiring
i i proposals
l withi h no proponent activity
i iJR Facility Board Panels•

Science Evaluation Panel(merger of Proposal Evaluation Panel and Site Characterization Panel)• Responsible for evaluation of all IODP drilling proposals• Two co‐Chairs (one each for scientific evaluation and site survey review)• Initially will remain the same size as two panels,
panels but may reduce in size
Advantages:‐ Allows more holistic review of feasibility and readiness of proposals for drilling‐ Proponents receive one comprehensive review letter‐ Should result in fewer proposals in the “holding bin”
‐ One message to the appropriate FBs on status of proposal•

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

JOIDES Resolution Facility Policies and Guidelines
Approved: • Conflict of Interest Policy• JR Staffingg Procedures• JR Standard Measurements• SEP Site Survey Guidelines• EPSP Safety Review Guidelines• Third Party Tools & Instruments Policy

IODP Policies
A
Approved:d • IODP Environmental
E i
t l Principles
Pi i l• IODP Proposal Confidentiality Policy• IODP Site Survey Data Confidentiality Policy• IODP Proposal Submission Guidelines• IODP Sample,
p , Data and Obligations
g
PolicyyRole of JOIDES Resolution Facility Board• Determine the operations schedule of the JOIDES Resolution• Approve the JOIDES Resolution Annual Program Plan
• Approve the IODP Science Support Office Annual Program Plano de oversighto e s g ofo thee JOIDESO S Resolution
eso u o Facility’s
ac y s adadvisoryso y panels
pa e s• Provide‐‐ Maintain communications with, and receive feedback from, other FBs regarding
the effectiveness of the advisory panels in meeting their needs• Develop and monitor policies for data collection, pre‐ and post‐cruise
publications, and core curation associated with the JOIDES Resolution
Meetings:

March and August 201323‐24 April 2014

Next Meeting:

12‐13 May 2015

ECORD Facility Board (EFB)
R
Reportt anddP
Progress U
Updated t
CIB Meeting
Meeting, Yokohama
Yokohama, 30
30-31
31 March 2015
ECORD FB members:- Science Board: Karsten Gohl (GER), Chair - reporting
Antonio Cattaneo (F)Dominique Weis (CAN)
Gerald R. Dickens (USA)Marta Torres (USA)- ECORD E
Executive
ti Bureau
B(ECORD C
Councilil core members,b
EMA
EMA, ESOESO,
ESSAC, E-ILP)- Funding agencies (NSF, MEXT)

Status of MSP proposals at EFB as of 26 March 2015

758 F ll2 ‘Atl
758-Full2‘Atlantisti M
Massif’if’ (F(Früh-Greenüh G
ett al.)l)- Expedition 357 in late 2015 (Co-Chiefs G. Früh-Green & B. Orcutt)- 10 drill sites with MeBo70 and RockDrill-2 on RV James Cook
- expedition costs are about $4.0M with ship as IKC
548-Full3-Add ‘Chicxulub Crater‘ (Morgan et al.)y 2016- Expedition 364 in early- 1 drill hole to 1500 m penetration; jack-up drill- expedition costs are about $9.9M with $8.5M coming from ECORD,$1 0M ffrom ICDP and$1.0M
d IKC (supply(
l vessel?)l?) requestedt d ffrom M
MexicoiStatus of MSP proposals at EFB as of 26 March 2015
813-Full-Add ‘Antarctic Paleoclimate’ (Williams et al.)- scheduled for early 2018 (2017 not possible)- 8 sites with RockDrill-2 on RV N/B Palmer- expedition costs must be lower than $9.0M incl ship costs (negotiations
with NSF on ship costs), provided that primary objectives in proposal andaddendum are not changed
708-Full ‘Arctic Paleoceanography’g p y (Stein(et al.))- scheduled for Arctic summer 2018
- 1 site with drill ship
- expedition cost is limited to $15.0M with ice-breaker support as IKC,
provided that primary objectives in proposal and addendum are notchangedStatus of MSP proposals at EFB as of 26 March 2015
581-Full2 ‘Late Pleistocene Coralgal
g Banks’ (Droxler(& Sager)g )- EFB holding bin
637-Full2 ‘New England Shelf Hydrogeology’ (Person et al.)- EFB holding bin
716-Full2 ‘Hawaiian Drowned Reefs’ (Webster et al.)- EFB holding bin

Schedule of MSP expeditions
2015

2016

2017 20182019

758 Atlantis M. 548 Chicxulub none 813 Antarctic LC
MeBo & RD
RD‐II,II, jack
jack‐up,
up, MCRD II, LC‐MC
RD‐II,LC MC
LC
708 Arctic
drill ship, HC
LC = llow-costt (<$8M)

MC = mid-cost
idt ($8-15M)($8 15M)

2020

2021

2022

2023

LC

MC

LC

HC

HC = hi
high-costht (>$15M)
708

637
581
716

548
Exp. 364

758
Exp. 357

813

MSP proposals in EFB holding binscheduled MSP proposals

EFB Science Board membership changes
Number of Science Board members increases to 6 with fixed quotas:- 3 members from ECORD countries (incl. Chair)- 1 member
b ffrom IODPIODP-JRJR (USA)- 1 member from associated IODP-JR (non-US)- 1 member from IODP-Chikyu (Japan)
Members rotating off at end of 2015:()- Antonio Cattaneo (France)- Marta Torres (USA)New members starting 1 Jan 2016:- Gilles Lericolais (France)- Stephen Gallagher (Australia)- Fumio Inagaki (Japan)
New Chair and Vice-Chair starting 1 Jan 2016:
Chair Gilles Lericolais (France)
Chair:

Vice
Vice-Chair:
Chair Dominique
Dominiq e Weis (Canada)Other issues
MSP Third-Party Tools Policy
The EFB accepts the MSP Third-Party Tools and Instruments Policy. The
policy will be posted on the IODP website.
Guidelines on Amphibious Drilling Proposals (ADP)
guidelines of ADPs which were drafted by
y an
The EFB discussed the g
IODP-ICDP committee led by Ken Miller and presented at the EFB
meeting by Keir Becker. The EFB suggested some minor changes andcorrections to the flow charts for workshops and full proposals
proposals, andaccepted the guidelines.
Next EFB meeting- 2 days in the two weeks of 4-15 April 2016 (dates still to be determined)- meeting venue will likely be in Brussels (Belgium)International Ocean Discovery Program
International Continental Scientific Drilling Program
Guidelines for joint review of “Amphibious Drilling Proposals” (ADP’s)
Version 1 (Jan/Feb 2015) developed by the joint ICDP-SAG IODP-SEP committee
Kenneth Miller (IODP SEP), Pierre Francus (ICDP EC), Flavio Anselmetti (ICDP SAG),
Jochen Erbacher (IODP Forum), and Sean Gulick (IODP SEP)
Version 2 (3 April 2015) modified after review at EFB and March CIB meetings

The International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) and the International Continental
Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP) support scientific endeavours requiring drilling on theseafloor or on land, respectively. Both programs focus on challenging themes of global
geoscientific and socio-economic relevance, including, but not limited to: 1) active faulting,earthquake, and geohazard processes; 2) heat and mass transport, global cycles, and planetary
dynamics; 3) environmental and climate change; and 4) the hidden biosphere. Scientificinterests in these topics potentially span onshore and offshore drilling objectives, thoughprogrammatically crossing the shoreline can be a challenge since IODP is focused onseafloor scientific drilling and ICDP is focused on continental scientific drilling. Althoughprevious onshore-offshore coordinated drilling proposals have been successful (New Jersey
sea level and Chicxulub impact structure), IODP and ICDP recognized the challenges inproposing scientific drilling to two organizations with different deadlines and procedures.
Hence, IODP and ICDP commissioned a committee to develop protocols for joint review of
proposals that require scientific drilling both onshore and offshore, here dubbed Amphibious
Drilling Proposals (ADP’s).

Definition: Amphibious drilling proposals are those for which full achievement of thescientific objectives requires scientific drilling at both onshore and offshore sites.

This report presents the recommended submission and joint evaluation procedures for
ADP’s. To the extent possible, they generally preserve the normal deadlines and review
procedures of the two programs, with an added final step to produce a single integrated
review statement that is passed back to proponents and forward to both IODP facility boards
and the ICDP Executive Committee (EC) for potential joint implementation. The committee
was not tasked with working out protocols for joint implementation, which will need to beresolved between IODP Facility Boards and ICDP EC and Assembly of Governors, possibly
on a case-by-case basis.

Workshop Proposals
Development of a successful ADP will normally require a workshop to bring together
members of the IODP and ICDP communities and to justify the need for both onshore andoffshore sites. Figure 1 presents a flow chart to illustrate the recommended procedure forjoint ICDP-IODP evaluation of ADP workshop proposals. ICDP formally accepts workshop
proposals that can be funded by ICDP program funds. The current phase of IODP has noprogram-wide commingled funds for support of workshops, but most IODP national or
consortium committees have some workshop funding (e.g., Magellan+ within ECORD,USSSP workshop funding, JDESC workshop funding, etc). It should be noted that ICDP
workshop proposals are in some ways equivalent to pre-proposals within IODP. The
following recommended procedures for review of ADP workshop proposals involve
coordination between the different ICDP and IODP procedures but no significant changes tothem.
Formal ADP workshop proposals should be submitted to ICDP for its annual January
15 deadline for normal review at the spring meeting of the ICDP SAG. On a coordinatedtimeline, proponents should submit workshop co-funding proposals to relevant IODP
national or consortium workshop funding sources (and potentially to other sources likeprivate foundations and industry) for review by their normal procedures. The formal ICDP
workshop proposal should be clearly identified as an ADP workshop proposal in the abstractof the submission. An ADP workshop proposal submission to ICDP should include acomplete and realistic workshop agenda, enabling the execution of the workshop andproduction of a workshop report within a maximum of 12 months following funding. The
workshop proposal should describe the scientific objectives of the project, general drilling
strategy, and the societal relevance. It is recommended that the workshop plan include: (1)invitation of international experts of the relevant disciplines to provide scientific input to theworkshop themes and to foster international collaboration; (2) participation of experts indrilling strategies and technologies; and (3) participation of the operators (ICDP for onshoresites and from JRSO, ESO or CEDEX as appropriate for the offshore sites) to provide someidea of feasibility and preliminary cost estimates. The participation of young scientists shouldbe especially encouraged.

ADP workshop proposals will be reviewed by the ICDP SAG/EC following normal
ICDP procedures and the IODP SEP by adapting its procedures for review of IODP preproposals. For the latter, the ICDP office will transmit a copy of the ICDP submission to the
IODP Science Support Office, who will distribute it to SEP for evaluation of the proposed
amphibious drilling program much as if it were an IODP pre-proposal. The SEP review will
generally occur at its regular late June/early July meeting, shortly after the ICDP EC
considers the SAG review and makes a decision about ICDP workshop funding. At the timeof the SEP review, there might also be feedback from IODP national or consortium workshop
programs about the coordinated workshop co-funding proposals. The SEP review will focus
primarily on scientific and preliminary logistical feedback that can be provided along with
the SAG review to proponents/workshop organizers well before any workshop actuallyoccurs.

Full Proposals
Funding of a workshop proposal should lead to a joint IODP-ICDP Full Amphibious
Drilling Proposal. We recommend the following pathway for evaluation of a Full ADP.
Full ADP proposals should be submitted for the 1 Oct. IODP deadline using the IODP
proposal template (modified to allow appendices as outlined below) and electronic
submission system (see www.iodp.org/submitting-proposals); the IODP Science Support
Office will send copies of the formal IODP submission to the ICDP science office forforwarding to SAG members. As there are differences in IODP and ICDP proposal formats(see next paragraph), proponents may also need to make coordinated ICDP submissions forthe annual ICDP 15 Jan deadline, if required by ICDP. This submission timing will allow
time for the IODP-SEP to evaluate the proposal in early January, to decide if the proposal
warrants revision or external reviews. If external reviews are sought, these should beobtained by mid-March, which would require that the reviews be fast tracked by the IODP
Science Support Office. This process will allow time for the ICDP SAG to review the joint
proposal plus IODP external reviews at its regular mid-March to early April annual meeting.
The SAG will forward their review in time for the late spring ICDP EC/OAG meeting andearly summer IODP SEP meeting, when the SEP would normally consider the external
reviews plus any proponent response before making a recommendation that could include
endorsement and forwarding to the appropriate IODP facility board for potential
implementation.

Full Proposals differ somewhat in ICDP and IODP. In ICDP, key components, aside
from the scientific goals and drilling strategy common to both, include developing thescientific team, ensuring that it is sufficiently international. ICDP proposals also include site
survey, drilling strategy, and cost information in the body of the proposal, whereas IODP
proposals include site survey information in proscribed tables following the proposal and do
not include staffing suggestions. We suggest that these standard ICDP proposal components(non-binding science team, international representation, site survey description, and drilling
strategy including costing) be included as an appendix to the formal IODP Full ADP
submission. The formal IODP ADP must include all IODP forms for offshore sites (andpossibly onshore sites if recommended by ICDP) and follow IODP protocols for delivery ofsite survey information needed to drill these sites.
Following the SAG and SEP reviews, the chairs of these two panels should organize ajoint evaluation resulting in an integrated judgment and formal review document for the
ADP. This could be accomplished electronically or by sending an appropriate SAG member
to the early summer SEP meeting. The suggested timing would allow SEP to iterate withcomments from the SAG at its summer meeting. Both the SAG and the SEP can consider
evaluation of the science and the suitability of the site survey data for the ADP in theirnormal deliberations.

Implementation of an Approved ADP
The committee was not tasked with developing all the procedures for actual
implementation of an approved amphibious drilling project, but it makes the following initialrecommendations. If the full proposal is viewed favourably by the SAG (early spring) andSEP (early summer), then it will be forwarded to both the Executive Committee/Assembly of
Governors (ICDP) and the appropriate facility board (IODP) for consideration and possible
implementation (Fig. 2). At this point, issues of coordination of the onshore and offshore
components will be discussed by the appropriate facility board and ICDP Operational
Support Group (OSG).
Budgeting of the proposed science should be done by the appropriate IODP Science
Operator for offshore and ICDP for onshore, though it is likely that close interaction may be
involved when using mission specific platforms. As noted above, we strongly recommendthat possible costs be discussed at the workshop stage and preliminary costs estimates be
obtained prior to submission of the Full Proposal.

Science members of expedition science parties should be staffed jointly by therelevant IODP operator (JRSO, ESO or CDEX) and ICDP, with the realization that
proponents are not guaranteed slots; rather the suggestions of participants in the Full Proposal
represent advice to the programs of interested potential science party members. All
participants should follow IODP sample and data policies in terms of obligations andmoratoria. ADP cores should be archived at the relevant IODP repositories. Project
publications should be handled through IODP-TAMU, following current IODP practice.

IODP-ICDP Amphibious Drilling Proposal (ADP) Development: Workshop
Green = ICDPBlue = IODP
Gray = scientists

Workshop
Proposal
Jan 15 and ?

submission

submission

Evaluation
IODP Science
Support Office

SEP

SAG/ECICDP Potsdam

June decision and funding

National/
Consortium
IODP
Workshop
Programs

WorkshopFunding

Figure 1

IODP-ICDP Amphibious Drilling Proposal (ADP) Development:
Full Proposal
IODP Platfom
Operators

WorkshopCostestimates
Costestimates

Full Proposal
Oct 1 + Jan 15

submission

submission

Evaluation
IODP Science
Support Office

SEP

SAG

Scheduling

Figure 2

Decision and funding

ICDP Potsdam

FacilityboardsEC + OSGIODP Progress Toward New Science Plan
Expeditions and Full Proposals by Theme/Challenge• Updated after Jan 2015 SEP + Mar 2015 EFB/CIB decisions• Does not include 12 pre-proposals identified at last two
SEP meetings (6 at each) for development to fullKey:
* = 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(or Chikyu riserless if CIB criteria are met)

Climate and Ocean Change (Challenges 1 & 2)
Challenge

Done/scheduled

At FB’s

At SEP#1 Climate
response tohighatmospheric
CO2

361 SAFARI
708 ACEX2
813 Ant. Cenozoic

567 SPac Paleogene
760 SW Australia K{778 Tanzania?}

771 Iberia Paleoclimate**
834 Agulhas Cret.
847 Drake/Scotia
884CPP S Australia Cret.

#2 Ice sheet
and sea level
response towarming
climate(347 Baltic Sea)
359 Maldives
Monsoon
708 ACEX2
813 Ant. Cenozoic

730 Vanuatu SL
581 Coralgal Banks
751 Ross Sea WAIS*
716 Hawaiian Reefs
771 Iberia Paleoclimate**
732 Ant. Sed. Drifts
847 Drake/Scotia
839 Amund. Sea WAIS
863 MDP ISOLATClimate and Ocean Change (Challenges 3 & 4)
Challenge

Done/scheduled(341 S Alaska Margin)(346 Asian Monsoon)
353 Indian Monsoon#3 Control of
354 Bengal Fan
regional
355 Arab. Sea CPP
precipitation
356 Indon. Thruflow
patterns
359 Maldives Mons’n
361 SAFARI
363 WPac Warm Pool

#4 Ocean
response tochemicalperturbation

At FB’s

At SEP

730 Vanuatu SL{549 Arabian Sea}
819APL Arab Sea OMZ{595 Indus Fan}
863 MDP ISOLAT
618 E. Asian Mons’n
868 Drake/Scotia
777APL Okinawa
877 Indian Monsoon

760 Mentelle Basin
819APL Arab Sea OMZ
857MDP DREAM
858 APL NW Aust364 Chicxulub Impact

Biosphere Frontiers
Challenge

Done/scheduled

At FB’s#5 Origin, extent,
significance of(347 Baltic Sea)
505 Mariana forearc
subseafloor
357 Atlantis Massif
biosphere#6 Limits ofsubseafloor life

#7 Ecosystemsensitivity toenvironmental
changeAt SEP635 Hydrate Ridge
830 APL Scott Plat.
833 Guaymas Basin
857MDP DREAM

830 APL Scott Plat.
857MDP DREAM865 Nankai T Limit***{724 Gulf of Aden}

760 Mentelle Basin
819 APL Arab OMZ
857MDP DREAM
858 APL NW Aust

Earth Connections
Challenge

Done/scheduled

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

522 Superfast Crust 834 Agulhas Cret.
800 Atlantis Bank
805 MDP Mohole#9 Seafloor(345 Hess Deep)spreading and ocean
349 SCS Tectonics
crustal architecture

760 Naturiste Plat.
522 Superfast Crust 805 MDP Mohole
769 APL 504B logs 838 CPP SCS II
879 Corinth Rift**#10 Chemical
exchange between
crust and seawater

505 Mariana forearc 818 Brothers Arc

357 Atlantis Massif

At SEP#11 Subduction and 350 IBM rear arc
698 IBM middle
formation of
351 IBM arc origins
crust***
continental crust
352 IBM forearc

Earth in Motion
Challenge

Done/scheduled

At FB’s(NanTroSEIZE 1,2,3) NanTroSEIZE 3,4***#12 Control of(334/344 CRISP A) 537B CRISP B***earthquakes,
781A Hikurangi
362 Sumatra
landslides, tsunamis
364 NTS C10 Obs’y 782B Hikurangi

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

837 New Eng. hydro.
505 Mariana forearc
633 Costa Rica mud
moundsMEXT Report to CIB #3 Meeting
Yuzuru Kimura

JAMSTEC Budget(Unit: 100 Mil Yen)

400000

Supplementarybudget Others

300000

Supplementarybudget Drilling

200000Subsidy

100000

Original budget

0
FY2011FY2012FY2013

FY2014FY2015MOF evaluated Science Drilling Project• Ministry of Finance is responsible for its budget
disbursement, and evaluates several sectors
every year.
• Ministry of Finance studied the implementationof Chikyu budget by itself in FY2014, andrecommended severall actions off improvementof the contract procedures in its report.

ECORD news

G. CAMOIN
Director of the ECORD Managing Agency

> Renewed contacts with Spain
FY14 contributions‐ « Accessing Member » : Russia‐ Contacts : Turkey, Czech Republic, Luxembourg

Total fixed costs :M 11.2 $ yyr ‐1
Available for MSP
operations :M 7.8 $ yr ‐1> Potential additional contributions (cash, IKCs) notconsidered

17 ECORD members($US)
Austria> FY18 100,000
Belgium
TBD
30,000
Canada> FY155 150,000
5 ,Denmark > FY16 184,000
Finland> FY18 80,000
Germany > FY18 5,600,000
Icelandl d>FY14
30,000
Ireland>FY18 137,000
Israel> FY16 30,000
Italy> FY18 400,000
Netherlands >FY18 500,000
Norway>FY18 1,100,000
Poland>FY1830,000Portugal>FY1890,000Sweden>FY18 528,080
Switzerland >FY16 600,000
UK>FY18 4,296,400
4 296 400
France>FY18 5,212,000
TOTAL
19,097,480> Potential newcomers

http://www.ecord.org

Amphibious Drilling Proposals (ADPs)
ADPs can only be accomplished bydrilling both onshore (ICDP)
(
) and
ff
((IODP, mostlyy throughg
offshore
ECORD)
796 Full
Landslide ggeohazards :Testing multiple trigger mechanisms
at the Ligurian slope (A. Kopf et al.)
NADIR
Nice Amphibious Drilling, in situ
monitoring and risk analysis(A. Kopf et al.)

In‐Kind Contributions (IKCs)•

Drilling platforms /systems•

Support vessels•

Essential scientific service•

Hazard site survey•

Onshore facility near the drill site•

Ice management•

Remote logistics and assistanceIn‐Kind Contributions (IKCs)
 Any

IODP

memberandnon‐member

countrycanpropose IKCs following an open call

 IKCs offers evaluated by ESO and their proposed
cash value must be approved by the ECORD Council

 IKCs rewarded by extra Science Party positions on the
MSP expedition for which the IKC has been rendered.

ECORD Science and Educational ProgrammeDistinguished Lecturer ProgrammeMagellanPlus Workshop Series Programme

ECORD Summer Schools



ECORD Scholarships



ECORD Grants

Teachers at Sea



ECORD School of Rock

M a g e l l a n P l u s Wor k s h o p Series P rogramme2014 Deep‐Sea Record of Mediterranean Messinian Events (DREAM‐II),() Paris, France
g within the Corinth Continental Rift,
f , Athens,, Greece
 IODP Drilling BLACKSINK: Black Sea History of the past 15 Ma, Utrecht, The Netherlands Accelerating Neoproterozoic Research through Scientific Drilling, Nottingham, UK
 Advancing Sub‐surface Biosphere and Paleoclimate Research, Seoul, Korea
 North Atlantic Drillingg ffor Climate dynamics,y, Heidelberg,g, GermanyyM a g e l l a n P l u s Wor k s h o p Series P rogramme2015• Drilling
tropical
D illi theth CCretaceous‐PalaeogenetP lt i l SouthS th Atlantic,
Atl ti Newcastle,
N
tl
UK• MEDGATE : Mediterranean‐Atlantic Gateways, Rabat, Morocco• Mantle,, Water and Life,f , Lyon,
y , France• Submarine Paleoseismology, Zurich, Switzerland

Amphibious Drilling Proposal workshops :2 0 k € y r ‐1

ECORD Summer Schools
2015•

Urbino Summer School in Paleoclimatology•

ECORD Bremen Summer School 2015 Ocean crust processes :magma, faults,
f lt fluxes
flandd lifelif•

8th Course, International School of Foraminifera, Urbino, Italy•

ECORD Training Course : “The Virtual Drillship Experience”,
Bremen, Germany

ECORD Council
Funding agencies

JOIDES
Resolution

EMA
Managing Agency

ChikyuMagellanPlus
W k h Series
Workshop
S i

ECORD FB(ECORD – ICDP)MSP schedulingcommittee

Mission Specific
Platforms

ESO

ESSAC

Implementing
Organisation

ScientificCommittee

Education

Vision/ OutreachTask Force

Task ForceECORD ILP
( Industry Liaison )____________________________________________
Chikyu Board Meeting 30-31 March 2015 - ANZIC Report
ANZIC funding for membership expires within the Australian 2015-16
financial year. Currently ANZIC is preparing an application for another5 years of funding for its IODP membership from the AustralianGovernment.
ANZIC currently comprises: Australia: 2 Australian Government funded
research agencies and 15 universities; NZ 1 NZ Government Funded
research agency and 2 universities. The new consortium will comprisesimilar number and composition of agencies, with some universities
leaving and others joining. Membership is still strong and while themajority of the membership fees comes from the Australian Government theother ANZIC members will bring in about AUS$785K per year committed forthe life of the membership.
Under the new application ANZIC's membership will be similar to present,
joining the Chikyu, JOIDES, and ECORD platforms at US$1.5M to US/Europe
and US$0.3M to Japan. However, as part of the normal course of events,
we have been asked to provide an assessment of the effects on themembership if we were to receive less Australian Government funding.
ANZIC should know likely outcome at the IODP forum in July with official
approval by September/October 2015.
During its membership of IODP, ANZIC has continued to provide worldclass scientists on all IODP legs across a range of scientificdisciplines. Recently, we have had high quality scientists on Legs 353,
354, and 365. This will continue into the foreseeable future. ANZIC
continues to be able to develop world class drilling proposals. Leg 356
to NW Australia to investigate Indonesian Throughflow has an ANZIC coChief and will sail in the middle of this year. Two very highly regarded
and exiting IODP proposals have been developed for potential riser
drilling on Chikyu in the Australia-NZ region: Hikurangi Margin - slow
slip led by Uni of Texas and GNS, and LHR - eastern Gondwana margin
break-up led by GA and JAMSTEC.
The Hikurangi Margin project is a multiphase drilling project, with the
Chikyu required for riser drilling in the slow slip fracture zone.
Unfortunately the proposal for the 3D seismic survey wasn't funded,however another application will be prepared and submitted this calendar

year, and we are still awaiting the outcome of an application to NERC
for the same work. Understand its at the final stage and we are
expecting a decision very soon. Given the EPSP favourably reviewed the
proposed drill sites, we are expecting the riserless component to bescheduled into the JOIDES 2017/18 schedule.
The LHR pre-proposal submitted in October 2014 was reviewed extremely
well by the SEP in January 2015, and on the back of this GA and JAMSTEC
will jointly be convening a science development workshop in Sydney next
week (7-10 April) to progress the proposal for submission in October
2014. A total of 36 scientists from all over the world will be inattendance. The LHR project is a potential CPP, and GA has recently
obtained funding from the Australian Government to undertake the site
survey work with JAMSTEC. GAs commitment to the site survey has beencommunicated to JAMSTEC. On the back of a good review of the proposal,
GA would then go back to the Australian Government for the remaining
funds for the drilling leg. We continue to have positive discussions
with the Federal Government about this project proposal - need to
identify a source of funding.
ANZIC is looking forward to receiving many of you at the IODP forum inCanberra in July. Please bring warm clothes!
Andrew Heap
Geoscience Australia (on behalf of ANZIC)

12. Chikyu Safety Review Committee Report

Drilling Safety Sub-Committee
U dUpdate3rd Chikyu IODP Board (CIB) Meeting
30 March 2015
Shigemi Naganawa
Chair of Drilling Safety Sub-Committee

Outline
 2nd meeting on 13 March 2015: Review on interim

report by CDEX for future NanTro C2 operation plan Borehole breakout was a major problem at Exp. 348
C0002 riser hole
Extremely difficult and challenging drilling project
also
l iin geomechanicalh i l andd engineeringiipointsi t
1. Interpretation of the breakout mechanism: Prof.

Morita gave an important comment to the iGM report
2. Appropriate drilling fluid management: A
countermeasure for the borehole breakout was agreed
3. New drilling plan: Casing program CDEX proposed
for the borehole breakout problem was discussed
3rd CIB Meeting 30-31 March 20152

1. Formation Characteristics and Anisotropic
BoreholeTime-lapse
Breakout from iGM Report

Formation Dip

Borehole Breakout
Simulation Result

Borehole Images

4983.1m

While drilling

4983.9m

0
Coring Int.

904981.2m

Strong anisotropy in horizontal
formation strength Strongg anisotropy
py in horizontal
stress field

30-Dec-13 22:30

4986.8m
4989.5m
4992.0m30-Dec-13 23:00

4995.3m

30-Dec-13 23:30

5003 7After 3.55.5hrs

Aft 36hrs
After
36h

3rd CIB Meeting 30-31 March 2015

Redu
uction of coheesion and slid
ding friction

4998.2m
5001.2m

Formation with steeply
dipping bedding planes

Shmax(from C2A)

Formation with potential
weak planes

A number of steeply dipping
sliding planes due to structuraldeformation

Anisotropic borehole
breakout

DrillingDilli flfluid
id iinvasioni ththroughhthe weak planes into
bedding/fracture which reduces
cohesion and sliding friction* iGM: Insight GeoMechanics Pty. Ltd.

3

12 Chikyu Safety Review Update
12.
Health, Safety and Environment(HSE) GroupShi
ShigemiiM
Matsudat dAgenda 12

Recent Activities of Chikyu Safety Review Committee
and Sub‐committee
Sub committeeYear

Sub ‐Committee

2. Committee mtg. was held
to review the result of Exp
348 based on CDEX report
and the suggestion madeby Drilling Safety Sub‐
committee (June)

1 Drilling Safety Sub
1.
Sub‐committee
committee wasstformed and 1 mtg. was held to findout the reason why Borehole
Instability problem occurred while
drilling C0002 in Ex348. SC provided
the suggestion to CDEX in the end(March)2014

4. Committee Mtg. will beheld after Chikyu returns
from India in Aug. todiscuss C10 detail drillingplan

3. 2nd Drilling SC Mtg. was held to discuss
the interim report of the possible
countermeasures CDEX has studied so
far for NanTroSEIZE final TD drilling(March)5. Drilling SC Mtg. will be held 1or 2 times
according to the progress of CDEX study
6. Geo‐hazard Sub‐committee will beformed in 2015 in cooperation with
Drilling Sub‐committee

Discusss counter‐‐measures& Drilling PlanP2015

348 Result review& suggestion

Safety Review Committee

Chikyu Safety Review Committee Structure
Sub‐committees (responsibility):

JAMSTEC President&
CDEX Director General
Recommendations

1) Drilling Safety SC.(Riser and Riserless)
2) Geo‐hazard
G hd PreventionP
ti SC.
SC(Riser)(Ri )Review Requestq

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

Drilling
Safety SC.
SC(4 experts)(Currently active)

ResultStudy

Geohazard
Prevention SC.
SC(To be active)

Mandate : After the project is shifted tothe implementation stage,• Geo
Geo‐‐hazard Prevention SC shall study
the site survey data submitted by the
proponent to identify potential geo‐
hazard at the proposed riser drillingsite. ※ Geohazard SC will be formed in JFY 2015
• Drillingg Safetyy SC shall studyy the
drilling plan and the technologies
employed in that drilling to verify
operational feasibility• Chikyu Safety Review Committee
shall provide advice and suggestion
based on the committee meetingg
discussion and the feed back fromeach sub‐committee prior to carryingout the expeditionSupplemental Comment on Breakout Mechanism
by ProfProf. Morita,
Morita a member of sub-committee Stress-strain curve of steeply dipping rockformation changes in millimeters
 Hard and soft beddings are layered one
after another* Heterogeneity * Macroscopically Directional Stress concentration in millimeters
Borehole breakout occurs in the way of
Increasein Poreformation detaching along(4)beddingplanesPressure & Escalation((2)) SShalea e Swelling
S e g in Swelling

In hard rock formation the
layer
Mud
anddetachingfiltrate invasion due to
breakout and/or micro-fracture(0.01-0.1mm
outbreak of micro-fracture
in width, a few cm in length)
spec a y laminatedaated sshale
aeo
often
te ccreates
eates
Especiallythis problem(3) Temperature Change∆T (temp. difference between while drillingand original formation temperature) causes
the laminated formation to swell and shrink
When the temperature increases while
drilling the hard rock formation in thermal
expansion will have the same problem as(2) shale swelling
3rd CIB Meeting 30-31 March 2015

(5) Drill Pipe Stuck due
e to boreehole theelayer D
Detachinng Breakkout(1) Stress

Time-dependentidd
failuref ilcauseddby synergistic effect of (1) to (4)42. Management of Drilling Fluid Properties(suggestion from Prof
Prof. Morita)
 Sub-committee agreed on the following drilling fluid

management plan Nano-sealant is recommended to be added into

drilling fluid: To prevent detaching breakout causedby shale swelling in 0.1% order along the bedding
steeply dipping bedding plane Maximizing mud weight as much as practicallypossible is recommended to be adopted and to be
maintained around minimum horizontal stress(Shmin) as upper limit: To resist large stress ofaccretionary prism

Management of drilling fluid is crucial for goodborehole stability to deepen the C0002 site hole
3rd CIB Meeting 30-31 March 2015

5

Pore Pressure/Stress Prediction, Mud Weight
Window and Casing Program
Pore Peressure/Stress Projection
Casing/Liner
1.00
0

WD: 1939mMSL (1967.5mbsf)
36"
53.9mbsf

1.20

1000m

1.40

1.60

2500m

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

Length=±650m

3000m

7-1/2"
x 81/2!"holeLength=±500m'SHmax(estSHmax(est.))'applied
MW

Sv

Shmin

3000
Pp

4000m

Length=±650m

2000

3500m

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

11-3/4"2922.5mbsf
2922
5mbsf

Collapse/BreakoutCll/B k tpress.(estimated)

4000<Contingency liner>
8-1/2"x9-1/2"hole9-3/8"Exp.

4500m

5000m

2.20

2.40

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

Depth (mbsf)

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

20"
860.3mbsf
860
3mbsf

 Upper limit of mud weight

ECD (sg)

rrent Configuration and Future P

5000

6" h
hole
l b
below
l
thi
this Org
O lineli
Target interval including

3rd CIB Meeting 30-31 March 2015

SHmax

 Should be determinedfrom predicted Shminand/or data from leakoff
test at 11-3/4” Liner Casing design, riser load
capacityi andd riserianalysisl ishould be also considered Lower limit of mud weight Collapse/breakoutpressure Casing program is discussed
pgbased on safe operating
mud window
63. New Drilling Plan and Casing Program CDEX's New drilling plans are discussed

Case A:
Case B:
Case C:

Deepening the existing hole with sidetrack at
11-1/8" lowest existing casing
Deepening the existing hole with sidetrack at
13-3/8" upper existing casing
Drilling a new hole

 Casing program for Case A, most realistic plan

 CDEX proposal: Drill fast and set casing immediately inevery 650±m interval (3 casing + 1 contingency) tomaintain safe mud window Proposal from member: To reduce time spent for underunderreaming and risk of using expandable casing, drill
1,000m in one interval (2 casing + 1 contingency)
3rd CIB Meeting 30-31 March 2015

7

Proposed Casing Program for Case A
11-3/4”Liner(already installed)2922.5mbsf

6” hole will be drilled
through target formationof mega-splay fault

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
9-1/2
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
7-1/2”
8-1/2”
1/2”

7” Liner

Mega-splay fault
3rd CIB Meeting 30-31 March 2015

6” hole8

IODP Science Support Office
Scripps Institution off Oceanography
University of California San Diego

Brief Report to Chikyu IODP Board
30 March 2015
Holly Given, Executive Director

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

What is the IODP Science Support Office?
••••Funded by US National Science Foundation
FY2015 budget US$1008K
4.9 person‐years (FTEs): 87% of budget
F
Four
TTasks:k––––

Support the JRFB and its advisory panels
Oversee the proposal process for IODPManageg the Site Surveyy Data Bank
Provide www.iodp.org
IODP Science Support Office • Scripps Institution of Oceanography • www.iodp.org

What Holds IODP Together Now?
Science Plan,
Plan MOUs on platform funding and staffing

Common policies, proposal process

Expeditions, public relations, workshops

Discoveries,, ppublications,, other outcomes

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

5

Oct‐1415

Apr‐14

IODP Proposal Submissions

Oct‐13

Apr‐13Oct‐12

Apr‐12

Oct‐11

Apr‐11

Oct‐10

Apr‐10

Oct‐09Apr‐09Oct‐08Apr‐08Oct‐07

Apr‐07

Oct‐06

Apr‐06

Oct‐05

Apr‐05

Oct‐0435

30

New program

25

20

16 17 19
New

10

Revised10 11 90

106 Active Proposals
p
17% involve Chikyu(Engineering:1)

Earth in Motion
20

Earth Connections
17

Climate and Ocean
55

Biosphere
13

12 proposals
l are uniquelyl Chikyuhk
As of 12 February 2015

Activect e pproposal
oposa status:
status 106
06
by target ocean
Mediterranean:
Southern: 48Arctic: 8
Pacific: 41

Indian:d a 188

Atlantic: 27

As
A off 12 FFebruaryb
2015Active p
proposalstatus: 106p
by Review stage
Holding Bin:
7

FBs: 44

SEP:
EP: 55

As of 12 February 2015

106 Active Proposals
by lead proponent’s affiliation
Brazil: 1

India: 2

China: 1

K
Korea:
1

Japan:
9
ANZIC:
9

US
43
ECORD
40

Lead proponent’s affiliation (as of 12 February 2015)

Active proponent distribution
India: 22 Korea: 10
Brazil: 26
China: 37

ANZIC: 72

1300 uniqueq pproponentsp

Others:53
US: 428

Japan: 138

ECORD: 514

As of 12 February 2015

Proposalsp• IODP p
proposalpsubmissions MUST be made via
the e‐system (proposals.iodp.org)• Proposall Submissionb i i Guidelines
id liddocument
iis
continuously evolving (iodp.org/program‐
documents)• Proposals continue to be refined at the Facility
Board (see p147 of Agenda Book)
proponents

Facility Board
SEP

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

Inquiries re: Agreements for
proprietary site survey data (SSDB)
Proposal

RegionData Provider

846‐APL (Peck)

Falkland Islands

Geophysical Services Inc

840‐Pre(Wagner)

Niger Margin
Transect

Shell Nigeria

864‐Pre(Dunkley Jones)

Pernambuco
Plateau, Brazil

Unknown

730‐Full (Taylor) Bouganville Guyot,
V
Vanuatut

IFREMER

These inquiriesqresulted in clarifications to IODP Proposalp
and Data
Confidentiality Policies (www.iodp.org/program‐documents)

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

wwww.iodpp.org/pprogram‐doccumennts

Posting Program Policies

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

Call for Proposal language needed in early JulyIODP Science Support Office • Scripps Institution of Oceanography • www.iodp.org

wwww.iodpp.org/ssubmittting‐p
proposals

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

IODP proposals at the CIB
NumberType

Short Title

Lead Proponent

Affiliation

Platform

Status537

CDP7

Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project Overview

von Huene

USA

Chikyu+JR

CIB

537B

Full4

Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project Phase B

RaneroECORD: Germany

Chikyu

CIB

603

CDP3

NanTroSEIZE Overview

KimuraJapan

JR+Chikyu

CIB

603C

Full

NanTroSEIZE Phase 3: Plate Interface

Tobin

Japan

Chikyu

CIB

698

Full3

Izu‐Bonin‐Mariana Arc Middle Crust

TatsumiJapan

Chikyu

CIB

707

CDP3

Kanto Asperity Project: Overview

Kobayashi

Japan

JR+Chikyu

SEP

781

MDP

Hikurangi subduction margin

Wallace

ANZIC: New Zealand

Chikyu+JR

CIB

781B

Full

Hikurangi:
g Riser

WallaceUSA

Chikyu
y

CIB

782

Pre

Kanto Asperity Project: Plate Boundary Deformation

YamamotoJapan

Chikyu

SEP

800

MDP

Indian Ridge Moho

Dick

USA

Chikyu+JR

CIB

805

MDP

MoHole to the Mantle

Umino

Japan

Chikyu

SEP

835

Full

Japan Trench Tsunamigenesis

KodairaJapan

Chikyu

SEP

857

MDP2

DREAM: Mediterranean Salt Giant

Camerlenghi

ECORD: Italy

Chikyu+JR

SEP

857A

pre

DREAM: Deep‐Surface Connection

Rabineau

ECORD: France

Chikyu

SEP

865

Full

Nankai Trough Temperature Limit

Hinrichs

ECORD: Germany

NR‐Chikyu

CIB

871

Pre

Lord Howe Rise Crustal Evolution

Heap

ANZIC: Australia

Chikyu

SEP

876

Pre

Bend‐Fault Serpentinization

Phipps Morgan

ECORD: UK

JR+Chikyu

SEP

880

APL

Experiment: Drilling parameters for Lithology

Moe

Japan

NR‐Chikyu

SEP

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

Chikyu IODP Board #1 – March, 2015

横浜市

INTEGRATED OCEANDRILLING PROGRAM

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

Objectives:

P
Proponents:t Patricia
P t i i FryerF
ett al.
l(1) Understand mass transport andgeochemical cycling in subduction zones
of non-accretionary forearcs*Possible non-riser Chikyu
y expeditionp(2) Determine spatial and temporalvariability of slab-related fluids to trace
dehydration carbonate dissolution,
dehydration,
dissolution andwater/rock reactions(3) Understand physical properties ascontrols over dehydration reactions andseismicity(4) Study spatial and temporal variability inmetamorphic and tectonic processes(5) Investigate controls over biologicalactivity associated with mud volcanoes

505 Full 5: SEP review June 2014
Site

IssuesClass

MAF-2BNo data in SSDB

3A

MAF-3BNo longer
proposedd

No data in SSDB

3A

MAF-9B

150 m

•

1Bc

MAF-10B

250 m

MAF-11A

150 m•

MAF 12B
MAF-12B

250 m

MAF-13A

250 m

MAF-14A
MAF
14A

250 m

MAF-15A

100 m

MAF-16A

250 m

•
•
•

Problems with discrepancies in site
locations (NAV file does not agree withproposed site locations) for 11, 12, 13,14.
No bathy and backscatter in digital andanalogl fform;
No interpreted seismic data with site
locations.
Noo informationo a o oon bobottomo sasamples
p es oor
nearby cores
No metadata

1Bc
1Bc
Significant
gnavigation
1Bc problems
1B
1Bc
1Bc
1Bc

1B – A few items of required data are not in the SSDB but are readily available
3A – No data are in the SSDB but are believed to exist“c”
c – data do not image the target adequately (in reference to low res bathy andbackscatter images)

505 Full 5: SEP review June 2014
Update:Navigation issues (site locations) were addressed in the
PRL. Proponents need to finish uploading data, andcorrect the mistakes (mismatch between CMPs on
basemap and in NAV and SEGY data).
New maps should provide us with the unambiguous site
locations.

537B-Full4 Costa Rica Seismogenesis
Project – Stage 2• Lead Proponent: Cesar R. Ranero• CRISP Program B: The transition from stable to unstable slip at erosional
convergent plate boundaries• Review Dates: Feb. 2005 (SSP), August 2011 (SPC) – At CIB

537B-Full4 Costa Rica Seismogenesis
Project – Stage 2
A principal objective of CRISP Program B is to reach the plate boundary,observe p
physicalyconditions, and sample
p fault zone material at two sites,
one before and one after the onset of seismogenic behavior of large
earthquakes.

537B-Full4 Costa Rica Seismogenesis
Project – Stage 2
Site Characterization (2005) – SSP Consensus
•

•
•

•

the goal of obtaining physical properties of a 3D volume that spans theseismogenic zone….will require acquisition of a 3D MCS data set, which spans
the aseismic to seismic transition.
Require further documentation of the velocity model at the target location.
Need better definition of the updip limit of the seismogenic zone through further
OBS and GPS studies.
SPC noted in 2011: Pending site selection, to be decided by proponents andthe operator,
operator will incorporate the interpretation of newly acquired 3D seismic
data, as well as the integration of results from CRISP-A drilled to date

603C-Full: NanTroSEIZE Drillingand Observatory Phase 3• Proponent(s): Kiyoshi Suyehiro,
Harold Tobin et al.
• Review Dates: Feb 23, 2005 (SSP),
June 2009 (EPSP) – at CIB
T drillTod ill across theth platel t iinterface
t fInto the Philippine Plate-intersectintersect the mega
mega-splay
splay and
Decollement and study
progressive change in fault properties

603C-Full: NanTroSEIZE Drillingand Observatory Phase 3
SSP Consensus (2005):
•

•
-

-

We recommend the proponents acquire 3D seismic data (done!) and show crossing
orthogonal seismic sections (in depth) imaging the targets (mega(mega-splay,
splay decollement,
decollement top
basement)
Reservations regarding the proposed alternate site NT3-02A:
The p
p-wavewave velocity model (and thus all estimates of target depth) is less well constrained
than the primary site, as the OBS velocity model is situated approximately 30 km from LineB.
Heat flow data would have to be recompiled
pfor the western transect.

Good option for 2017

618-Add5; East Asia Margin••

Lead Proponent: Peter Clift
Review date: January 2015 of 618-Add5•

This proposal addresses three issues related to the uplift of the Tibetan
Plateau:– (1) the effect of orogenic growth on regional and global climate
climate,– (2) the influence of the evolving tectonic and climatic situation oncontinental erosion, and– (3) understanding strain accommodation in the orogenic belt
belt.

Addendum provides new sites to recover full composite section
and to avoid bright spots on seismic data.

INTERNATIONAL OCEANDISCOVERY PROGRAMSEP January 12
12--14, 2015

618-Add5 East Asia Margin618 Add5
618-Add5• 618-Add5 was reviewed at Jan. 2015 SEP meeting.
• Two new sites were proposed to build a composite section to
replace VN-3.
• VN-4; SEP requested VN-4 be moved slightly to acquire better
undisturbed section.
• VN-5; location appears fine.
• New data recentlyy uploadedp– a few issues with navigationg((CDP
mismatches between seismic data, maps and sections), but thesehave been addressed.

• Problems with drilling in disputed waters in the SCS

698-Full3:
Continental Crust Formation at Intra-Oceanic Arc•••

Lead Proponent: Yoshiyuki Tatsumi
Review date: 29 January 2010 (SSP); Dec. 2011 (PEP)
This proposal is part of the Izu-Bonin-Mariana (IBM) project, whichaims at answering questions of the long-term growth of continents.

698-Full3:
Continental Crust Formation at Intra-Oceanic Arc•

PEP 2011 stated: It is the opinion of the PEP that this proposal is ready for
drilling as all site characterization data have been obtained, the site
selection strategy is well developed (and criticisms of it have beenaddressed), and the hypotheses to be tested show good traceability fromthe objectives, to the lithologies that will be drilled and the logging plan.

• SiteSi Ch
Characterization
i i CompletenessClandd DataD
Adequacy
Ad
Classification:
Cl
ifi i

1A: All required data are in the Data Bank and have been reviewed by SSP.
b: Data image the target adequately but there are scientific concerns of drill site location or Penetration
Penetration.

781B-Full: Northern Hikurangi
g subduction margin
g
•
•

•
•

Lead Proponent: Laura Wallace
Deep, riser drilling component of 781-MDP to discern the mechanisms of slow slip
eventst (SSEs)(SSE ) byb scientifici tifi drillingd illi iin th
the region
i off shallow
h ll
SSE
SSEs att northernthHikurangi. The primary aims are to sample, log, and conduct downholemeasurements in the hanging wall and across the plate interface where SSE
occur.
Reviewed by SEP: January 2014
Recommendation: Forward to CIB with excellent rating

781B-Full: Northern Hikurangi
g Subduction Marging• SCP Consensus:
Require 3D seismic data files with crossing lines around the proposed drill
site….The proponents have acknowledged the need for these data and have aplan to acquire them, but have not yet scheduled a cruise (funding request was
unsuccessful).
)
NSF funding provided for 34 OBS and active pressure gauges deployment
beginning in March.
Require digitaldl filesf l forf the
h backscatterb k
andd multibeaml bb hbathymetry
grids,d anddvelocity data as tables.
Suggestgg uploadingpg (copying)( py g) all date from 781A as well.
Concerns regarding site location (anticlinal structure with bright spots) which
can only be addressed with more 3D MCS.

782-Pre: Kanto Asperity Project Program A• Lead Proponent: Yuzuru Yamamoto• SSP Watchdogs: G. Uenzelmann-Neben, M. Yamashita, A.Tanaka• Review date: 3 August 2011 (SSP), Dec. 2011 (PEP)• This pre-proposal is closely connected to proposal 770-Full2 and addresses
the two different types of asperities of subduction zone at the southern Kanto
region of Japan.

782-Pre: Kanto Asperity Project Program A• PEP Recommendation (Dec. 2011): submit full proposal• More data are required for characterizing the drilling sites.
• Some high quality 2D MCS data in SSDB. Requires grid of 3D MCS data,
precise velocity
velocity, bathy
bathy, backscatter.
backscatter• Concern regarding amplitude anomaly at KAP-8

800-MDP: Nature of the Lower crust and Moho at slowerspreadingpg Ridges:gHenry
y DickLead Proponent: Henry Dick
Review date: Dec. 2012 (PEP); no SCP review
Objective is to drill through the Atlantis Bank gabbroic massif into mantle nearsite 735B to 500-m below Moho. 2 major objectives:
1) recover the lowermost gabbros and crust-mantle transition to understandthe processes creating Mid-Ocean Ridge Basalt and lower crust2) resolve the controversy as to whether the Moho at slow spreading ridges
can be a serpentinization front.

800-MDP: Nature of the Lower crust and Moho at slowerspreadingpg Ridges,g ,ppriorityyp
proposal
p
by
y EC
Cg
group
p within S
SEP

PEP Review, Dec. 2012: proposal was extremely well written with excellent
objectives. The PEP applauds the proponents for expanding the science
goals to include the subsurface biosphere. Has the potential to producettransformationalfti
l scienceithatth t would
ld address
dd
att leastl t twotchallenges
h ll
in
i the
th
new science plan.
The PEP asked the proponents to design a multi-phasemulti phase drilling program; i.e.
ieusing the JR for two legs, or even the Chikyu if needed
Externally reviewed in Feb.
Feb 2013 – excellent reviews
reviews.
PEP rated it as ‘excellent’ – first expedition scheduling by JRFB for November

805-MDP: Mohole to Mantle (M2M)• Lead Proponent: Susumu Umino• Objective: The MDP 805-Full plans to drill a complete section through theoceanic crust and ~500 m into the mantle in a fast spreading environment
using the Riser drill ship, Chikyu to understand bulk composition, fluids,
heterogeneity,gy, accretion history,y, limits of life,, seismic properties,p p, magneticg
anomalies, etc.

805-MDP: Mohole to Mantle (M2M)• Lead Proponent: Susumu Umino• PEP review date: May 2012
• Recommendation: submit revised proposal• No site survey data have been uploaded to the SSDB
3 potential sites considered: A) Cocos Plate; B) Baja area; C) Hawaii area
Technological challenges related to high temperature (300 C) and deep water.

835-Full: J-Track: Tracking the tsunamigenic slips
across and along the Japan Trench• Lead Proponent: Shuichi Kodara
Objectives:
JTRACK proposes to investigate processes leading to catastrophic,
tsunamigenic earthquakes and the history of such events along the margin;builds on success of Exp. 343• SEP Review date: January 2014; forwarded the proposal to the CIB.
• The CIB gave the green light and a workshop was held in Japan.
• FullF ll proposall was reviewed
idb
by SEP iin JJan. 2015
• Recommendation: submit revised proposal

835-Full: J-Track: Tracking the tsunamigenic slips
across and along the Japan Trench• 6 sites proposed focusing on the Tohoku segment• WD is 6900 to 7590 m• TD is 300 to 1350 mbsf

835-Full: J-Track: Tracking the tsunamigenic slips
across and along the Japan Trench
•
•
•
•
•
•

Workshop held in May 2014
SEP review,
review January 2015
Revised Full proposal recommended
Recommend removing paleoseismology objective and sites
R
Recommended
d d structuralt t l mapping
i off kkey ffaults
lt anddhhorizonsiiincluding
l di ththedecollement.
Possible site relocations based upon new data and maps collected in Oct.
2014

New data will
improvecharacterization

857-MDP Umbrella proposal of the Deep Sea record of Mediterranean
Messinian events (DREAM multi-phase drilling project: Uncovering a salt
giant

• Lead Proponent: Camerlenghi• Review date: June 2014 (SEP)
Obj tiObjectives:
Four site
site-specificspecific drilling proposals are conceived under this umbrella:• DREAM: Deep-Sea Records of the MSC;
• Deformation and fluid flow in the MSC salt giant;g• Probing the Salt Giant for its Deep Biosphere secrets;• Probing deep Earth and surface connections (857A-Pre).

857-MDP Umbrella proposal of the Deep Sea record of Mediterranean
Messinian events (DREAM multi-phase drilling project: Uncovering a salt
giant
What are the causes, timing and emplacement mechanisms of the MSC salt giant?
•Establish the chronology of the MSC;•

Test existing hypotheses for Mediterranean evaporite formation;•

Develop unifying models for the MSC salt giant.

What are the factors responsible for early salt deformation and fluid flow across and out of thehalite layer?
•

Understand syn-sedimentary salt tectonics and halite creep;•

Constrain post-depositional
post depositional salt deformation and its consequences on sedimentary mass
wasting;•

Understand the physical and mineralogical conditions that allow fluids to migrate in andthroughg thick tabular salt sequencesq
Do salt giants promote the development of a phylogenetically diverse and exceptionally active
deep biosphere?
•

Determine whether evaporiticpsulfate minerals are fuellingg the Mediterranean’s deeppbiosphere;•

Establish whether the interaction between limiting factors (pressure, temperature, salinity) anda highly variable chemical environment has produced a diverse and novel deep biospherecommunity;•

Use the biomarkers and surviving microbes trapped within brine inclusions to reconstruct thedepth, photic and oxic conditions of ancient, hypersaline depositional environments.

857A-Pre: Probing connections between deep earth and surface
processes in a land-locked ocean basin transformed into a giant saline
basin: Mediterranean DREAM-GOLD• LeadL dP
Proponent:t M.
M Rabineau
R bi• SEP review date: June 2014
• Recommendation: submit full proposal.

Objective:
The main objective is to sample for the first time the deep basin of theMediterranean Sea in the Gulf of Lion while recovering strata from the base of
Pliocene, through the Messinian Series (evaporites and clastics), the preMSC Series, and down to basement rocks in a key transitional zone of
unknown nature.
nature857A-Pre: Probing connections between deep earth and surface
processes in a land-locked ocean basin transformed into a giant saline
basin: Mediterranean DREAM-GOLD••

1 site to 6500 mbsf – 6230 m of sediments; 270 m of basement;
Data appear to be readily available (but not in SSDB)A brief overview…
• Used to be 798-Pre; revised considerably and resubmitted• Companion to 857, both form part of the “DREAM” sequence.
This one is “GOLD”.
“GOLD”• Objectives of this part:– CharacteriseCht i andd quantify
tif sedimentdit flfluxes iin theth basinb i ini orderd tto
assess effects of MSC– Reconstruct history of vertical basement motions– Characterise the nature of the crust in the western MediterraneanGOLD is essentiallyythe deep basin part,Target A
Data given for GOL01A, “alternate”
alluded to but nodata given

857A-Pre: Probing connections between deep earth and surface
processes in a land-locked
land locked ocean basin transformed into a giant saline
basin: Mediterranean DREAM-GOLDSEP Comments:• SEP suggested developing this as a CPP with industry• Develop a Deep Biosphere component• Address how the chronology will be established• Address the subsidence history and base level changes in greater detail.
• Consider thicker salt sequence to address fluid flow.
• Justify basement drilling.
• Justify site selection using data
• Choose an alternate site
site.
• Submit data.
• Proponents and CDEX need to scope out the expedition in detail for the full
proposal For example
proposal.
example, coring over 4 km of rock is not feasible and acompromise needs to be reached so that the science goals can be met with
operational reality.

865-Full: Constraining the temperature limit of the microbial deep
biospherepin the Nankai Troughg subseafloor
A possible option in April 2016, following C0010 Obs replacement?

• LeadL dP
Proponent:t K.
K Hinrichs
Hi i h• Review date: The SEP reviewed this proposal at New Brunswick late June
2014
Objective:
We aim to study subseafloor sedimentary microbial communities situated intemperature ranges that span the temperature limit of microbial life in anoxic
sedimentary systems (the biotic fringe)

Molecular signatures

Prokaryotes(e.g. Archaea & Bacteria)

Soft tissue signatures(e.g. membrane)865-Full: Constraining the temperature limit of the microbial deep
biospherepin the Nankai Troughg subseafloor
2 sites proposed
ODP1173A:
O
3
WD is 4790
90 m;; 725
5 m of sed;; 200 m of basement
ODP1174A: WD is 4750 m; 1194 m of sed; 120 m of basement
Proposal calls for casing to sed/basement interface with cap containing
hi h resolution
highl ti T andd P probes.
b865-Full

Site 1174

Site 1173

Decollement

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

Overview (2) and lesson from Exp 337

Detection limits for microbial
life have improved by a factorof 500 since 2000.
Thermal OM degradation

865-FullTemperature window of site 1173 and 1174

865-Full

Focusing on the temperature range for 110-140 oC.
measured865-Full: Constraining the temperature limit of the microbial deep
biospherepin the Nankai Troughg subseafloor
Site

Classification

LatitudeLongitude

ODP1173A

1Aa

32°14.66'N

135°01.51'E

ODP1174A

1Aa

32°20.54'N

134°57.39'E

Completeness: 1A: All required data are in the Data Bank and have beenreviewed by the SEP. Appears Complete. We couldn’t find the 3D seismic data
which would be an additional bonus, but it is likely found under 196 site survey
data and can be readily downloaded at the UTIG seismic data portal.
D t Adequacy:
Data
Ad
a: d
data
t iimage th
the ttargett adequatelydt l andd th
there are no scientifici tificoncerns of drill site location and penetration.
Primary issue: WD5 notes that the science plan is operationally feasible proposal but
proponent's time estimation based on the JR operation to drill/core ODP sites 1173 and1174 to penetrate into the oceanic crust (> 120 m) may be too optimistic for Chikyu
operation. Also, WD5 advised that CRFP casing installation operation needs to be carefully
considered and the Kuroshio current could be an issue for the entire operation.
Addressed by PRL (Dec. 2014)

Revised operational plan from PRL
Indicates 65.3 days for coring, BHA change, casing, capping, logging,transits and contingency timetransits,

•

Chikyu project•

Proposal of special interest to JAMSTEC•

Proposal expected to attract external funding
as a Complementary Project Proposal (CPP)•

Science meeting planned for March 24-26,
2015 att theth University
U i
it off Sidney
Sid•

Presented as jointly initiated by Geoscience
Australia and JAMSTEC•

Proposal 871-Pre complements proposal 832“Tasman Frontier” led by R. Sutherland, which
aims
i
tto d
date
t and
d quantify
tif deformation
d f
ti in
i th
the
southwest Pacific876-Pre:876
Pre: Bend
Bend-Fault
Fault Serpentinization: Oceanic Crustand Mantle Evolution from Ridge through Trench
Lead Proponent: J. Morgan
Review data: January 2015
Recommendation: Develop full proposal
Objectives:• RecoverR
i it sections
in-situti
off ocean crustt andd serpentinizedti i d mantle
tlfrom a region undergoing Bend Fault Serpentinization.
• Establish if any Alpine-type ophiolites are actually preserved ‘fossil’
BFS systems.
• Determine the limits and activities of chemosynthetic communities
in this environment related to hydrothermalyactivity.
y• Establish the extent, timing, and rates of carbonation-related
reactions that take place during mantle bend-fault serpentinization,
and whether these reactions are a large player in the global carbon
cycle.

Hydration of Mantle•••
Billen, Nat Geo (2008)

Subducting plate bends anddevelops faults as it sinks into themantle.
Water can be pumped into thelithospheric mantle along faults;
allows hydration of the slab while
it is at the trench and chemical
hydration linked reactions
hydration-linked
reactions.
In order to determine thecomposition of the oceanic crustand mantle recycled into
subduction zones, we needsamplespof the oceanic crust andmantle after it has experienced thechemical transformations linked tobend-fault
bend
fault serpentinization.
serpentinization

Serpentinization and connected carbonate
precipitation has large impact on Earth climate study

Subducted carbonate (commonly ~1%)1%) associated with BFS would recycle waterand CO2 into the mantle comparable to that emitted by plate spreading or consumedby crustal alteration, weathering and mountain buildingProposed site: offshore Nicaragua
Several lines ofgeophysical evidence for
Bend-fault
Serpentinizationp((BFS))• Direct seismic imaging• Bend-fault
earthquakes• Low regional heat flow
• etc.

Drilling sites
The same bend-fault should be
drilleddifferent• Site1a –atWD
3200 m; 500 mbsf
structural levels that include intersecting
the active
fault bend-fault in
Drill through•••the sedimentthdit section,ticoringi andd
CORKing
Site 1b - WD 3250 m; 2400 mbsf
Drill through bend-fault in theupper part of the gabbro section,
spot coringcoring, LWD
LWD, CORKing
Site 1c - WD 3300 m; 7000 mbsf
Drill throughg bend-fault jjust
below the Moho, fast-drill first,
LWD, then side-wall coring(lower ~2/3),
2/3), CORKing
Site 1d - WD 3300 m; 7000 mbsf
Same as 1c, but more coring ofcrustal and mantle sections,
CORKingStrength, etc.
• Strength– Scientific question has global relevance of Earth’s global carbon
and water cycles– Scientific team is very strong including world leading experts in therelevant fields– Great potential to address multiple challenges of IODP scienceplan• Potential issue– Drilling at this WD is beyond Chikyu’s capability

Proposals for site surveys were submitted to UK-IODP and
the JAMSTEC Large-scale Planning workshop 2014.
P
Proponents
t willill bbe organizing
i i an international
i ttil workshop
k h totassess drilling plans with discussion and input from thebroader scientific communityy

WDs’ Recommendation
Develop Full Proposal– Development of full scientific plan with strategy to achieve
their goal
– Need specific plans for non-riser coring, logging, andobservatory– Contact IOs for building feasible drilling plan
– Alternate sites– Justification of multiple holes (especially deeper holes)

880APL In-situ
I it mechanicalh i l ttests
t withith ddrill
ill bit(IMTB)
Proponents: K. Moe, T. Inoue, Y. Yamada, S. Saito, K. Ujiie, J. Ishiwata,
Reviewe e date
date: Ja
Januaryua y 2015
0 5
Recommendation: Revise
Primary Goals:
1. To make systematic analysis and experiment on the relationshipbetween routine drilling measurements (weight on bit, drillstringrotational torquetorque, rate of penetration,
penetration and drillstring rotational speed)
and scientifically important in situ rock properties
2 T
2.
To improvei
drilling
d illi andd measurementt performancesfthroughthh theseth
experiment results and understanding on the rock mechanics byreal-time monitoring and controlling in the future expeditions, andfurther extend it into better sampling and scientific interpretations

Experimental design and drilling plan
Experimental design is not clear. We need a better
explanationlti withith ddetailst il andd didiagrams.
• 1. Using different drilling parameters across samelithology formation
formation, experiment starting approximatelyfrom the depth of 150 m below seafloor (mbsf) and thenchange the strategy into drilling for three different depths
with 50 meter distance after lowering down the weighton-bit (WOB) to minimum (or reset to zero).
• 2. Using constant drilling parameters across different
lithology/formation from the depth of 150 meter below
seafloorfl( b f) or deeper.
(mbsf)dDrilling
gp
plan
•

•

Either experiment during primary expedition if science party allows, orpy sites – anyy LWD site on Chikyu
y can
drill new holes byy primary
accommodate the proposed experiments
Proposed locations are at NanTroSEIZE sites...i.e. well characterizedalready.
alreadyIssues and Recommendations
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

The science behind this proposal needs to be better defined.
Petrophysical logging is not specified in detail...but LWD data collection andanalysisl i iis iintegraltl tto ththe sciencei
Describe and consider the Chikyu MSE (Mechanical Specific Energy)system (BHA configuration, drillstring behaviour, bit types.
Provide a thorough analysis of the sites/intervals you want to re-drill interms of lithology, recovery, drilling history, and data from the ship
Provide one or two examples
pwith details showing
g the approachppthat theyywould take at that site including a diagram showing the drilling plan andlinking it to the seismic data and stratigraphy as outlined by the shipboard
sedimentologists.
Consider testing on other lithologies
Consider a parametric approach, holding various conditions constant andvarying one at a time.
The requirements for ship time and shipboard personnel should be specified
as required by the Proposal Submission Guidelines.
Workshop…and more…

300 mbsf

IMTB 2
IMTB-2450 mbsf

IMTB-3

300 mbsf

IMTB-4

400 mbsf

Recommendations

General1. Need to put proposal in context of previous work with references
2 Describe and consider the Chikyu MSE system- viz,2.
viz BHA
configuration, Chikyu drillstring behaviour and bit types in a lot
more detail
3 The proposed data analysis and modeling work could be3.
developed more fully, giving a workflow, perhaps with an example
from a Nankai or Japan trench well, and pointing out what comesoutt off theth analysis
l i ththatt iis off b
benefit,fit andd whath t remains
i to
t be
b doned
4. Lab work in support of proposal would be beneficial- looking at
the different aspects like cutting bit wear and balling, stick slip,
drill string vibration.
5. Workshop the topic-

Invite experts
pfrom oil and ggas industry/serviceycompanies/bitpmanufacturers as well as academic researchers
Define the state of the art in defining physical properties from drilling
data
Identify the inherent limitations of MSE analysis as practiced, andidentify steps to overcome some of the key barriers.

Recommendations

Specific to sites
1 P
1.
Provideid a ththoroughh analysis
l i off th
the sites/intervals
it /i tl you wantt tto redrill in terms of lithology, recovery, drilling history and data fromthe ship (eg., downhole drilling rate through theintervals/lithologies, time on bit when started). Where were theproblems at these sties and how might you solve them?
2. Be clear about the lithologicalgdifferences beingg referred to: aslithotypes and in terms of mechanical stratigraphy- i.e. logs of
expected UCS, K, G...
3. Make a diagram showing the drilling plan and link it to theseismic/stratigraphy, and lithology changes
4. Consider targeting some hard-to-drill sections e.g. Cherts.

DLHR-2A (alt.)

871Pre“DLHR-2A
DLHR 2A ((-26.759528°
26.759528 161.197392
161.197392°)) samples a rotated fault block near the edge of amajor depocentre in the western Faust Basin, in water depth of c. 1600–1700 m. The
site is located c. 570 km NNE of Lord Howe Island at the cross point of two high-quality
seismic reflection lines ((GA-302/01 and GA-302/08)) and one moderate-qualityqy line(s206r/02a). Given that the site is located on a cross point of three industry-standard
seismic lines, and within the coverage of a high-resolution multibeam bathymetry dataset, the pre-drill site survey should only require site reconnaissance activities

BLHRV-1A“volcanic
volcanic basement”
basement

Excellent industry data are available

650 mbsf

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

WD

TD

Objective

MAF-2B

3560

150 Pacman: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids at an
active protrusion/spring site (Cerulean Springs)

MAF-3B

3850

250 Pacman: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids above
an active fault

MAF 9B
MAF-9B2000

C l ti l T
To examine
i serpentinite
ti it muds
d andd pore flfluids
id att an
150 Celestial:
active protrusion/spring site

MAF-10B

3200

250 Celestial: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids onlower flank for stratigraphy
stratigraphy, age and compositional variability

MAF-11A

1260

150 Big Blue: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids at an
active protrusion/spring site

MAF 12B
MAF-12B

1400

Bi Bl
Blue: T
To examine
i serpentinite
ti it muds
d andd pore flfluids
id on
250 Big
upper flankMAF-13A

2200

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

MAF-14A

3300

250

MAF-15A

3666

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

flank for stratigraphy age and compositional variability

active p
protrusion/springp g site

MAF-16A

4500

250 Blue Moon: To examine serpentinite muds and pore fluids on
mid-flank for stratigraphy, age and compositional variability

Objectives:(1) Understand mass transport andgeochemical cycling in subduction zones
of non-accretionary forearcs(2) Determine spatial and temporalvariability of slab-related fluids to trace
dehydration,ycarbonate dissolution, andwater/rock reactions(3) Understand physical properties ascontrols over dehydration reactions andseismicity(4) Study spatial and temporal variability inmetamorphic and tectonic processes(5) IInvestigate
ti t controlst l over bibiologicall i lactivity associated with mud volcanoes

505 Full 5: SEP review June 2014
Proponents need to finish uploading data, and correct the mistakes(duplicate location for 11B and 12A; mismatch between CMPs on basemap
and in NAV and SEGY data). This is critical. We don’t know if sites

are correctly located (MAF-11A, 12B, 13A, 14A)!
We still require the following files:• General CMP position (range) of proposed sites• Annotated seismic images (with sites located)• Bathymetry data (as a netCDF grd, XYZ, GIS shapefile, etc.) and highresolution analog (pdf
(pdf, jpeg
jpeg, gif)
• Backscatter data (as a GIS shapefile) and high resolution analog (pdf, jpeg,
gif).
• Geographic projection used for seafloor maps
• Information (geotechnical; lithologic, etc.) regarding short cores/bottom
samples• Acquisitionq
and p
processing
g data for all ggeophysics.
p yInitial Issues:
Deep penetration (3.5–4.0(3 5 4 0 km) and risk of hydrocarbons and sandy
lithologies requires riser drilling but water is too shallow at VN-1 and
VN-2 for RV Chikyu and will need a mission specific platform.
H
However,ddrilling
illi att VN
VN-3
3 and
d XI
XI-1
1 is
i id
ideall ffor Chikyu
Chik becausebththewater depths are 1200 m and 1500 m respectively, in the middle of the
proposed operation range of this vessel.
Non-riser drilling to ~1 km at VN-3 and XI-1 could be performed by RV
Chikyuy or JOIDES Resolution ((or similar vessel),) allowing
gp
penetration
to the middle Miocene (10 Ma). Such drilling would not only lay thegeotechnical groundwork for deeper drilling but would allow the
hypothesis of an 8
8-Ma
Ma Tibetan surface uplift and monsoon
strengthening to be tested.

618-Full3; East Asia Margin•••

Lead Proponent: Peter Clift
Review date: January 2008 of 618-Add2
This proposal addresses three issues related to the uplift of the Tibetan
Plateau:– ((1)) the effect of orogenicggrowth on regional
g
g
and g
global climate,,– (2) the influence of the evolving tectonic and climatic situation oncontinental erosion, and– (3) understanding strain accommodation in the orogenic belt.
beltInitial sites had issues with respect to hydrocarbons,lithologies depth of drilling; several Addenda were
lithologies,
subsequently submitted

The NanTroSEIZE Transect So Far:
Accomplishments and a Look Ahead for IODPʼs
IODP sDeep Window into Megathrust Processes
Gaku Kimura,
Kimura Un.
Un Tokyo
Harol Tobin,
Un of Wisconsin
Un.
Wisconsin-Madison
Madisonand all NanTroSEIZE Expedition
Scientists

Initial Science Plan (2001):
Seismogenic Zone InitiativeSeismogenic Zone
Challenges•

What governs subduction zone
seismogenic fault locking vsstable slip and/or transitional fault
behavior?

•

Does fault state evolve during
interseismic and pre-seismic
period? If so, how?

•

What governs tsunami generation
characteristics for a given greatearthquake?

NanTroSEIZE conceived to address
2011 Tohoku M9.0 earthquake slip model these questions(Lay et al., 2011)3D seismic box

NanTroSEIZE:: The Nankai Trough Seismogenic
NanTroSEIZE
Z
Zone
ExperimentEit

A multimultilti-stageteffort
ff t totsample and instrument theplate
l t boundarybdffaultlt zone acrossthe upup--dip end of locking and rupture

NanTroSEIZE Drilling Transect

 2007 – 2014: 10 expeditions
 More than 195 scientists from 15 countries
 13 main sites

 Max depth 3058 meters bsf – target 5200 m bsf
 Most extensive LWD program and downhole stress,
stress pressure
 Most advanced seafloor borehole monitoring system achieved,
g data in real-time to land
now streaming More than 100 papers published and counting…

Age of formation and of accretion

Inner wedgegOuter wedgegIncoming
g plate0 – 2 Ma (forearc basin cover)
2.5 – 3.6 Ma (basin/wedge
boundary)
5 Ma – 7 Ma upper wedge)

Depositional age:0 – 2 Ma (cover)2 ~ 6 Ma
(accreted)

Basement
18 – 20 Ma

At 2500 – 3000 m depth:~ 10 Ma (preliminary sed age)

Max age not known,
known
but decollement
position is in 5 – 7
Ma seds

Wedge deformation is late
MioceneDeformation age:
Plio-Pleistocene to

Sediments
0 -15 Ma

Reconstruction of splay fault
history

Strasser et al., 2009 ~2 million years of fault activity
 Activity of splay fault varies through timeWhat controls rupture area?

Hyodo & Hori, 2013

Who is the principal criminal?
worst criminal → ʻevolved upper plateʼother criminals → subducting plate?
→ plate interface=plate boundary fault with water?

Shallow fault zones: frontal thrust and upup-dip end ofmega--splaymega
l fault
f lt systemtDocumented history
y of shallow localized,, likelyy
seismic slip to the trench (like Tohoku?)

Frontal Thrust Site
C0007
Splay
p y OOST fault Site
C0004
Strongly localized into thin
microbreccia/fault gouge bandsurrounded
d db
by d
damage zone

Wallrock is weak muddy
sediment, yet heavily fractured

No pporewater chemical evidence
for substantial fault-controlled
fluid flow
Ujiie & Kimura,Pliocene

Vitrinite Reflectance (thermal) anomaly associated with mm‐thick fault zones
Suggests high velocity or seismic slip

Pliocene

Dark
Layer
Dark Layer

P
Pleistocenne

Pl i
Pleistocene

Sakaguchi
et al.,
2011
Sakaguchi
etGeology,al., Geology,

XRF scanner mapping of
C0004 (splay fault)
microbreccia fault zone-

Fault zone enriched in Al, K,
Fe,, depletedpin Ca,, Sr-

Increased illitization relative tosurrounding host rock

Represents additional evidence ofpossible frictional heating andmechano-chemical clay mineralalteration even in shallow (~ 400m)) ffault.

 Co
Co-seismic
seismic slip
Y
Yamaguchi
hi ett al.,l G
Geology,l
2011

Shallow Fault Slip – Results from IODP NanTroSEIZE
Lab lowlow-velocity
friction studies on
IODP samples
confirm shallow faults
are velocity
strengthening…
Ikari et al., 2009

Tsutsumi et al., 2011 …BUT
Dynamic rupture may
cause rapid
weakening
And new mechanics
discussed forfacilitating slow slip
earthquakes

Ikari et al., 2013

Present state of stress across NanTroSEIZE transect

breakouts

Lin et al., 2011, GRL

(Sibson, 1992; Fault-Valve model)

Borehole
observation
C0002

time
SHmax
Still normal fault regime?
gWhen are we now?

Abnormall flAbfluid
id pressure ratio
ti alonglth
the platel t bboundaryd(Tsuji et al., 2014 EPSL)VLF ea
earthquakes
qua es aandd up
up-dipdp
tremor coincide with
NanTroSEIZE transect
low-angle
g thrust mechanisms
in prism or on plate boundary
Sugiokag
et al.,, 2011

CORKs and longlong-term monitoring systems
DONET
seafloor
network

Wiring the Megathrust: a 3D monitoring
observatory• Borehole CORKs part of larger DONET network• Seismic, strain, tilt, pore pressure, temperature

Long‐Term monitoring of downhole properties (Zhang & Saffer, AGU, 2013)

What remains: UltraUltra-deep riser drilling across theplate
l t boundary
b
d
fault
f lt zone• Main deep “megamega-splay”
megasplay / main thrust reflector

Keyy Results
 Frontal thrust and splay
p y fault systems
yshowevidence of very strong slip localization and rapid
slip even at shallow position (< 1 km below sea
slip, like Tohoku??
floor)
 Shallow faults are in stable sliding (nonseismogenic)ii ) regimeiiin conventional
ti
l lab
l b
experiments, but high-velocity behavior likely weak
and velocity weakening.
 No evidence so far for fault hosted anomalous fluid
chemistry.
y Principal stress axis orientations are controlled by

Riser Hole
C0002 plan
Expedition 348:
- drilled, logged, andcased hole to ~3000
3000
meters bsf- Cored 63 meters
Planned for future (2016?)
expedition:g, and case- drill,, log,
across megasplay fault
reflector at ~5000
meters bsf- Core ~ 400 meters- Prepare hole for future15． Chikyu
15
Chik Budgetary
B d t
OverviewO
i anddOutline of Operation Schedule
for JFY2014 – 2016
Planning and Coordination Dept.
Shinya Goto

15‐1. Background of Chikyu Operation● JPFY2014～2015 will be the most difficult years because : Regulatory shipyard maintenanceand BOP special survey is planed in
mid. 2015 which will cost more than
USD40m+.

USD350m

USD300m

USD250m

 As the new “55 years mid termbusiness Plan” period has just
USD200m
started from JPFY2014, JAMSTEC do
not have any carry forward fund from USD150m
USD150previous period.
 Continuous budget cut by
Japanese Government.

(*)USDJPY@120

Gov. Fund

Gov FundGov.

Gov Fund
Gov.

Gov. Fund

Gov. Fund

USD279m(¥335b)

USD272m(¥326b)

USD264m(¥316b)

USD256m(¥307b)

USD248m(¥297b)JPFY2014

JPFY2015

JPFY2016

JPFY2017

JPFY2018

USD100m

USD50mIn addition

USD0
USD0m

(JAMSTEC Budget Forecast)● Japanese Yen depreciatedddb
by 20(%)( ).
● Crude Oil Market collapsed!

Government funding for operating expenses(excl. mission specific fund and supplementary budget)

15‐2. Market conditions surrounding Chikyu Operation
120(USDJPY)

WTI(USD/bbl)
110
120

100
115

90
80

110

70
60
105

50
100

40

Crude Oil Market collapsed.
p Fuel is much cheaper.
 Less opportunity for commercial work.
 Day rate will be much lower.

JPY depreciated by 20(%) against USD.
 Our main source of fund (Gov. Fund) is
denominated in JPY, however major partof our expenditures, such as R&M,
equipment and Expats(Crew), are in USD.

Pros and Cons, however, overall impact on Chikyu Operation is negative

15‐3. CHIKYU Operation Plan for JPFY 2014～2016
JPFY2014

JPFY2015

JPFY2016

1Q

2Q

3Q

4Q

1Q

2Q

3Q

4Q

1Q

2Q

3Q

4Q

Apr – Jun
2014

July – Sep
2014

Oct – Dec
2014

Jan – Mar2015

Apr – Jun
2015

July – Sep
2015

Oct – Dec
2015

Jan – Mar2016

Apr – Jun
2016

July – Sep
2016

Oct – Dec
2016

Jan – Mar2017

Subject to fund availability

IODP

2014

① DOR ‐5(*)USDJPY@120

2015

2016

3rd CIBDOR② Non IODP Exp③ Standby

Standby④ DOR ‐6

DOR India NGHP‐02⑤ 5 year Inspection

Dryy Dock⑥ Non IODP
⑦ IODP Riser less

IODP

⑧ Non IODP
⑨ IODP Riser less
(Utilization as of 31st Mar, 2015)

IODP Drilling
Non‐IODP Drilling(Total)0 (%)

2 (%) ⑦8 (%) ⑦32 (%) ①+②+④

50 (%) ④+⑥‐

32 (%)

52 (%)‐

15‐4. CHIKYU Funding Structure for JPFY 2014
(Source of Fund)
(1)
(2)
(3)

(4)
(5)

Gov. Fund
Gov. Fund (Mission Specific)
Chikyu member Fees
‐ Regular Member Fee (USD1m)‐ Partnership Fee(USD300k)‐ Project Member Fee(USD10m～)
DOR(Commercial Drilling)
Donation（Budget for JPFY 2014)

USD59m((USD71m@ USDJPY100))

Non
IODP

DOR

DOR

((Budgetg Amount))

Paid
Variable cost
(Drilling Cost)

Paid

(2)
MissionSpecific

by

by

Fund

Oil Company

Oil Company(4) DOR
Base Cost(4) DOR(1) Gov. Fund

USD8m

USD11m

USD40mCF(3) Chikyu Member Fees
Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan /2015 Feb/2015 Mar/2015(*)USDJPY@12015‐5. CHIKYU Funding Structure for JPFY 2015
(Source of Fund)
(1)
(2)
(3)

(4)
(5)

Gov. Fund
Gov. Fund (Mission Specific)
Chikyu member Fees
‐ Regular Member Fee (USD1m)‐ Partnership Fee(USD300k)‐ Project Member Fee(USD10m～)
DOR(Commercial Drilling)
Donation（Budget for JPFY 2015)

USD99m((USD119m@ USDJPY100))DOR

5 year Inspection(incl. Dry Dock)

Non
IODP

(1) Gov. Fund(2) or (4)IODP((Budgetg Amount))

Paid
Variable
bl cost(Drilling Cost)

5 year Inspection + BOP Special Survey

by

USD33m +Oil Company(4) DOR

USD
3m(1) Gov. FundUSD23mBase Cost

Non‐IODP

(3)
+
((1))

USD40m(3) Chikyu Member Fees

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan /2016 Feb/2016 Mar/2016(*)USDJPY@120

(Back up) 15‐6. CHIKYU Long Term Operation Plan
JPFY2014
1Q

2Q

3Q

JPFY2015
4Q

1Q

2014

2Q

3Q

JPFY2016
4Q

1Q

2015

① DOR ‐5

2Q

3Q

JPFY2017
4Q

2016

1Q

2Q

3Q

JPFY2018
4Q

1Q

2017

2Q

3Q

2018

2019

3rd CIB② Non IODP
③ Standby

StandbyIndia
NGHP‐02④ DOR ‐6DryDock

⑤ 5 year Inspection⑥ Non IODP

Riser
Less
L

⑦ IODP Riser less
⑧ Non IODP

Non ‐ IODP
Riser
Less

⑨ IODP Riser less
⑩ Non IODP

Non ‐ IODP

⑪ IODP Riser

Riser⑫ Non‐IODP

Chikyu Proposal

Non ‐ IODP

Chikyu Project

N P
New
Proposall: Nantro SEIZE C2 (Riser)/ C10,C6 (Riser less)
CRISP (Riser)
IBM(Riser): 865‐Full
865 F ll Nankai
N k i TroughT
h T Limit
Li it (Ri
(Riser lless))
871‐Pre Lord Howe Rise (Riser)
876‐Pre Bend‐Fault Serpentinization (Riser)

4Q

(Back up) CHIKYU Funding Structure(Source of Fund)
(1)
(2)
(3)

(4)
(5)

Gov. Fund
Gov. Fund (Mission Specific)
Chikyu member Fees
‐ Regular Member Fee (USD1m)‐ Partnership Fee(USD300k)‐ Project Member Fee(USD10m～)
DOR(Commercial Drilling)
Donation
Non‐IODP Operation（including Commercial Drilling)

IODP Expedition((Budgetg Amount))(3) Chikyu Regular Member Fee(5) Chikyu Project Member Fee
Drilling Cost
(variable cost)(1) Gov.
G FFundd(Subject to Fund Availability)(2) Gov. Fund(Mission Specific)

USD50m ~Rig Cost(Base Cost)(1) Gov. FundContribution(Total Rig Cost) USD70m~(4) Chikyu Partnership member Fee(6) DOR (Commercial Drilling)Chik Implementation
ChikyuI lt ti Policy
P li• For the best Science, JAMSTEC shall take a
responsibility
ibilit ffor operating
ti Chikyu
Chik byb closelcollaboration with the international scientificcommunity of IODP.
• Chikyu’s
h k ’ highest
h h priority upon riser ddrilling.
llp
to accomplishp
Riser‐less drillingg also important
IODP objectives, which can only be achievedb utilizingbytili i Chik
Chikyu capabilities.
bilitiChik Business
ChikyuB i
PlanPl• Chikyu will operate 5 months for scientific drilling,
5 months for other non‐scientificnon scientific drilling, and 2
months for maintenance per annum as a generalbusiness p
plan. This business pplan could bechanged due to unforeseeable budgetarysituation.
• Rather large scientific project implementation
requires additional funds.
• Soliciting Chikyu project members and project
donations are essential to implement large
projects.

Chikyu Implementation Policy• Maximize science output and outcome– Increase IODP Operation Windows (not limited toriser drilling)– Flexible adaptation of other source of funding• ie.
i JFAST– Co‐develop CPP‐like project• ie. Shimokita‐Hachinohe– Build Robust Fundingg Structure• Non‐IODP (commercial) operation is not always available• International project promotion neededChikyuy IODP Long‐termgPlanningg(presented in the last CIB meeting, July 2014)
JPFY

Planned Implementation items

2014

NanTroSEIZE C10 observatory (1 month)

2015

NanTroSEIZE C6 observatory(1 month), 5 year Inspection in dock(4 months)
NanTroSEIZE C2 Riser

2016

NanTroSEIZE C2 Riser(5 months)

2017

NanTroSEIZE C2 Riser(5 months)

2018

Post NanTroSEIZE?

The above long term schedule will be forced to change depending on whether there*Thewill be commercial works for each fiscal year.
Reasons WHY?
1) Total budget sealing for JAMSTEC and serious budget cut in JAMSTEC
2) No carry forward from previous FY because of the boundary of 5‐years Implementation Plan
3) Unpredicted Riser and BOP repair and maintenance cost4) Significant delay of non‐IODP operation schedule
5) Un‐predictable matters, ie. exchange rate, oil price, procurement and service cost, etc.

10 year Actual Performance of Chikyu Operation
A il
April

M
May

J
June

J l
July

A
Augustt

S t b
September

O t b
October2005
R&M(AF 98%)

2007

2008

2009

2012
(AF 89%)Shakedown
CruiseIODP Exp.331
E 331
Deep Hot Biosphere

Construction of repairing ship’s
ship s bottom

IODP Exp.343(JFAST）

R&M

DOR@Japan

IODP EExp.332
332
NamTro SEIZE

DOR@Sri Lanka

Exp343JFAST2

DOR@Japan(AF 82%)(AF 22%)

IODP EExp.326
326
Shakedown
CruiseNanTro SEIZE C2Regular Inspection

2013

2014

M h
March

IODP Exp.337
Shimokita

DOR@Japan

SIP
Okinawa

AnnualSurveyShakedown
CruiseConstruction of Azimuth Thruster Gear

IODP Exp319/322
NanTro SEIZE(AF 42%)(AF 53%)

IODP Exp.314/315/316
NanTro SEIZE

AnnualSurveyProduction of Azimuth Thruster Gear
Outreach Activity(AF 0%)

2011

F b
Februaryll Shakedownh k dOverseas Drilling@KenyaShimokita Shakedown Cruise 2

DOR@Australia(AF 79%)(AF 48%)J
January

Shakedown Cruise 1

2006

2010

N
Novemberb December
Db

IODP Exp.338
NanTro SEIZE C2IODP Exp.348
NanTro SEIZE C2Maintenance

MaintenanceOperation Training
DOR@JapanTohokuEarthquake

DOR@Japan

DOR@Japan

Maintenance

DOR@India

Science Theme Categorizationg@ Chikyu+10 WS
Science Theme

Flagship (Large) Project

Discovery (Small) ProjectJapan Trench
KAP

Other Opportunities

Dynamic Fault Behavior

NanTroSEIZE
CRISP
Hikurangi Margin

Ocean Crust & Earth’s Mantle

M2M
Life Cycle of the Oceanic
LithosphereAtlantis 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
Serpentinization System

Continent Formation

IBM

Aleutian

Sediment Secrets

Mediterranean Salinity Crisis(DREAM)

Lord Howe Rise
Challenger Plateau
Pegasus Basin
South China Sea
Santos Basin
Bering Sea

Faulting in Oceanic Crust
Monitoring
Nicoya Peninsula

Pacific Guyots
Deep PacificSomali Basin
Eastern Mediterranean
Santa Barbara BasinWest Caroline Basin
Bohai Basin
Dronning Maud Land

Chikyuy IODP Long‐termgPlanningg
4
JFY
2014

non‐IODP
Commercial

2015

2016

2017

2018

5

6

7

R&M

non‐IODP
Sciencenon IODP
non‐IODP
Commercial
IODP
C10

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

R&M

R&M (@Doc,(@Doc BOP
BOP, Riser)

non‐IODP
Science

IODP Riserless

IODP C2?

E t
Externall Funding
F di Sources
S• Project‐base approach …may much acceptable forf d ((governments, industries,
fundersi d
i scienceiffoundations?)
d i ?)
ie.

– Mantle Drilling– Mediterranean Sea Drilling– Lord Howe Rise Drilling• In‐kind Contributions– Co‐engineeringCii development
d l
(D
(Deep
W
Water Ri
Riser,
High‐Temp. Tools, Mud, Bit, DP, etc)

17. Mantle Drilling Working Group
Shin’ichi
Shin
ichi Kuramoto

CIB Consensus 0714‐05
0714 05
To support
pp existing
gp
proposalspfor full crustal p
penetration to the mantle,,
the CIB recommends the formation of a Working Group, which focuseson:• compile and assess existing engineering studies• specify technological development needed for a drill hole to themantle depending on different scenarios in discussion by thescientific community• assess feasibility of technological developments• assess potential risks• assess financial implications
The g
group
p will consist of xx p
proponents,p, xx CDEX representativepandxx members of TAT. Travel costs are covered by CDEX.
The Working Group will meet for the first time in 2014 and report to CIB
in the next CIB meeting
meeting.

DRAFT Terms of Reference(see the Agenda Book)
1. Compile
p and assess existingg engineeringgg studies.
The group shall review the “Mohole Initial Feasibility Study Report” (Blade Energy,2011), and identify expected engineering difficulties and challenges.
2. Specify technological development needed for a drill hole to the mantle depending
on different scenarios in discussion by the scientific community. The group shalldefine necessary engineering developments as project wide and proposed site‐
specific. Advantages and disadvantages of each proposed site location shall be
discussed and will also consider balance between each site, in terms of scienceand engineering development.
3. Assess feasibility of technological developments.
Based on the above two assessments, the group shall discuss a time‐ line ofnecessary technological development. The group also seeks for existing
technologies in industry that may fulfill technological requirements of this mission.
A t l feasibility
Actualf ibilit assessmentt could
ld taket k placelin
i a laterl t stage.
t
4. Assess potential risks.
The group shall assess potential risks: not only operational, but also scientific, risks,e g what can be achieved if the full penetration of the crust does not take placee.g.,place.
5. Assess financial implications.

BEAM activities in IODP(IODP(~2013)
2013)
• B
Boreholeh l into
i t Earth’s
E th’ Mantle
M tl (BEAM) projectj t hadh d scientifici tifiworkshops, a high‐level roundtable discussion, engineeringstudies by a 3rd party company and reported.
• BEAM roundtable (leaded by D. James Baker, The William J.
Clinton Foundation) recommended the following points,
Founding Public Awareness,
Founding,
Awareness Community Relations(Science/Political), Technology/Engineering Development,
Appropriate Program Structure, Science Planning, Risk:
Black Swans/Perfect Storms.
Storms And possible meetings were
1) A workshop to better define the program2) A workshop to have professionals listen to the scientists
and translate the science goals into exiting language
3) A funding meeting

Step into the next level of Project Approach• Science– Needs M2M proposal update• Conduct actual site surveys in the 3 potential areas.
• JAMSTEC and Univ. Hawaii are preparing a site survey off Hawaii.
needed• More interdisciplinary research collaboration must be needed.

• Engineering Development– Deep water, deep penetration and high temperaturet l / t i l needed.
tools/materials
d d• Can we share the horizons with industries? New resources must be
involved.
• Small
S ll experimentsit hhave bbeen alreadyl d undertaken
d t k iin JAMSTEC
JAMSTEC.

• Funding– Approachpp
governments,g, inter‐governmentgorganizations,g,pprivatefounders.
• The project must be designated.

• Outreach/PR– Must be supported by tax payers.
• Shows how exiting program it is.

JAMSTEC’ss Current Eng
JAMSTEC
Eng. Approach•

Deep Water Operation
T h lTechnology– Deep Water Riser System(4000m class)•

Deep Penetration Technology

12,00012000
DPTurbineMotor– Long‐Life Drill Bit– Turbine Motor Drilling System– High Temperature (~300℃)
Tools
•
•
•

Logging
CoringDrilling Fluid

Core B.

– Tough Drill Pipe (12,000 mclass)l )Long-life DB

Small scale CFRP riser pipe test

DP testTurbine Motor

CFRP
Riser

Discussion• Science(just a personal idea)*simultaneously approach– KeepingK
i eyes on sitei survey results.
l– Encourage WS to involve variety of scientists.

• Engineering Development– Continue TAT’s advices/discussion– Increase TAT member for deep drilling technology• Funding– Appropriate cost estimation and management plan
must be drafted by JAMSTEC first and reviewed by the
CIB.

• Outreach/PR– Once above issues reached visible stage, small WS
should be held by experienced people.

Usage of Membership Fee• Membership Fee is secured in separate
account of JAMSTEC– Carry over to next FY if not used within the mid‐term project period– Use scientific operation (like a SOC in previous
IODP scheme)– Use platform operation

Agenda 18

Nagoyag y Protocol
on ABS
its effectto IODP

Convention on Biological Diversity: http://www.cbd.int/abs/

Accessandbenefit-sharing
Where theNagoyaprotocoland
be applied?
‐> EEZ
Introduction
on accessbenefit-sharing
United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
PART V. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONEIn the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:(a)Sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing thenatural resources, whether living or non‐living, of the waters superjacent to the seabedand of the seabed and its subsoil,, and with regardgto other activities for the economic
exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the ….
(b)Jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to:(ii) marine scientific research;“The Nagoya Protocol” is applied in combination with “UNCLOS”,
i drillingi.e.
d illi at EEZ hhas criticali i l iinfluence.
flAccess
benefit-sharing
Uses of andgenetic
resources
Prior Informed Consent (PIC)
User of GR
Provider of GR(& associatedTK):(& associatedExp.
p TK):
353;; JR is drillingg at Indian EEZ,, no requestedq
microbiologygy
i d te.g. industry,e.g. National
sample are not taken from EEZ because of this issue
research institutes,
Competent Authority
universities

Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT) between provider and user
• Non-commercial or commercial utilization of GR(& associated TK): e.g. basic research, research anddevelopment development of new pharmaceuticals
development,
pharmaceuticals,
biotechnological productse e t S a g (monetary( o eta y & non-monetary):o o eta y) ee.g.
g• Benefit-Sharing
royalties, technology transfer, training
Convention on Biological Diversity: http://www.cbd.int/abs/

Access
benefit-sharing
Message
Uses of andgenetic
to CIB
resources• Recognition of this critical issue is great first step
forward• Policy for responsibility (who should take action forgetting permission?) has not been established yet• All biosphere-related
biosphere related objectives in proposal are affected• The permission often to be “PRIOR”, thus proper andg notification to the pproponentspareadvance-enoughnecessary• Not only for the objectives, but microbiologist may apply
for sail to non-biosphere-oriented cruise, information
dissemination to the potential applicant is of criticalimportanceAccess
benefit-sharingIn
Uses
reality…
of andgenetic
resources• It often take more than half a year to get through proper
process for permission -> for onboard scientists, it wouldb ttoo latebel t tot apply
l after
ft getting
tti invitation
i it ti• The application scheme is complicated and differ forcountries ->> support by IODP policy as well as operationside will be critically required• Nagoya protocol has not yet been common for evenmicrobiologists, notification to proponents of IODP
proposalpp
is requiredqGeneral information can be found at here

http://www.cbd.int/abs/

Information on national focal points
are available
il bl

https://absch.cbd.int/find?commonFormat=focalPointKochi Core center (KCC)
Established in 2005

Seeking for the Frontier Sciences & Services on core samples

KCC

KCC’ss Role & Responsibility
KCC
A a memberAsb off CIB,
CIB we att KCC conduct
d t following
f ll i tasks:t k• Curation of samples according to the geographical model– Legacy & IODP cores– Cores, cuttings and DeepBIOS• Chikyu Mirror site
– Complement sampling & measurements pending from Chikyu expeditions• Encourage intensive use of core and related information– CoreCiinventory,t
Vi
Virtualt lC
Core Vi
Viewer, andd SSamplel availability
il bilit• Curation‐specific researches– Monitoring core quality for long‐term effects of storage temperature• Facilitate access to analytical facility of KCC for IODP core study
Pre cruise training
training, Sakura Science School & JJ‐DESC
DESC core• Contribute in Pre‐cruise
schoolC ti tasks
Curationt k
 Core storage management Sample request evaluation
 Sampling plan Organize sampling party Samplep data managementg Education & Outreach

Curation of core material(JPFY2013)
IODP Expedition  IODP core curation
New IODP
1%
IODP
17%

IncludingLegacy core curationca. 102 km of core
DSDP
22%

ODP
60%

IODP‐related curation budget~$500k/year$

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

Curation of core material(as of Jan 2015)
IODP Expedition  IODP core curation (includes Legacy cores)
New IODP5%

ca. 105 km of core
DSDP
21%

IODP
16%

ODP
58%

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

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

IODP Sample Data & Obligation Policy
Implementation plan
• KCC accepted and implemented the new IODP policy
approvedd byb theth 3 FBs
FB• Curatorial Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) madeavailable through the KCC website

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

Kochi Core Center

Bremen Core Repository

Gulf Coast Repository

ASIA

KCC

Geographic model: 3 oceanic regions, 3 IODP core repositories

IODP & Legacy (ODP/DSDP) cores
Repository

Institution

Amount of core

BCR

University ofBremen154 kmGCR

Texas A&M
University

128 kmKCC

JAMSTEC & Kochi
University

105 km

NJ Geological
SurveyRutgers University

0.62 km
ODP Leg 150X

Curation of core material

1.5
15 m long core sections (AH & WH)
at +4˚C, ~80% humidity
ca. 105 km

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

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

Shipboardpsamplep residues and unused samples
p returned byy sample
p requesters
q
Stored in +4˚C reefer and air‐conditioned containerSample Request decision making
Expedition Specific~ 6 months pre-expedition
to 12 months post expedition

Post-moratorium> 12 months post expedition
CAB

Advice, Appeal,
Permanent Archive
requests and longterm loans

AppealIODP Curator

Advice, Appeal

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

Conflict with other sample requests

Investigator

Sample volume / frequency

CAB : Curatorial Advisory Board

Sample requests

US FY
Total

US FY

812

T t l
Total
(as of Jan. 2015)

1532

2015

2014

0

ChikyuChik EExp.

2013

0

2012

50
2011

20

IODP core

2009

100

2015

40

2014

150

2013

60

2012

200

2011

80

2010

250

2009

100

2008

300

2007

120

2008

Legacy
core
L

2010

IODP core

2007

Legacy coreSamples shipped
Legacy

IODP
34782

61478

15000

Large number
due tosampling party:
Exp. 323 & 346

12000

9000

6000

3000

0
2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

US FY
Total

144,471(as of Jan. 2015)

Visitors

US FY

2015

2014

2013

2012

IODP

2011

2007

0
2015

0
2014

25

2013

25

2012

50

2011

50

2010

75

2009

75

2008

100

2007

100

2010

L
Legacy2009

Ab dAbroad

2008

J
Japan

US FY

T t l
Total

315
(as of Jan. 2015)

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

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

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

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

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

Core Logging Instruments (non‐destructive measurements forphysical properties and elemental composition)

X‐ray CTMSCL (Density, Mag‐Sus, etc)

Digital Color measurement

XRF Core Scanner (elemental composition)

Education and Training
About IODP policy and shipboard measurements• Pre‐cruisePi trainingt i i
IODP Expeditions: 346, 348, 353, 354, 355• JJ‐DESC
DESC core school
Once every year

• Sakura Science School
Once every year

Japan-Asia Youth Exchange Program in Science(SAKURA Exchange Program in Science 2014)•Core Curation and Basic Analyses Course Program for Graduate Students and Post-Doc Researchers•Learn curatorial and analyses methods for scientific drilling core samples: A key to unravel the Earth’s past,present and future.
•10 visitors from China, Taiwan, S. Korea, Indonesia and Vietnam•Nov. 10 – Nov. 22, 2014
•The school pprogramg
included:•Core sample curation method•Non-destructive measurements•core description
pincludingg microscopic
p observation ((e.g.,g , smear slides))•Field Trip
•Oral Presentation

21

New cores and sampling
p gp
partiesin KCC in 2015
JOIDES Resolution
IODP Exp. 353 (Indian Monsoon) ‐‐‐‐ Sampling party in July 2015
IODP Exp. 354 (Bengal Fan) ‐‐‐‐ Some sampling onshore ?
IODP Exp. 355 (Arabian Sea Monsoon) ‐‐‐‐ Sampling party in Oct. 2015 ?
IODP Exp. 356 (Indonesian Through Flow) ‐‐‐‐ Sampling party in 2016 ?
IODP Exp. 359 (Maldives Monsoon) ‐‐‐‐ Sampling party in 2016

ChikyuIODP Exp. 358 ?

Additional repository
since October 2014

K C C

New
repository

Core repository

New reeferOct. 2014 onwards :Transferred new IODP cores from existingg reefers
to the new reefer
Cleared backlog of >50 sample requests
Plan transfer of DSDP/ODP/IODP cores to new reefer

Curatorial budget
especially for the Legacy and JR cores

Last US FY : Consortium for Ocean Leadership, USA

Current : multi‐year
multi year contract with the IODP/TAMU
IODP/TAMU, USA~ US$ 400k per year

See How we are related to each other.
Grant

Kochi University
Center for Advenced Marine
Core Research
Owner

Building
Land

KCC

Maintenance …

Sci.
Sci
Tech.

JAMSTEC
Kochi Inst. Core Sample
p Res.
Sci.
Tech.
Contract.

Equipments

Grant
Equipments
JAMSTEC core

IODP Core

Univ. Core
Joint Use

Core
RepositorypyUniv. researchers

NSF

Curation/Sampling/Measure
IODP curator

MEXT

JAMSTEC curator

CDEX
IODP res.

Legacy Core

Researchers

Joint Use
¥¥$$

core

Fac.

Task

Org.

New Director: Dr. Ishikawa
Grant

Kochi University
Center for Advenced Marine
Core Research
Owner

Building
Land

KCC

Maintenance …

Sci.
Sci
Tech.

JAMSTEC
Kochi Inst. Core Sample
p Res.
Sci.
Tech.
Contract.

Equipments

Joint Use

Core
RepositorypyUniv. researchers

NSF
Legacy CoreTask

JAMSTEC curator

CDEX

Joint UseFac.

JAMSTEC core

Curation/Sampling/Measure
IODP curator

MEXT

core

Equipments

IODP Core

Univ. Core

¥¥$$

Grant

Org.

IODP res.

Researchers

2015/3/31
CHIKYU International Board meeting (CIB)

CDEX outreach activity
July 2014〜March 2015

Tamano Omata

Contents
Update of CDEX outreach activity
AGU fall meeting
UN world conference on disaster risk reduction2015 Sendai,
2015,
Sendai Japan
Website renewal
Media

CHIKYU 10th anniversaryi
Brief history and expedition in the decade
E t underEventd preparingi
Anniversary report
Collaboration with media
othersBooth Exhibition at AGU Fall Meeting 2014
Booth map

Booth exhibition

EMERGENCYPEDESTRIAN RAMP

WOMEN

MEN
RESTROOMSWFPHONESSNACK BARKEEP CLEAR

Refini
ng

Micro
Supp

2050

2051

2150

Terra
plus,

USRA Univer
sity

2151

2350

2351

SEATINGKEEP CLEAR2352
FACILITY

Appli Bluepr
ed
int

2047

Nation AmerialcanSeism GEM
ologic Advan

2141

2241

2743

2641

2740

PP
Syste

2539

2638

2639

2738

Aerodyne
Research,

Clark

Johns
Hopkins

Reserved

Reser
ved

2640

Riegl
USA

2338

2636

2637

2234

2235

Steve
ns

ARC Nature
Scien Publis

2136
2134

2135

NASA

2541

40'

2340

2335

2334

20'

GeoSI OSOP,G Ltd S.A.

2037

2240

20'

HORI
BA

2036

2535

Reser
ved

2741
FACILITY

2634

Ocea
n

2635

STORAGE

2739

2736
2737

2734

2735

20'

20'

20'

Xylem, Inc
Aanderaa /Sontek / YSI/ Waterlog

REF TEK (ADivision of
Trimble)Navigation

Reserved

2029

2129

2229

2329

Onset
-

2429

20'

2631
20'

20'

20'
ThermoScientific

20'

20'
Universityof Alaska Fairbanks

20'

30'

40'

20'
Picarro, Inc.

20'

1929

2529

2730

Pro- Intern
Seism ationa

2629

2728

SeaBird

2625

2724

2831
2729

2828

20'

2616

2617

Kochi
Core

Nation
al

2514

2515

2614

2615

2510

LacCo
re/CS

2511

20'
National
ScienceFoundation
Geoscience

2404

2405

NSF Street

Reser
ved

Reser
ved

Reser
ved

2715

2814

2815

2713

2812

2813

2613

2712

2610

2611

2710
2708

2608
AIP
Publis

2606

2505

Soil
Scien

2604

2607

2816

2817

Reser
ved

2811
2809

Reser
ved

2706

Reser Agilen
ved
t

2605

2819

Reser
ved

2714

Reser Reser
ved
ved

2612

2509

2818

2717

Reser
ved

Reser
ved

2408

2821
2719

2716

Reserved

2411

2517

2513

2823

20'

CU
UAHSI

Eu
uropeanGeooscience

20'

20'

The
European

2718

2516

20'

20'

2305

2619

2704

2707

2806

UMS

2304

2618

2825

2802

2805

2800

2803

Reser
ved

2807
Reser
ved

20'

2205

20'

20'

30'

Geom
etrics2306

Oyo
Corporation

2309
Geop
hysic

2207

Rober
Iris
tson Instru

2105

20'

2310

2412

2720

Rigak
u

Refreshment

2722

Reser Reser
ved
ved

UCAR
Community

SEPM
Societ

2313

2621

20'

2211

Environmen
tal Systems
Research
Institute,

2005

UN
NAVCO,
Inc.

Society of
Exploration

2210

20'

Japan
Geoscience
Union

1905

20'

2213

NCRNational

2414

USGIN ECOR
D/IOD
Lawrence
Berkeley

2315

20'

AURA
Natio

2314

The
Geolo

20'

2111

20'
30'

30'

Earth
Cube

2215

20'

20'
Los Gatos
ResearchACS Reser
Public ved

GeologicalSociety

20'

20'

ASC
Scient

UMIAQ

2110

Kong
sberg

2214

20'

2011

20'

2112

2417

OpenTopog
raphy /

Kipp &
Zonen USASIAMSociet

2416

30'

Avent
ech

2114

Critical ZoneThe Europ
ArcticeanIntergr Union
ated
of

Reserved

Apog
ee

2015

2623

2519

20'

2317

2316

2622

2521

Consortium for
Ocean Leadership

2217

2116

2418

2523

NSF
Antarc20'

2017

IKON Mining&
Exploration

40'

20'

2016

20'

1805

Am
mericanMetteorologi

1917

LI-COR
Biosciences

1705

20'

Eleme
ntal

20'

2319

Micro-gScintrex

20'

2318

Natio Zoom
nal
Digital

2012

2219

Radio
carbo

InterM Scinte
et
c

1913

2218

2420

Stock
holm

Mount Senso
Sopris rs &

20'

20'

1912

2119

2423

Space Earth
Scien Scope

2321

Campbell
Scientific,

1813

2118

2422

ToolikField

20'

LatitudeEngineerin

ESRP Coper
C&
nicus

2323

20'
IRIS
Consortium

National
Ecological

2223

30'

Elsevier

20'

30'

1713

2019

2827

20'

2222

Reserved

Gems &
Crystals

1916

20'

Cambridge
University

1817

HuksefluxU
SA, Inc.

Decagon
Devices, Inc

Met
One

20'

2123

1921
Dropl
et

Korea
K
Institute ofMicrosoft
esearch
Re

20'

2023

20'
Nanometrics

Deltares

30'

20'
30'

1823

20'

20'
Kinemetrics,
Inc.

20'

20'

2829
Centerfor

HALL C
20'

20'

University of

Springer

2642

Taylor
&

Photo
n

2239

Nature’s
Own

1721

1714

1704

2543
50'

Natio
nal

2238

2140

2035

1729

1718

1712

2342

Ecote
ch Pty2139

National
Academies

2243

Refreshment
2644

Rod Eleme
Griffin ntar

On
The

20'

20'

GuralpSystems

2142

2545

20'

2G
EnterpPrinceton

2646

Saville
x

Wiley

20'
Google,
Inc.

1716

Unive
rsity

2547

Essex
Indust2544

2138

AGU Marketplace

30'

Komo
odo

POSTERSS

Beta
Analytic Inc

Scien MALA
ce/AA Geosc

To Posters

Isotopx Inc.

Reser
ved

2546

Dyna
max,

2445

IOP
PublisInstru gemp
menta
a

DOSE
CC

1720

Spect Diana
ral
March

2447

Natio
nal

2444

2039

50'

1732

1728

Colu
mbia

2446

2041

20'

1734

1937

2345

Asia
OceaniaAssoc
iation2043

20'

Scripp
s

1736

2344

Institu ZongetIntern

2038

1941

1839

2245

2042

Renis
haw

Research In
Germany

Refreshment

1738

Refreshment

2144

AAAS Colleg
Scien
e of

20'

1943
20'

Geosp
ace

1740

2146

Turne
RM
r
YOUN

2045

20'

1742

Sequo
ia

Reser
ved

2044

Nation Earth,alPlanet

20'

1945

20'

Reso
non,

2046

LittleRiver

1944

OxfordUniversity

Real
World

1947

1845

Ocean
Networks

SERD
P/

1946

KMS GWR
Techn Instru

1844

20'

Gasm
et

1847

1846

GNS Jewell
Scien Instru

1745

Geote
ch

20'

Planet Reser
ary
ved

1747

Mathw
orks

1744

Reserved

STORAGE

CAME
CA

1746

2701

2801

ENTRANCE

Purdu Scho* e* ol of

Unive
rsity

3101

3100
*

Texas
A&M

3200

3103

*

Business
Center

3102

*

*

*

3107

*

3109

3301

3300

*

Texas
Tech

3204

*

3105

3104

Reser
ved

EarthLife

3201

Virgini Reser*a Tech * ved

TO UPPER

3303
STAN
FORD
*

SOUTH LOBBY

3206

Unive
rsity

3205
*

3208

3207

*

*

3210

3209

3211

3213

3215

3302

3305

3304

3307

3306

3309

* LAST IN, FIRST OUT

ACADEMIC SHOWCASE

*

3112

*

3114

*

*

*

3212

3214

3216

3311
3308

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

3313

Outreach meeting among IOs
Update information of each IOs
School of Rock at ECORDCHIKYU onboard opportunity(as E&O activity)
Outreach activity(July 2014‐March 2015)

ECORD‐ICDP

Ocean Leadership

JAMSTEC

Town hall meeting at AGU 2014
 Co‐organized by Ocean Leadership, CDEX, ECORD and ICDP AboutAbseverall hundred
h d d participantsi i Information about the Taira Prize Face to facefcommunication among community membersb

UN world conference on
di t risk
disasteri k reduction
d ti 2015
2015, SSendai,d i JJapan

Booth exhibition( d mediatheque)(Sendaid h)Temporary exhibition
At Tohoku Univ. museum

Website renewal
Current structure

New site structure

CHIKYU site
CDEX sitewww.jamstec.go.jp/chikyu

JAMSSTEC
Top

www.jamstec.go.jp/chikyujtj / hik
CDEX
www.jamstec.go.jp/cdex

IODP
www.jamstec.go.jp/iodp

Renewed Web Design
CHIKYU site

CDEX site

Renewed homepage will be opened in April.

MediaTV

Australia ABC

TBS (Japan)

BS JapanBook, newsletter and web

Book (Shincho‐sha)

Web (US Santa Cruz)

Book

Book

List of outreach activity
Number(international/
domestic)

DetailSymposium (co‐organize)

0/1

Symposium for Integrated Ocean Drilling Program(with National Science Museum)

Symposium(with collaboration)

0/1

Science session in Iwate: Mechanism of Earthquake
and Tsunami and Sea of Tohoku 4 years after

Education(P ti l work/(Practicalk/ Field
Fi ld
excursion )0/4

Yokohama Science Frontier HS, Tagajo HS, Uto HS,
JpGU educational session for students

Booth exhibition(International)

4/2

JpGU, AOGS, AGU, UN disaster meeting, GeologicalSociety in Japan,
Japan SSH in Aomori,
Aomori

Lecture0/25

Meeting for school directors, Japanese society fornon‐destructive inspection, etc.

Media interview

3/19

The Seattle Times, Australia ABC, NHK, TBS, Nihon
TV, Yomiuri News, Sankei News, etc.

Photo and movie providing for
media
di

7/56

Discovery Channel Canada、University California
Santa Cruz、Schlumberger、Advanced
Cruz Schlumberger Advanced Magazine,
Magazine
University of Leicester, Keirinkan, Tokyo‐Shoseki,
Mitsubishi Minatomirai Museum etc.

Category

CHIKYU 10th anniversary
E diti history
Expedition
hi t

CHIKYU history of the decade
Launching

Derrick Installation

Delivery

2003

2002

Open
p shipp at KobeExp
p3
314‐316
3 6
NanTroSEIZE stage1

2007

2005
Exp 331 Okinawa

2008

2010
CHIKYU +10

Exp 343 JFAST

201
2

Exp 337 Hachinohe

2012

2011
2013

Plan for CHIKYU 10th anniversary

Ceremonyp shipp at Yokohama
Open
Workshops as local activities
A i(i Japanese)
J)
Anniversary
report (inCollaboration with media (National Geographic Japan)