Joint Meeting: Interior and Environment SSEPs

Gainesville, Florida, November 2-4, 1998
 

Monday, November 4:

The joint meeting of the JOIDES Scientific Steering and Evaluation
Panels for the Dynamics of Earth's Environment and Earth's Interior was
called to order by John Tarduno (Chair of ISSEP) and Ted Moore of ESSEP.
After brief introductions of panel members and other attendees, Dr. Jack
Ohanian, acting Vice President for Research of the University of Florida
welcomed the panels to the University of Florida and wished us well in
our work.

JOIDES OFFICE REPORT
ODP Membership
Dr. Ohanian's  comments were followed by the JOIDES office report
presented by Christina Chondrogianni. The report included a discussion
of the new Associate Membership policy which detailed the rights and
privileges of three separate levels of Associate Membership. These
membership levels involve different participation privileges as outlined
below:

ODP Committee Groups

Group I (Highest level of advice on ODP science and policy)
EXCOM
SCICOM

Group II (Scientific advice)
ESSEP
ISSEP

Group III (Technical and operational advice)
SCIMP
SSP
TEDCOM
PPSP

Privileges of Different Membership Levels:

1 . SHIPBOARD PARTICIPATION
Shipboard participation will be directly proportional to the
contribution to the Ocean Drilling Program.

2 . PARTICIPATION IN THE JOIDES ADVISORY STRUCTURE
Associate Membership Level Contribution Privileges:

Associate 3 (2/3 of full participation): One member on all Panels of
Groups II & III above;
Associate 2 (1/2 of full participation): One member on one Panel from
Group II;
One member on two Panels from Group III above;
Associate 1 (1/6 of full participation): One member on one Panel from
Group II;
One member on one Panel from Group III above.

Christina also discussed the EXCOM motion concerning members who
reduce their contributions. These members will reduce their shipboard
membership, but retain panel membership if they have at least a 5/6
contribution and are working to increase in the contribution.

SCICOM REPORT

Steve Scott reported some of the key considerations resulting from the
recent SCICOM meeting held in Durham, England, with most of the
discussion centered on the program prioritization that grew out of a
EXCOM request:

Program Priorities
EXCOM made a request to SCICOM to prioritize program activities as we
approach the 2003 end of this phase of the Program:

EXCOM Motion 98-1-8:
Presently determined budgetary constraints through 2003 will negatively
impact the delivery of the Long Range Plan. EXCOM asks SCICOM to
prioritize future science objectives to maximize the objectives of the
Long Range Plan, clearly indicating those which cannot be achieved under
existing budget projections. SCICOM should also identify and prioritize
changes in program activities, services, equipment needs and
technological development. SCICOM is asked to forward its report to
EXCOM by September 1998.

In response to the EXCOM request and with input from the SSEPs, SCICOM
reported on their evaluation of the scientific of objectives of the two
SSEPs and then merged these objectives into a single set of priority
groupings:
Initially they were ranked under two headings: Projects that Will
Achieve the LRP Goals by 2003, and Projects that Lead into Post-2003
Drilling. Those in the first heading were divided into two groups.
Arctic drilling , Deep Biosphere, Intact Crustal Section and Seismogenic
Zone were grouped together under the second heading because they are
unlikely to be accomplished before 2003  they represent themes leading
into the next program (IODP).

Projects that Will Achieve the LRP Goals by 2003

Environment               Interior
I Milankovitch             Hydrogeology
Very high resolution         ION
Gas hydrates               LIP
Past warm climates

II Climate-Tectonics          Mass Balances
Sea level                  Extensional margins
                         Plutonic sections
_____________________________________________________________________
Projects Leading into Post-2003 Drilling
Arctic
Deep Biosphere
Seismogenic zone
Deep hole

Further discussion in SCICOM resulted in ranking the themes within these
groups with the additional consideration of likely leg costs also
evaluated (S = standard, M = moderate, H = high, and E = Expensive):

Prioritization of Scientific Themes Likely to be Affected by Budgetary
Constraints
Priority Scientific Theme Cost
GROUP
1 Seismogenic Zone Experiments H-E
2 Decadal to Century-Scale Climate S-E
3 Gas Hydrates H-E
4 Section of the Oceanic Crust H-E
5 Hydrogeology =8B Hydrothermal H-E
------------------------------------------------------------------------

GROUP II
1 Plutonic Sections of Oceanic Lithosphere M-E
2 Mass Balances at Subduction Zones M-H
3 Rifting Initiation and Extensional H-E

Grouping of Scientific Themes Unlikely to be Affected by Budgetary
Constraints
GROUP I
Dynamics of Earth's Environment
1 Oceanographic & Climatic Variability S
on Milankovitch Time Scales
2 Deep Biosphere S-M
3 Extreme Warm Climates S

Dynamics of Earth's Interior
1 ION Sites S-M
2 Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs) S-M
------------------------------------------------------------------------

GROUP II
1 Understanding History and Effects S-M
of Sea Level Change
2 Climate and Tectonics Links S
 
 

Proposal Ranking:
The results of the SCICOM ranking of proposals at their August meeting
are as follows:

Proposal Key Word(s)
484      East Asian Monsoon
426      AAD
445      Nankai
472      Marianas/Izu
455      Laurentide outlet
490      Prydz Bay
448      Ontong Java
465      SE Pac. Paleoc.
486      Paleogene Pac.
431A     Japan Trench Sites
431B     Seismic Network sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
355 Peru Margin
451 Tonga Forearc
463 Shatsky LIP
450 Taiwan orogenic
499 Eq. Pac. ION

Based on this ranking and on their discussions, SCICOM decided to draw a
line; proposals above the line will stay on the list and do not need
revision, while those below the line (355, 451, 463, 450, 499) need
revision. Those proposals above the line but not chosen for drilling
will be re-ranked by SCICOM in August 1999.

Seismogenic Zone DPG
In other news from SCICOM a Detailed Planning Group (DPG) for
seismogenic zone drilling has been formed with Roy Hyndman as Chair and
their work is underway with a call for letters of interest.

COMPLEX Conference (26-29 May 1999, Vancouver. B.C.)
A conference has been scheduled to discuss and begin planning for a
non-riser drilling program in a post-2003 drilling program. Over 300
white papers outlining individual scientific objectives and themes have
been received to date.

Technical and Operations Workshop
A workshop, lead by S. Humphris and K. Tamaki, will be held 17-18 Nov.
1998 to examine issues
concerning an integrated future drilling program.]
 

Ship Schedule:
SCICOM has approved the following ship's schedule:

    Rank    Site         Time Estimated Transit
 
188         Prydz Bay    Dec - Feb         22
189  2      S. Gateways  Feb - Apr          4
            Transit                        14
190  1      Nankai       Apr - June         7
191  3      WP-2 Site    July               9
192  6      Manus Basin  July - Sept       13
193  4      Ontong-Java  Sept - Nov        14

The SCICOM Liaisons also discussed a motion (98-2-8) by SCICOM
that asks proponents of expensive programs to find additional
funds to help support their programs. In addition, the
question of student participation on legs was presented.

Discussion:

John Tarduno noted that the second Nankai leg will be reviewed
by the SSEPs and other panels of the JOIDES advisory structure.

Steve D'Hondt inquired about student participation on legs-- how
will this affect staffing? Kate Moran replied that this is an
opportunity only if space is available (maybe 3 berths per year
may become available).

Jamie Austin commented on potential problems with the SCICOM motion
asking proponents to locate additional funds; he felt that this
could drive lower priority science to have a preference in the
drilling schedule.

Julie Morris asked how the prioritization would be used in the future.
John Tarduno responded that it was his understanding that this was
purely a response to the EXCOM motion. The SSEP's should review
proposals as before, encouraging the best science to be developed.
Bill Hay agreed that the SSEPs should concentrate on the science.
 

JOI REPORT

Kate Moran briefly commented on the advisory structure, and emphasized
that the SSEPs can suggest new PPGs. She also discussed the length of
legs and suggested that the SSEPs take a more active role in providing
advice on the length of legs. There is a need to decide who works with
proponents when a leg is too long.

Kate also suggested that some of the
PPG mandates might need to be modified to have a greater emphasis on
post-2003 activities.
 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION REPORT

Jamie Allan reported briefly on the continued planning for the post-2003
drilling program. He indicated that at present the US and international
community are envisioning a program in which the US, Japan, and
a consortium of other nations will contribute about $120 million dollars
toward a two-platform drilling program. All services for the operation of this
program will be open for bidding. For the US, the US Science Advisory Committee
will play a key role in the planning efforts over the coming year. In January
the Japanese will make a critical budgetary decision regarding the
future planning of this program.

ODP REPORT

Paul Wallace presented key results from the ODP Leg 179 and 180
drilling. Of special interest was the testing of the hammer drill on Leg
179. Although not entirely successful, much was learned from these
efforts that will lead to design modifications that should improve
performance. An engineering leg is tentatively planned following the
drydock, during which a modified hammer drill will be tested again. Also
scheduled for installation in drydock is the new active heave
compensation system.
Peter Blum reported further on drydock plans and efforts to aid and
promote shipboard studies of the deep biosphere.

LOGGING REPORT

Tim Brewer presented a logging report in which results of some of the
recent Legs, and uses of some of the more advanced tools (e.g. dipole
sonic tool) were presented. Tim also announced a web page aimed at
helping proponents design their logging plan.

LONG TERM OBSERVATORY PPG REPORT

Keir Becker reviewed a draft version of the LTO PPG report (available
on the JOIDES Office web site). Although it is recognized that science
will drive the need for site survey and down-hole measurements, much of
the PPG report deals with the need for new technology to help meet the
scientific needs of such observatories. ODP has been near the cutting
edge of technology in many ways; and there is both a good opportunity
and a pressing scientific need to continue in this mode. The Report
suggests the need for a more global plan for LTO in which specific
scientific objectives are defined. Out of such a planning effort, more
focused PPGs are likely to arise (such as the recommended Hydrology PPG)
These new focused efforts will, in turn, necessitate a good deal of
groundwork in identifying and characterizing observatory sites.

Another concern expressed in the report is the importance of, and need
for oversight of legacy holes that be used for observatories. With the
future development of wireline re-entry systems, the actual drilling of
the hole is  but a first step in the overall implementation of a
long-term observatory plan.

GAS HYDRATES PPG

Carolyn Ruppel reported on the Gas Hydrates PPG meeting held in June of
this year. The PPG expressed its concern with studying hydrate deposits
at all spatial and temporal scales. The hydrate research envisioned
covers a wide range of themes including, the hydrate plumbing system
(low flux and high flux regimes), interaction with sediments and
sediment physical properties, temporal evolution of hydrates, remote
detection and characterization of hydrate deposits, and geologic
settings in which hydrates typically develop. Addressing such themes
will probably require a series of legs planned as a package to address a
broad suite of the themes listed above. The PPG also identified some key
technical issues they are critical to addressing the identified
scientific themes: 1) 3D surveys of the study areas will become a key
element in both siting holes and evaluating results, 2) Good core
recovery, the availability of at least three Pressure Core Sampling
devices, and an insitu pore water sampling device will be critical to
successful hydrate studies, 3) downhole measurements, such as VSP and
hole tomography will be important to evaluating hydrate deposits.  LWD
technology may also be required. 4) Plans will almost certainly include
the development and emplacement of long-term monitors (multi-level
CORKS) in  at least some holes. Proposals are likely to focus initially
on end-member examples of gas hydrate deposits, which as we now
understand them, are likely to include deposits in accretionary prisms,
deposits on passive margins, and deposits in petroleum production
regions that include thermogenic gas hydrates.

PROPOSAL REVIEWS

Reports from other PPGs were delayed in order for the panels to proceed
directly to the evaluation of a rather long list of proposals. Several
of these proposals are of interest to both SSEPs; therefore two working
groups were appointed to conduct joint discussion and review of two sets
of proposals: Group 1 proposals (Gas Hydrate proposals 355-Full7,
546-Full, 553-Full, and 554-Pre)
and Group 2 proposals (Seismogenic zone proposals
537-Full, 488-Full4, 517-Full, and 544-Pre).
Working groups met
Monday evening and Tuesday morning.

ISSEP Reviews
Over the course of Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning the following
Full and Pre proposals were discussed and the recommendations  noted
below were made. Late Wednesday morning and Wednesday afternoon the two
SSEP panels met in joint session and discussed the Gas Hydrate and
Seismogenic zone groups of proposals, as well as other proposals in
which there was some overlap of interest. The panels were sensitive to
the issue that the present phase of the Program is drawing to a close
and that proponents were eager to have their proposals considered for
drilling prior to 2003. We made every effort to send proposals out for
review that we thought were fully mature, addressed primary themes of
the Long Range Plan, and addressed all the questions that might
logically be brought forward by a mail reviewer. Two proposals 505-Full2
and 521-Full3 came very close to meeting all these requirements , and
the panel felt that a few, relatively minor alterations and additions to
these proposals would make them ready for mail review. We made a
tentative recommendation, subject to JOIDES Office approval (later
granted), that the proponents be allowed to submit a slightly revised
proposal for mail review if they were able to make these revisions and
submit the revised proposal by 15 December. The panels provided a
specific list of changes and additions that we thought were required and
could be made in this very limited time frame.

PROPOSALS DISCUSSED

Proposals for ISSEP Review, November 1998

Key:
SEND OUT= Recommend for external review
J=        Joint ISSEP, ESSEP Review
I=        Information item, no formal review
R=        Revision required
*=        Proposal needing minor revision before external review
 

Proposal       Key Words                  Review
 
355-Full7  Gas Hydrates Peru              SEND OUT (J)
477-Full2  Okhotsk paleoceanography       I, SEND OUT (ESSEP)
478-Full4  E. Nankai Subduction           SEND OUT (J)
482-Add2   Antarctica/Wilkes Land         I
489-Add2   Antarctica/Ross Sea            I
505-Full2  Geochem. Mass Bal./MCM         SEND OUT*(J)
514-Full3  Sea level; Maldive             I, R (ESSEP)
516-Add2   Hydrogeol. Costa Rica          I
517-Full   Nankai/CORKs                   SEND OUT (J)
519-Full   Sea level- S. Pac. Reefs       I, R (ESSEP)
520-Full2  Kyushu-Palau Ridge,            R
521-Full3  Indus Fan Monsoon History      SEND OUT*(J)
522-Full   Superfast Crust                R
523-Full   Hawaiian Hotspot Motion        SEND OUT
525-Full   Peridotite, MAR                SEND OUT
532-Pre2   Atlantic Megamullion           FULL
535-Full2  735 Deep-Slow Spreading        SEND OUT
537-Full   Seismogenic Costa Rica         R (J)
541-Pre    Chilean Fjord Sediments        I, (FULL, ESSEP)
542-Pre    Hikurangi-SW Pac. LIP          R
543-Pre    CORK 642E                      FULL
544-Pre    Costa Rica-Nic. Sub. zones     FULL (J)
545-Pre    Crustal Fluid Flow             FULL
546-Full   Gas Hydrates-Oregon            SEND OUT (J)
547-Pre    Subsurface Biosphere           FULL
548-Pre    K-T Boundary impact            FULL
549-Full   Monsoon, OMZ, Arabian Sea      I (SEND OUT, ESSEP)
550-Pre    clinoforms, Australia NW       I (FULL, ESSEP)
551-Pre    Hess Deep-Fast Spreading       R
552-Pre    Drilling Bengal Fan            FULL (J)
553-Full   Hydrates Cascadia Margin       SEND OUT (J)
554-Pre    Hydrates, Gulf Mexico          FULL (J)

PRL's
503-Full2  Antarctic/Weddell Sea          I
510-Full3  Marion Plateau                 I
534-Full   Extreme Warmth, Shatsky        I
 

At the close of the official meeting we revisited the reports from the
PPGs. We were lacking reports from the Climate and Tectonics,
Architecture of the Ocean Lithosphere, and Shallow Water Systems  PPGs
(a brief report from the shallow water systems PPG is now on the JOIDES
web page). Ellen Thomas reported that the Extreme Climate PPG met in
Edinburgh in September and was drafting a report.

EXTREME CLIMATE PPG:
The PPG report is expected to focus on several specific themes within
the context of the unusual oceanographic and climatic conditions that
exist during the extremely warm intervals of the Earth's past. These
include the thermal maximum of the late Paleocene, the oceanic anoxic
events of the Cretaceous, and biotic responses during extreme climates.
They also discussed the need for recovered sections in which the
character of Milankovitch-scale oscillations in climate can be
investigated. New proposals as well as proposals already in the system
were discussed.
 

The meeting was closed with an expression of thanks to our host, Jon
Martin, for a most enjoyable stay on the very beautiful campus of the
University of Florida.
 
 

ISSEP:

Makoto Arima
Nathan Bangs
Ulrich Bleil
Georges Ceuleneer
Godfrey Fitton
Randy Forsyth
Debbie Kelley
Keith Louden
Craig Manning
Julie Morris
Carolyn Ruppel
Piera Spadea
John Tarduno
Doug Wiens
Jin Xianglong

ESSEP:

Jamie Austin
Paul Baker
Barbara Bekins
Gerard Blanc
Chris Charles
Steve D'Hondt
Peter Demenocal
Neville Exon
Allan Kemp
Neil Lundberg
Jon Martin
Ted Moore
Wonn Soh
Ellen Thomas
Rainer Zahn
 
 

Guests and Liaisons:

Bill Hay
Kate Moran
John Farrell
Jamie Allan
Paul Wallace
Bob Whitmarsh
Tim Brewer
Steve Scott
Maureen Raymo
Chistina Chondrogianni
John Diebold
Keir Becker
Peter Blum