Comité scientifique IODP-France Ordre du Jour · du total; 6.3 publications par Leg en moyenne),...

IODP-FRANCEISTEEM - Université de Montpellier 2 - c.c. 4934095 Montpellier cedex 05 - FranceTel : 33 (0) 467 143 818 / 33 (0)467 143 602 • Fax : 33 (0) 467 143 603Email : [email protected] • Web : www.dstu.univ-montp2.fr/IODP-France

Comité scientifique IODP-FranceOrdre du Jour

6 Mai 2004Paris, SGF

le Joides Resolution entrant dans le port de St-John (Terre Neuve),à l'issue du Leg 210, dernière campagne ODP

Comité Scientifique IODP-France

Membres du Comité

Benoît ILDEFONSE, CNRS, UMII, MontpellierPrésident du comité scientifique IODP-FranceScience Planning Committee (SPC)

Catherine MEVEL, CNRS, IPG, ParisECORD Managing Agency (Directeur)

John LUDDEN, CNRS/INSU, ParisECORD Council (vice-chair)

Xavier LE PICHON, College de France, Aix-en-ProvenceScience Planning (SPPOC)

Gilbert CAMOIN, CNRS, Cerege, Aix-en-ProvenceScience Steering & Evaluation Panel for dynamics of Earth's Environment (ESSEP, Chairman)ECORD Science Support and Advisory Committee (ESSAC)

Pierre HENRY, CNRS, College de France, Aix-en-ProvenceScience Steering & Evaluation Panel for dynamics of Earth's Interior (ISSEP)

Javier ESCARTIN, CNRS, IPG, ParisScientific Measurement Panel (SCIMP)Science Steering & Evaluation Panel for dynamics of Earth's Interior (ISSEP; Alternate)

Marc-André GUTSCHER, CNRS, UBO/IUEM, BrestSite Survey Panel (SSP)

Christophe BASILE, Université Joseph Fourier, GrenobleScientific Measurement Panel (SCIMP; Alternate)

Jean MASCLE, Géosciences Azur, Villefranche sur MerPollution Prevention and Safety Panel (PPSP)

Philippe LAPOINTE, Total, ParisPollution Prevention and Safety Panel (PPSP; alternate)

Philippe DE CLARENS, Total, ParisIndustry Liaison Panel (ILP)

Isabelle MORETTI, IFP, Rueil-MalmaisonIndustry Liaison Panel (ILP; Alternate)

Invités

Serge BERNE, Ifremer, Brest PROMESSPierre COCHONAT, Ifremer, Paris Hydrates de GazJean-Yves COLLOT, IRD, Villefranche sur Mer IRDNicole DEVAUCHELLE, Ifremer, Brest Biosphere, extrêmophilesJérôme DYMENT, IPG, Paris InterRidgeNadine ELLOUZ, IFP, Rueil-Malmaison IFP/MargesYves FOUQUET, Ifremer, Brest Systèmes hydrothermauxChristian FRANCE-LANORD Climat et TectoniqueMarguerite GODARD, CNRS, Montpellier Leg ODP 209Francis GROUSSET, CNRS, Bordeaux EPOC, paléocirculations océaniquesPhilippe HUCHON, UPMC, Paris Commission Géosciences MarinesLaurent JOLIVET, UPMC, Paris Chantier MéditerranéeCatherine KISSEL, CNRS, LSCE, Gyf/Yvette Images/ClimatYves LAGABRIELLE, CNRS, Montpellier GDR MargesGianreto MANATSCHAL, EOST, Strasbourg leg ODP 210Patricia MARUEJOL, Nancy ECORDJean-Paul MONTAGNER, IPG, Paris Ministère de la RechercheMarguerite NGUYEN, CNRS, Montpellier Secrétaire IODP-FrancePhilippe PEZARD, CNRS, Montpellier LGHF, Géophysique en forageDaniel PRIEUR, UBO, Brest BiosphereMonique SEYLER, IPG, Paris Leg ODP 209Jean-Claude SIBUET, Ifremer, Brest Leg ODP 210

Ordre du Jour

1 • ODP : Quelques chiffres

2 • Bilan de la participation française à ODP2.1 • Les embarquants français sur le Joides Resolution2.2 • Les publications liées à ODP

3 • Résultat des dernières campagnes ODP (209/210)3.1 • Leg 209 - Drilling Mantle Peridotite along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge from 14° to

16°N3.2 • Leg 210 - Drilling The Newfoundland Half of the Newfoundland–Iberia

Transect

4 • Bilan des réunions des panels en 2003-20044.1 • SPC (Science Planning Committee). Benoît Ildefonse4.2 • SSEPs (Science Steering & Evaluation Committees). Gilbert Camoin & Pierre

Henry4.3 • SciMP (Science Measurement Panel). Javier Escartín4.4 • SSP (Site Survey panel). Marc-André Gutscher4.5 • PPSP (Pollution Prevention and Safety Panel). Jean Mascle4.6 • ILP (Industry Liaison Panel). Philippe de Clarens

5 • Structure IODP (fonctionnement, représentation française)

6 • Le consortium européen ECORD (C. Mével)

7 • Le comité européen ESSAC (G. Camoin, B. Ildefonse)

8 • Projets en cours d'évaluation dans IODP

9 • Participation française aux campagnes programmées (2004-2005)

10 • Bilan du bureau IODP-France (B. Ildefonse)

11 • Divers …

ODP : quelques chiffres

Le programme ODP a pris, en 1985, le relais du programme DSDP/IPOD (1968-1983). Ils'est terminé en Septembre 2003. 2889 puits ont été forés pendant 35 ans, sur un total de 1293sites (dont 1797 puits et 669 sites pour le seul programme ODP). Au total, près de 320 Km decarottes ont été récupérées (dont 222 Km pour ODP) et sont archivées dans trois"carothèques" (GCR, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA; ECR Lamont DohertyObservatory, Palisades, USA; BCR, Bremen Universitat, Allemagne). La récupération(rapport entre la longueur de carotte récupérée et la longueur forée) obtenue pendant ODP esten moyenne de 60%. Le puits le plus profond (504B), situé dans la croûte basaltique au sud-ouest de Panama, a atteint 2111m; la plus grande longueur cumulée forée en une seulecampagne (environ 2 mois, Leg 175, sédiments de la marge ouest africaine) est de 8003m.

2.1 • Les embarquants français sur le Joides Resolution

La France participe aux programmes de forage océanique depuis 1969, date del'embarquement du premier représentant de la communauté scientifique française (W.Nesteroff) sur le Leg DSDP 8 (Honolulu-Tahiti). En 1975, le programme DSDP devientIPOD (international Program for Ocean Drilling), avec un financement international auquelparticipe la France.

ODP prend le relais de IPOD en 1985. Suite au rapport "Courtillot" en 1995, quirecommandait notamment une réduction de la participation française, cette dernière a étéréduite aux deux tiers d'une contribution complète à partir de 1998, et jusqu'à la fin duprogramme l'an dernier. Les représentants français aux comités scientifique (SCICOM) etexécutif (EXCOM) ont, dès lors, siégé comme observateur, sans droit de vote.

La réduction de notre participation a eu comme conséquence directe une réduction sensiblede la participation aux campagnes. Le nombre de participants autorisés par année passait eneffet de 12 à 8.

Sur les 21 personnes ayant embarqué entre 2000 et 2003 (Legs 187 à 210), 15 avaient 40ans ou moins, et 15 (pas nécessairement les mêmes) participaient à leur première campagneODP.

Jusqu'au Leg 176 (fin 1997), nous avions des participants à chaque campagne (àl'exception du Leg 132). Après cette date, le fonctionnement du programme quant aux quotasd'embarquement s'est assoupli. Plutôt que d'avoir un nombre fixe d'embarquants parcampagne, il est devenu possible de répartir les participations en fonction des intérêtsscientifiques spécifiques de chaque communauté, l'équilibre entre les participants de chaque

pays étant réalisé, en fonction de leur contribution financière, sur une période de 2 ou 3 ans.A partir du Leg 177 (Décembre 1997), la communauté française a n'a ainsi participé qu'à

19 des 34 dernières campagnes d'ODP (soit 55.9%). Nous n'avons pas participé aux Legs 177,178, 179, 186, 188, 191, 193, 195, 198, 199, 200, 201, 204, 205 et 208.

Au total 197 scientifiques français ont participé à une campagne ODP, dont 17 co-chefsde mission. Cette participation, de l'ordre de 7%, est, au premier ordre, proportionnel à laparticipation financière française, et à la hauteur des participations européennes (9% pour lesbritanniques, les allemands, et le consortium ECOD regroupant les autres pays européens). Laparticipation américaine est de l'ordre de 50%.

2.2 • Les publications liées à ODP

Source pour les statistiques sur les publications : base de donnée publications DSDP/ODP(http://odp.georef.org/dbtw-wpd/qbeodp.htm). Chiffres extraits en Mars 2004.

Tous media confondus, les scientifiques français (i.e. dont le pays d'affiliation est laFrance) sont auteurs ou co-auteurs de 4322 (soit 42%) des publications liées au programmeODP. 689 publications (6.9%) ont un scientifique français comme premier auteur. Si onexclut les volumes de "Proceedings" ODP (i.e., les volumes "Initial Report" et les volumes"Scientific Results"), les français sont auteurs ou co-auteurs de 690 publications (soit 11.2 %du total; 6.3 publications par Leg en moyenne), dont 362 (5.9%; 3.3 publications par Leg enmoyenne) en premier auteur.

Publications ODP (1985-2003)

avec auteurfrançais36.1%

sans auteurfrançais57.0%

1er auteurfrançais

6.9%

Publications ODP (1985-2003)hors Proceedings

1er auteurfrançais

5.9%

sans auteurfrançais88.8%

avec auteurfrançais

5.3%

Publications ODP (1985-2003)

Other non-proceedings

47.0%ODP Proceedings

38.0%

EPSL1.9%

JGR - Solid Earth1.4%

Science0.5%

Geology1.7%

Nature1.0%

AGU meetings8.5%

Publications ODP (1985-2003)avec 1er auteur français

Other non-proceedings

42.5%

ODP Proceedings46.0%

AGU meetings5.3%EPSL

3.1%

JGR - Solid Earth1.1%

Science0.1%

Geology0.7%

Nature1.1%

Jusqu'en 1995, les scientifiques participant aux campagnes ODP avaient l'obligation depublier dans les "Proceedings". Depuis le Leg 160 (Mai 1995), les scientifiques sont autorisésà publier les résultats de leurs travaux post-campagne dans n'importe quelle revuescientifique, ou dans le volume "Scientific Results" produit par ODP. Pour les Legs 160 à 198(Mars 1995 à Octobre 2001), 52% des articles ont été publiés dans les "Scientific Volumesd'ODP" et 48% dans des livres où revues (chiffres extraits de l'agenda book de la réunionEXCOM de juillet 2003). Ceci se traduit, pendant les dernières années d'ODP, par uneprédominance des publications hors "Proceedings".

Outre le volume supérieur des publications hors "Proceedings", l'ouverture vers l'éditionscientifique extérieure à ODP a aussi eu pour effet un étalement dans le temps plus importantdes délais de publication post-campagne, avec notamment la publication de quelques articlesbeaucoup plus tôt après la fin de la campagne (~10 à 20 mois, voir quelques semaines, au lieude 35 mois dans le cas des "Proceedings")

Si on se réfère aux seules publications spécifiquement liées à une campagne, il estremarquable de constater que le nombre moyen de publications par Leg n'a pas évolué depuis

le début d'ODP, malgré les changements de politique de publication (38 à 40 publications parLeg environ. Chiffres extraits de l'agenda book de la réunion EXCOM de juillet 2003).

Depuis le Leg 176, les volumes ("Initial Reports" et "Scientific Results" ODP sont publiéélectroniquement, sur CD-Rom et sur le site WEB d'ODP à l'Université Texas A&M(TAMU). Le nombre d'accès au site WEB de ODP-TAMU est en augmentation constante etrégulière.

10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

No

mb

re

Mois (Octobre 1997 à Décembre 2003)

Visites du WEB ODP-TAMU

accès site (sessions)total pages visitées

Visites du WEB ODP-TAMU par pays(Juin 2001 - Mai 2002, moyenne mensuelle)

USA59%Allemagne

4%

ESF7%

PacRim7%

Japon3%

Chine1%

France2%UK

5%

Non ODP12%

3 • Résultat des dernières campagnes ODP (208/209)

3.1 • Leg 209 - Drilling Mantle Peridotite along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge from 14° to16°N

Chefs de mission : Peter Kelemen & Eiichi KikawaEmbarquants Français : Marguerite Godard, benoît Ildefonse, Monique Seyler

Résumé :Leg 209 was devoted to drilling mantle peridotites and associated gabbroic rocks along theMid-Atlantic Ridge from 14° to 16°N. This area was identified at the 1996 Workshop onOceanic Lithosphere and Scientific Drilling into the 21st Century (OL Workshop) as theideal region for drilling of a strike line of short holes to sample the upper mantle in a magma-starved portion of a slow-spreading ridge (spreading rate = ~25 km/m.y.). In this area,igneous crust is locally absent and the structure and composition of the mantle can bedetermined at sites more than ~100 km apart along strike.

A central paradigm of Ridge Interdisciplinary Global Experiments (RIDGE) studies is thehypothesis that mantle flow, or melt extraction, or both, are focused in three dimensionstoward the centers of magmatic ridge segments, at least at slow-spreading ridges such as theMid-Atlantic Ridge. This hypothesis has essentially reached the status of accepted theory, butit has never been subject to a direct test. A strike line of oriented mantle peridotite samplesextending for a significant distance within magmatic segments offers the possibility ofdirectly testing this hypothesis. Continued dredging and submersible studies cannot providethe spatial information required to make such a test.

The primary aim of drilling was to characterize the spatial variation of mantle deformationpatterns, residual peridotite composition, melt migration features, plutonic rocks, andhydrothermal alteration along axis. Hypotheses for focused solid or liquid upwelling beneathridge segments make specific predictions regarding the spatial variation of mantle lineationor the distribution of melt migration features. These predictions were directly tested bydrilling. We discovered that penetrative mantle deformation fabrics are weak at every sitewhere mantle peridotite was sampled from 14°43'N to 15°39'N. Instead, at all of these sites,deformation was localized along high-temperature shear zones and later brittle faults. Intactblocks of peridotite with high-temperature, protogranular fabrics were preserved betweenthese zones of localized deformation and underwent substantial tectonic rotation, perhaps asmuch as 90° around horizontal, ride-parallel rotation axes in some places.

At most sites, drilling recovered substantial proportions of gabbroic rocks intrusive intomantle peridotite. Some of these rocks have mineral assemblages that are probably indicativeof crystallization at depths of 12 to 20 km beneath the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Localizeddeformation at several of these sites occurred preferentially within contact zones betweenperidotite and these gabbroic intrusions. Abundant gabbroic intrusions were found close tothe 15°20' Fracture Zone, at Site 1271, and far from the fracture zone at Sites 1270, 1268,and 1275. Conversely, some holes intersected very little gabbroic material; these were at Site1272, very close to the fracture zone, and Site 1274, far from the fracture zone. Thus, there islittle evidence from the results of this leg for focusing of melt distribution away from thefracture zone and toward the centers of volcanically active ridge segments.

Three new hypotheses may account for our observations:

1. Shallow mantle peridotites beneath the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in this region donot undergo penetrative deformation during "corner flow" associated with plate spreading.Instead, they rise passively until they reach the base of the thermal boundary layer at depthsof 15 to 20 km below this slow-spreading ridge. There, they cool and become incorporatedinto the lithosphere. Subsequently, corner flow and ridge extension are accommodated alonglocalized ductile shear zones which gradually evolve into brittle faults at shallower depthsand lower temperatures. As some faults rotated to shallow dips and could no longeraccommodate extension, new ones formed. Crosscutting generations of faults rotated nearlyundeformed blocks of peridotite and associated gabbroic intrusions, with total rotationsprobably >60° or even 90° in some cases.

2. Textures in the relatively undeformed peridotite blocks suggest that manyresidual peridotites interacted with melts migrating by diffuse porous flow along grainboundaries at the base of the thermal boundary layer. In most peridotites, our qualitativeobservations of textures suggest that igneous spinel and pyroxene crystallized within a matrixof residual mantle olivine and orthopyroxene. More extensive crystallization of intergranularmelt at slightly lower temperatures formed impregnated peridotites and hybrid troctolites,particularly abundant at Sites 1271 and 1275. Based on our limited sampling, it seems thatfocusing of melt transport into dunite conduits with sharp contacts against residual mantleperidotites, common in some ophiolites and perhaps beneath fast-spreading ridges, was not avery important process in the region we investigated. Instead, melts probably were inequilibrium with mantle peridotite up to the base of the thermal boundary layer, after whichthey probably ascended in brittle cracks.

3. We wonder if the "amagmatic" region between 14°40' and 15°40'N along theMid-Atlantic Ridge is truly "magma starved" as has often been proposed or whether, instead,the relative lack of lava and gabbroic crust is offset by a relatively high proportion ofgabbroic intrusions into peridotite, distributed over 15 to 20 km depth. In this view, manymelts may crystallize 100% below the seafloor, with no magma rising to form lava flows. Inkeeping with this hypothesis, gabbroic rocks, particularly those at Site 1275, the top of Mt.Mike at 15°44'N, ~25 km west of the ridge axis, are generally very evolved. They cannotrepresent the refractory, primitive cumulates required to complement compositional variationin mid-ocean-ridge basalts, and instead must represent the crystal products of very evolvedmelts that rarely erupt. This may be heresy, but we wonder if, for example, gravity data forthe Mid-Atlantic Ridge might be reconciled with such a theory, given that the widelydistributed gabbroic rocks in such a lithospheric structure would generally be farther from theseafloor and therefore would have a smaller gravity signal than a thick gabbroic layerconcentrated near the surface.

Very different hydrothermal alteration styles were observed at different Sites. In Hole1268A, talc was particularly abundant in metaperidotites, accompanied by a dramaticmetasomatic decrease in the (Mg + Fe)/Si ratio. Elsewhere, brucite was a prominent part ofthe alteration assemblage in peridotites, and rocks retain high (Mg + Fe)/Si. Gabbroicintrusions appear to have an important local control on serpentinization reactions inperidotite. Carbonate alteration of peridotites in some locales seems to be correlated with ametasomatic influx of calcium and may also substantially affect the trace element budget ofserpentinites in some cases.

Voir aussi http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/prelim/209_prel/209toc.html

3.2 • Leg 210 - Drilling The Newfoundland Half of the Newfoundland–Iberia Transect

Chefs de mission : Jean-Claude Sibuet & Brian TucholkeEmbarquants Français : Bruno Galbrun, Silvia Gardin, Gianreto Manatschal

Résumé :Ocean Drilling Program Leg 210 was devoted to studying the history of rifting and postriftsedimentation in the Newfoundland–Iberia rift. Drilling was conducted in the NewfoundlandBasin along a transect conjugate to previous drilling on the Iberia margin (Legs 149 and173). This was the first time that deep-sea drilling has been conducted on both sides of anonvolcanic rift in order to understand the structural and sedimentary evolution of thecomplete rift system. The prime site during Leg 210 (Site 1276) was drilled in "transitional"crust between known continental crust and known oceanic crust identified by magneticanomalies M3 to M0 (Barremian–Aptian). On the conjugate Iberia margin extensivegeophysical work and deep-sea drilling have shown that the transition zone crust is exhumedmantle that is extensively serpentinized in its upper part. Transition zone crust on theNewfoundland side, however, is typically a kilometer or more shallower and has muchsmoother topography, and seismic refraction data suggest that the crust may be thin (~4 km)oceanic crust. These features indicate that the rift may have developed asymmetrically. Amajor goal at Site 1276 was to investigate these differences by sampling basement and thefacies responsible for a strong overlying, basin-wide reflection (U) that is poorly developedon the conjugate Iberia margin, together with the intervening section.

Site 1276 was cored from 800 to 1739 m below seafloor with excellent recovery (average =85%). Before drilling was terminated because of unstable conditions in the uncased hole,drilling reached sills >10 m thick that are estimated to be 100–200 m above basement. Thesills are alkaline diabases, they have sedimentary contacts that show extensive hydrothermalmetamorphism, and associated sediment structural features indicate that they were intruded atshallow levels below the seafloor. The top of the upper sill is approximately coincident withU, which correlates with lower Albian fine- to coarse-grained sedimentary gravity flows. Thenature of basement at this site remains uncertain, but the presence of the deep sills indicatesthat there was a significant postrift magmatic event that may have affected much of the basin.This feature of the basin could help to explain the asymmetry in basement depth andbasement roughness on the conjugate Newfoundland and Iberia margins.

The overlying Albian–lower Oligocene sediments record paleoceanographic conditionssimilar to those in the main North Atlantic Basin and on the Iberia margin, includingdeposition of Cretaceous "black shales," but they show an extensive component of gravityflow deposits throughout. Major paleoceanographic events including a number of OceanAnoxic Events, the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary, and the recovery from thePaleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum are well represented in the cored section. A prominentseismic marker that is correlated with the initiation of deep circulation in the North Atlanticwas cored, and preliminary biostratigraphic data indicate that it is a hiatus dating to themiddle Eocene, perhaps several million years older than proposed in previous interpretations.

Site 1277 was drilled 80 m into a shallow basement high ~40 km southeast of Site 1276. Thiscrust, presumed to be oceanic, is on the young side of a magnetic anomaly interpreted as M1.Cores from the upper part of basement at this site recovered a remarkable assemblage ofbasalt flows interleaved with gravity flows containing slivers of gabbro, serpentinizedperidotite, and sediments (e.g., fine- to coarse-grained sandstones). Below these largely

allochthonous rocks, basement is serpentinized peridotite with veins of gabbro and this rockis interpreted as being in situ. These rocks were emplaced in a magma-limited, highlyextensional environment which we interpret as very slow spreading ocean crust.

Voir aussi : http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/prelim/210_prel/210toc.html

1

IODP Science Planning Committee1st Meeting, 15-19 September 2003

Hokkaido UniversitySapporo, Japan

DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (v.1.3)

1c. Approve SPC meeting agendaSPC Motion 03-09-1: The SPC approves the revised agenda for its first meeting on 15-19September 2003 in Sapporo, Japan.Becker moved, Miller seconded; 14 in favor.

1d. Review SPC procedures and protocolSPC Motion 03-09-2: The SPC adopts the provisional mandate given in the agenda book forthis first meeting only.Becker moved, Moore seconded; 14 in favor.

SPC Motion 03-09-3: The SPC endorses the conflict of interest policy proposed forprovisional use at its first meeting.Katz moved, Miller seconded; 14 in favor.

7. Matters forwarded from iSAS7a. Committee and panel recommendations7a.i - iPCSPC Motion 03-09-4: The SPC requests the PPSP, ILP, and implementing organizations towork together to develop recommendations on environmental principles in the IODP.Quinn moved, Byrne seconded; 14 in favor.

SPC Motion 03-09-5: The SSEPs will determine when a proposal is ready to forward to theSPC. The SPC will endeavor not to request revised proposals.Quinn moved, Katz seconded; 13 in favor, 1 abstained (Kato).

7a.ii - iSSEPsSPC Motion 03-09-6: The SPC will consider proposals presented by the SSEPs co-chairs fordesignation as complex drilling projects (CDPs).Quinn moved, Moore seconded; 14 in favor.

7a.v - iSciMPSPC Motion 03-09-7: The SPC receives iSciMP Recommendation 01-2-10 on addressing therole and maintenance of micropaleontology reference centers in the IODP.Prell moved, Ito seconded; 14 in favor.

SPC Motion 03-09-8: The SPC endorses iSciMP Recommendation 02-1-4 on maintainingshipboard microfossil reference collections.Quinn moved, Moore seconded; 14 in favor.

SPC Motion 03-09-9: The SPC receives iSciMP Recommendation 02-1-5 and supports thedevelopment of the OD21 core description and visualization system.Ito moved, Becker seconded; 14 in favor.

2

SPC Motion 03-09-10: The SPC receives iSciMP Recommendation 02-2-4 and supportsfurther SAS investigations of standardizing the diameter of drill pipe used on IODPplatforms.Prell moved, Byrne seconded; 13 in favor, 1 abstained (Ito).

SPC Motion 03-09-11: The SPC receives iSciMP Recommendation 02-2-5 and endorses thedevelopment by JAMSTEC of the anti-contamination coring tool.Becker moved, Ito seconded; 14 in favor.

SPC Motion 03-09-12: The SPC accepts the iSciMP laboratory working group reports onpaleontology, paleomagnetics, and underway geophysics and forwards these reports to theSPPOC.Prell moved, Katz seconded; 13 in favor, 1 abstained (Becker).

SPC Motion 03-09-13: The SPC charges the SciMP to develop a section of the Guide toIODP identifying the skill sets recommended for the scientific staffing of various types ofIODP expeditions. The SciMP should complete this task in time for the March 2004 SPCmeeting.Katz moved; Moran seconded; 13 in favor, 1 abstained (Ito).

SPC Motion 03-09-14: The SPC charges the SciMP to develop, in collaboration with theimplementing organizations, a section of the Guide to IODP describing required andrecommended measurements necessary to complete an IODP scientific expedition. Thissection of the Guide to IODP should include all approved earlier working group reports andiSciMP recommendations on this topic.Moran moved, Prell seconded; 14 in favor.

7a.vi - iTAPSPC Motion 03-09-15: The SPC accepts iTAP Recommendation 03-02 on developing ahole-problem risk mitigation plan and forwards it to the SPPOC.Becker moved, Moore seconded; 13 in favor, 1 abstained (Moran).

SPC Consensus 03-09-16: The SPC receives iTAP Recommendation 03-06 on formulating amore-flexible IODP coring and logging policy to allow use of improved technologies andcharges the TAP and SciMP with developing a draft policy by the March 2004 SPC meeting.

SPC Consensus 03-09-17: The SPC accepts iTAP Recommendation 03-07 on outfitting thefulltime riser and non-riser drilling vessels with remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) andforwards this recommendation to the SPPOC.

7b. iSAS working group reportsSPC Motion 03-09-18: The SPC accepts the database working group report and forwards itto the SPPOC.Quinn moved, Moore seconded; 14 in favor.

SPC Motion 03-09-19: The SPC accepts the microbiology working group report andforwards it to the SPPOC.Quinn moved, Kato seconded, 14 in favor.

SPC Motion 03-09-20: The SPC accepts the data-bank working group report and forwards itto the SPPOC.Becker moved, Byrne seconded; 13 in favor, 1 absent (Prell).

3

SPC Motion 03-09-21: The SPC receives the progress report from the Matrix working groupand requests that the working group finalize its report in time for the March 2004 SPCmeeting. The final report should include a reevaluation of required versus recommended dataand a response to all other comments from SPC members.Quinn moved, Byrne seconded; 14 in favor.

7c. Policy on interacting with ancillary programsSPC Motion 03-09-22: The SPC recommends modifying the iPC-approved policy statementon ancillary programs in IODP as follows:

iPC Consensus 5-3: Scientific and educational programs are encouraged to develop projectsthat are ancillary to the IODP Annual Program Plan and apply for permission to execute suchprojects as part of IODP research expeditions. Proposals for such ancillary programs must beapproved by the Science Planning Committee (SPC) chair in consultation with the co-chiefscientists and implementing organizations of the affected drilling projectexpeditions(s), theIODP Science Policy and Planning Oversight Committee (SPPOC), and by IODPManagement International, Inc. (IMI) prior to the development of the annual program plan.For the purposes of assessing proposals for ancillary programs, it is understood that: 1) theymust be conducted at no extra cost (in time or money) to IODP scientific operations; 2) theywill in no way interfere with, or require the alteration of, drilling plans approved by theIODP; 3) sufficient space must be available on the projectexpedition drilling platform(s) toaccommodate needed personnel, equipment, and/or laboratory facilities without interferingwith primary IODP drilling, sampling and related operations; and 4) permission to undertakeat-sea activities required by ancillary programs must be obtained from the on-site operationsmanager of the IODP projectexpedition on a day-by-day basis, and such permission can berescinded at any time as required by operational considerations.Becker moved, Katz seconded; 13 in favor, 1 abstained (Kato).

7d. IODP sample and data policySPC Motion 03-09-23: The SPC accepts the IODP Sample and Data Policy and forwards itto the SPPOC.Ito moved, Byrne seconded; 14 in favor.

8. PublicationsSPC Motion 03-09-24: The SPC establishes a working group to develop recommendationsfor an IODP publications policy. The working group, co-chaired by Miller and Tatsumi, willreport at the March 2004 SPC meeting.Ito moved, Moore seconded; 14 in favor.

8.1 Select OPCOM members from SPCSPC Motion 03-09-25: All SPC members, including those identified as proponents of drillingproposals under review, may participate in selecting the OPCOM members from the SPC.Moore moved, Prell seconded; 13 in favor, 1 abstained (Miller).

SPC Motion 03-09-26: The SPC approves Hisao Ito and Terry Quinn as additional SPCrepresentatives on the OPCOM through the March 2004 OPCOM meeting.Miller moved, Moore seconded, 13 in favor, 1 abstained (Quinn).

4

8.2 Arctic DrillingSPC Motion 03-09-27: The SPC affirms the high scientific priority and potential of scientificdrilling in the central Arctic Ocean and recognizes that Proposal 533-Full3Arctic–Lomonosov Ridge is currently in the implementation phase for operations anticipatedfor August and September 2004. The SPC therefore forwards this previously top-rankedproposal to the OPCOM without re-ranking for consideration for scheduling in FY2004.Prell moved, Miller seconded; 14 in favor.

10. Presentation and discussion of proposalsSPC Consensus 03-09-28: The SPC regards the first part of Proposal 545-Full3 Juan de FucaFlank Hydrogeology as worth scheduling on its own.

SPC Consensus 03-09-29: The SPC recommends requiring quadruple APC holes at each siteof Proposal 572-Full3 N. Atlantic Neogene–Quaternary Climate and penetrating deeper thanproposed at one site to obtain paleointensity records from beyond 3 Ma.

11. Global ranking of proposalsSPC Consensus 03-09-30: The SPC will rank all of the sixteen proposals reviewed at thismeeting.

SPC Motion 03-09-31: The SPC forwards the top twelve ranked proposals to the OPCOM intwo groups, with the top five proposals in Group I and the next seven in Group II. The SPCrequests that the OPCOM propose scheduling options that honor and adhere to these rankinggroups as closely as possible.Moran moved, Prell seconded; 12 in favor, 2 opposed (Kato, Ito).

12. Review alternative schedules developed by OPCOMOPCOM Consensus 03-09-1: The OPCOM recommends Proposal 533-Full3Arctic–Lomonosov Ridge to the SPC for inclusion in the FY2004 operations schedule toinstitute the necessary steps for program implementation. Its final implementation iscontingent upon ECORD participation in the IODP.

SPC Motion 03-09-32: The SPC recommends including Proposal 533-Full3Arctic–Lomonosov Ridge in the mission-specific platform operations schedule for FY2004,pending ECORD participation in the IODP.Byrne moved, Kato seconded; 13 in favor, 1 absent (Moran).

SPC Consensus 03-09-33: The SPC establishes a project-scoping group to review theoperational plan for implementing Proposal 533-Full3 Arctic–Lomonosov Ridge. The groupwill report to OPCOM and should include SPC member Keir Becker as the leader, SPC chairand OPCOM co-chair Mike Coffin, and several other appropriate members such as an ice-breaker captain. The group should conduct its review by late October 2003 to ensure enoughtime for including the Arctic drilling project in the annual program plan for FY2004.

5

OPCOM Consensus 03-09-2: The OPCOM recommends the following three scenarios to theSPC for consideration as possible drilling schedules for FY2004 and FY2005, with preferencegiven to Scenario 10.

Exp. Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10

1 545-Full3 (Pt. 1) 545-Full3 545-Full3 (Pt. 1)

2 572-Full3 (Pt. 1) 572-Full3 (Pt. 1) 572-Full3 (Pt. 1)

3 584-Full2 584-Full2 512-Full3 (Pt. 1)

4 512-Full3 (Pt. 1) 512-Full3 (Pt. 1) 512-Full3 (Pt. 2)

5 512-Full3 (Pt. 2) 572-Full3 (Pt. 2) + 543-Full2 572-Full3 (Pt. 2) + 543-Full2

6 589-Full3 or 543-Full2 ----- -----

Cost: $6.2-7.0M $5.6M $4.6M

Trans: 42 days 52 days 52 days

13. Vote on FY2004 schedule (non-conflicted SPC members)SPC Motion 03-09-34: The SPC approves the following expedition schedule for the non-riser vessel during June 2004 through May 2005.

1. 545-Full3 Juan de Fuca Flank Hydrogeology (Part I)2. 572-Full3 N. Atlantic Neogene-Quaternary Climate (Part I)3. 512-Full3 Oceanic Core Complex (Part I)4. 512-Full3 Oceanic Core Complex (Part II)5a. 572-Full3 N. Atlantic Neogene-Quaternary Climate (Part II)5b. 543-Full2 CORK in Hole 642E

The SPC also identifies the non-A-CORK component of 553-Full2 Cascadia Margin Hydratesas an alternate first expedition in case any significant delays arise in the logistical planning forProposal 545-Full3.Prell moved, Moran seconded; 14 in favor.

13.1 Nominate chief scientistsSPC Motion 03-09-35: The SPC endorses the iPC nominations for chief scientists of theArctic drilling project, as previously forwarded to the ECORD.Quinn moved, Moore seconded; 13 in favor, 1 absent (Moran).

14. Review letters to proponents of unscheduled proposalsSPC Motion 03-09-36: The SPC recommends that the ECORD develop an operational planas soon as feasible for Proposals 519-Full2 South Pacific Sea Level and 564-Full New JerseyShelf, in light of their respective global rankings of #1 and #4 at this meeting.Quinn moved, Moore seconded; 14 in favor.

SPC Motion 03-09-37: The SPC forwards Proposals 519-Full2 South Pacific Sea Level, 564-Full New Jersey Shelf, and 589-Full3 Gulf of Mexico Overpressures to the OPCOM forconsideration at the next OPCOM scheduling meeting without re-ranking.Katz moved, Moore seconded; 14 in favor.

SPC Consensus 03-09-38: The SPC chair and the IMI interim program director will workwith CDEX to establish an initial project-scoping group for the riser-drilling component ofProposal 595 Indus Fan and Murray Ridge.

6

15. Approve project and site designation schemeSPC Consensus 03-09-39: The SPC requests the SciMP to draft a scheme for designatingexpeditions and boreholes in IODP for consideration at the March 2004 SPC meeting.

17. Identify obligations of IODP scientistsSPC Consensus 03-09-40: The SPC recommends the following policy on obligations ofIODP scientists for SPPOC approval.

- Scientific Party members must submit their manuscripts, including data reports, within 20months post-moratorium.

- Scientists receiving samples or conducting nondestructive analyses must publish a peer-reviewed paper in English and submit their data to the IODP database (e.g., IODPInformation Services Center) or a progress report to the IODP Curator within 36 months ofreceiving samples or conducting analyses.

- All publications incorporating IODP data or samples must acknowledge the IODP and besubmitted to the IODP Curator.

19. Revisit SPC mandate and conflict-of-interest statementSPC Motion 03-09-41: The SPC endorses the following revised mandate and terms ofreference for itself and forwards them to the SPPOC.

1.1 General Purpose. The Science Planning Committee (SPC) reports to the Science Policyand Planning Oversight Committee (SPPOC) and provides advice to IODP ManagementInternational (IMI) and, through IMI, to the implementing organizations on plans designed tooptimize the scientific productivity and operational efficiency of the drilling program.

The SPC is specifically responsible for: the custody and initial implementation of the IODPInitial Science Plan; ranking of mature drilling proposals (i.e., those that have undergoneexternal review, been grouped by the Science Steering and Evaluation Panels (SSEPs), andbeen judged as complete by the Science Advisory Structure (SAS)) that address the scientificthemes and initiatives in the IODP Initial Science Plan; advising how these proposals mightbe most effectively mapped into a drilling plan based on the IODP multiple platform concept;carrying out long-term science planning; fostering communications among and between thegeneral community, the SAS, IMI, and the implementing organizations.

1.2 Mandate. The SPC encourages the international community to develop and submit drillingproposals for the IODP. The SPC can initiate and terminate temporary SAS groups as needed.The SPC recommends SAS membership to the SPPOC, particularly with respect todisciplinary balance. The SPC chair serves as a member of the OPCOM, and the SPCappoints other SPC members to the OPCOM, as defined in the OPCOM mandate. The SPCrecommends SAS meeting frequency and timing to the SPPOC. In addition, the SPC mayassign special tasks to SAS committees, panels, and planning groups. The SPC approves thechairs of all SAS panels and planning groups. The SPC chair approves the meeting agendasfor all SAS committees, panels, and planning groups other than the SPPOC. The SPCsponsors and convenes planning conferences at intervals determined by long-term scienceplans for IODP. The SPC assigns its own watchdogs to proposals that are forwarded from theSSEPs. The SPC ranks the scientific objectives of the proposals into final priority after theyare reviewed by the SSEPs. The SPC approves by at least a two-thirds majority the annualdrilling schedule as forwarded from the OPCOM. The SPC nominates chief scientists to theimplementing organizations, who make the final selection.

The SPC periodically reviews the IODP SAS in light of developments in science andtechnology and recommends amendment of the SAS and its mandates to the SPPOC. Much of

7

the work of the SPC is carried out by the commissioning of reports from the OPCOM and theother SAS panels, including both formal and ad hoc working groups, ad hoc subcommitteesof its own membership, and by its chair or vice-chair.

1.3 Structure. The SPC is empowered to modify an infrastructure appropriate to the definitionand accomplishment of tasks described in the annual program plan as approved by theSPPOC. Communication with the SAS panels and planning groups is maintained by havingtheir chairs meet with the SPC annually and by assigning SPC members as non-votingliaisons to SAS panels and planning groups as necessary. Where counsel and communicationare deemed important, other individuals may be asked to meet ad hoc with the committee orits panels.

1.4 Meetings. The SPC meets at least twice a year, normally in March and August. Robert'sRules of Order will govern its meetings and those of all of its subcommittees.

1.5 Membership. The SPC will consist initially of seven members from Japan and sevenmembers from the U. S. All appointees to the SPC shall satisfy the fundamental criteria ofhaving the ability and commitment to provide mature and expert scientific direction to IODPplanning. Each member should have a designated alternate to serve in his or her absence. Theterm of membership will be three years and at least one third of the members shall rotate offthe committee annually, so that the SPC membership is replaced every three years. Re-appointment shall be made only in exceptional circumstances. The fields of specialization onthe SPC shall be kept balanced as far as possible by requests to national program committees.If an SPC member misses two meetings in succession, the SPC chair or vice-chair willdiscuss the problem of SAS representation with the appropriate country representative(s) onthe SPPOC.

1.6 Liaison. The director of IODP at IMI, the directors of the implementing organizations, ornominees thereof, and representatives of the lead agencies are permanent, non-voting liaisonobservers. The SPC chair is the liaison to the SPPOC, and the SPC assigns other liaisons tothe SSEPs, PPSP, and other SAS panels and groups.

1.7 Vote and Quorum. The SPC shall reach all its decisions by the affirmative vote of at leasttwo thirds of all members present and eligible to vote. A quorum shall equal two-thirds of thecommittee.

1.8 Chair and Vice-Chair. The SPC chair and vice-chair shall alternate between Japanese andU.S. institutions, excluding the implementing organizations. The vice-chair will replace thechair every two years, with a new vice-chair appointed.Moore moved, Becker seconded; 14 in favor.

SPC Consensus 03-09-42: The SPC endorses the following principles for a SAS conflict-of-interest policy and forwards them to the SPPOC.

- Proponents or other attendees having a significant conflict of interest regarding a proposalmust declare that conflict and should not be present when that proposal is discussed.

- Proponents or other attendees having a significant conflict of interest regarding a proposalcannot participate in the ranking of that proposal.

- Participants in the SAS cannot be regular members of more than one panel.

- Representatives of IMI and implementing organizations cannot serve on SAS panels otherthan the SPPOC and the OPCOM.

8

SPC Consensus 03-09-43: The SPC endorses the following two-phase procedure forevaluating proposals and forwards it to the SPPOC.

Phase 1: Watchdog Assignment, Proposal Presentation, and DiscussionAll conflicts that might exist with regular and alternate panel or committee members areidentified at the outset of Phase 1. The panel or committee chair(s) consult(s) with the SASOffice and assign(s) watchdogs as soon as the relevant proposals are identified. Thewatchdogs must not have any conflicts with their assigned proposals.

Committee or panel members, liaisons, observers, and guests at the meeting must announceany potential conflict that might appear to exist (e.g., institutional, professional, commercial,or familial relationships with proponents) to the committee or panel chair(s). The chair(s) willdetermine whether a conflict is considered significant, subject to review by the committee orpanel. Any attendees who have a significant conflict with a proposal under review shouldleave the room during the discussion of that proposal.

Watchdogs will present and discuss their assigned proposals, panel members are invited toprovide additional information and to ask questions, and the chair(s) may invite comment orsolicit information from guests or observers at the meeting. The panel or committee shoulddiscuss the importance of the proposed work relative to achieving the scientific goals of theIODP, the likelihood of significant contributions or discoveries that further our scientificunderstanding, and the technical challenges or uncertainties that might affect the success ofthe proposal. They should also discuss the relationship of each proposal to any previousdrilling results; however, they should avoid making comparisons to other proposals underreview. The chair(s) must ensure compliance throughout the discussion.

Phase 2: SPC Proposal Evaluation, Comparison, Ranking, and SchedulingAll conflicted attendees must leave the room for the entire Phase 2. Voting alternates forconflicted committee members may remain in attendance and will be invited to attend theentire meeting. IODP national committees or consortia should have been consulted regardinghow they wish to provide alternate voting representatives.

The committee defines the pool of proposals to be ranked, either by (a) consensus suggestedby the chair or (b) vote on each proposal, with a two-thirds vote ensuring inclusion of aproposal in the ranking pool. A watchdog summarizes the discussion of each proposal,emphasizing its strong points and any concerns raised in the earlier discussion. Thecommittee may now discuss the importance of the proposed science relative to otherproposals under review.

Following the final discussion, the proposals are ranked from 1 to N, where N equals thenumber of proposals selected for ranking and 1 represents the highest rank. Each voting SPCmember completes and signs a paper ballot, and the ballots are archived after the meeting in asealed envelope. The votes are tabulated and the proposals listed in order of mean ranking,with standard deviations and complete placings indicated.

The SPC selects a subset of the ranked proposals to forward to the OPCOM for developingschedule options, then votes to select a recommended schedule from the option(s) presentedby the OPCOM. If the SPC does not approve any schedule option, the OPCOM must providefurther options.

The watchdogs provide written summaries of the discussions of each proposal, but the SPCcannot return any proposal to the proponents with a requirement for major revision andfurther review by the SSEPs.

9

21. Other businessSPC Consensus 03-09-44: The SPC recommends to the SPPOC that the IODP ScienceAdvisory Structure should evaluate, rank, and schedule drilling proposals irrespective of thenationalities of the proponents.

SPC Consensus 03-09-45: The SPC thanks Hokkaido University and the Advanced EarthScience and Technology Organization (AESTO) for their fine hospitality, highlighted by thecelebratory banquet in the Elm Restaurant of the Enreiso Faculty Center.

Report on iPC/SPC/OPCOM meeting,

Sapporo 13-19 September 2003

Chris MacLeod & Benoit Ildefonse

ECORD iPC members

The interim Planning Committee (iPC) met for the last time on 13-14 September 2003 atthe University of Hokkaido, Sapporo, Japan. The inaugural meeting of iPC’s long-termreplacement, the Science Planning Committee (SPC) started on 15th. This marks theformal commencement of operation of the Science Advisory Structure (SAS) of IODP,slightly in advance of the establishment of IODP proper on 1st October. From now on theremaining interim panels will be replaced by their permanent counterparts. The newIODP Operation Committee (OPCOM) met on the 18th of September. In this documentwe report items of significance from the iPC, SPC and OPCOM meetings.

The meeting was attended by only two of the four nominated ECORD iPCrepresentatives: Chris MacLeod (UK ESSAC representative and Vice-Chair) and BenoîtIldefonse (French ESSAC rep). Jeroen Kenter (ESSAC Chair and Dutch rep) and PeterHerzig (German ESSAC rep) were unable to attend and could not arrange replacements.

ECORD representation on SPC and status of Arctic planning efforts

Because ECORD has not yet signed the Memorandum with NSF and MEXT (LeadAgencies, USA and Japan respectively) and formally joined IODP, ECORD iPC memberswere prevented formally from sitting on SPC or OPCOM. They were denied voting rightsalso consequently prevented from having any input to the ranking and scheduling of theexpeditions that were decided for FY2004/05.

Before the meeting the Director of EMA, Catherine Mével, wrote to NSF and MEXTasking that the ECORD iPC members be allowed to sit on SPC and vote, as a courtesy,given that negotiations between EMA and the Lead Agencies had been scheduled andwere about to commence (7-8 October, in Tokyo). In a note delivered to MacLeod andIldefonse by the NSF representatives (Jamie Allan and Rodey Batiza) and MEXTrepresentative (Yasuhisa Tanaka) the evening before SPC first met this request was,however, rejected out of hand.

However, following this decision the SPC Chair Mike Coffin made it clear that ECORDiPC members were welcome to attend the SPC and OPCOM meetings as guests (whennot conflicted) and to participate in discussions as fully as possible.

In his oral presentation to iPC on IODP planning efforts and activities in Europe,MacLeod made it clear that ECORD was unhappy that substantive critical decisionsregarding the ranking and hence scheduling (or otherwise) of MSP proposals, and inparticular the Arctic MSP drilling proposal (533 Lomonosov Ridge), were consequentlyto be made without any ECORD representation. He pointed out that proposal 533 hadbeen ranked #1 by SCICOM in 2000 and 2001 and again by iPC in 2002, that on thebasis of this ranking detailed logistical planning by ESO was well advanced, and that adecision by SPC/OPCOM now not to recommend scheduling of this expedition would bevery damaging to IODP on many levels.

Coffin agreed to our informal request that proposal 533 should be regarded as in itsimplementation phase and thus that it wouldn’t need to be re-ranked by SPC orconsidered further by OPCOM. A letter expressing the same view was also sent to Coffinby Jimmy Kinoshita on behalf of the IMI Board of Governors. Coffin put this formally toSPC and the motion was passed unanimously.

This allows ESO to continue its planning efforts. However, Allan (NSF) warned that notonly would the Arctic project plan need to be accepted by SPPOC (Science ProgramPlanning and Oversight Committee) and IMI in time for the FY04 Program Plan to befinalised at the beginning of November 2003 but that EMA would have needed either tohave signed or else be on the verge of signing an agreed IODP Memorandum with NSFand MEXT by this time, or else the Arctic drilling could not be an IODP operation. SPChas commissioned an ‘Arctic Project Scoping Group’, to be chaired by Keir Becker, whichwill meet in late October in Edinburgh to review ESO’s operational plan.

It should also be noted that ECORD will not be entitled to representation on any SASpanels except as guests and observers until the official Memorandum is signed. Thenumber of panel representatives ECORD has thereafter is to be agreed at the Tokyotalks. The ruling on numbers of representatives strictly applies only to the decision-making panels: SPC and the SSEPs (Science Steering and Evaluation Panels). Theservice panels are not restricted to national quotas but may request or appoint as manypeople as they require. ECORD representation on the service panels will be determinedby ESSAC.

Status of planning activities in Japan

The USA and Japan formally signed the Memorandum establishing IODP on 19th June2oo3. The riser-drilling vessel "Chikyu" underwent navigational sea trials in May-June2003 and is now in dry-dock in Nagasaki having large drilling equipment fitted. The rigfloor was installed in August and the derrick will be fitted at the end of September. Theship will be complete in 2005 and ready for scientific operations in 2006.

The core repository at Kochi University was completed in March 2003 and formallyopened in May. All laboratory facilities on Chikyu are replicated at Kochi.

Personnel changes at MEXT were outlined, most significant being the appointment ofMr Yasuhisa Tanaka, the new Director for Deep-Sea Research. He serves under theDirector of the Ocean and Earth Division, Mr. Daisuke Yoshida. Mr Tanaka comes froma background in forestry science and is new to IODP. Both he and Mr Yoshida are likelyto be the main MEXT negotiators, along with Bruce Malfait from NSF, in theMemorandum talks in October in Tokyo.

J-DESC (Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium) is a new consortium of universitiesand other interested parties (constituted in April 2003) that decide upon panelrepresentation and other scientific matters in IODP Japan. It is broadly equivalent toUSSAC and hence ESSAC. It is led by Hidekazu Tokuyama of ORI in Tokyo.

Status of planning activities in the USA

Rodey Batiza has replaced Paul Dauphin as head of NSF science support and grants,including responsibility for IODP, which is directed by Jamie Allan.

The Systems Intregration Contractor (SIC) was chosen by NSF following competitivetender. It will be the JOI Alliance, a partnership between JOI, TAMU and LDEO, and

headed by Steve Bohlen, the present President of JOI Inc. in Washington DC. Contractnegotiations are presently under way. NSF has also issued a solicitation for a US sciencesupport programme, worth $15M for FY04-FY06, and JOI are planning to bid for this.

Because of delays in procuring funds for a permanent new non-riser drilling vessel forIODP, probably until 2006, the JOIDES Resolution will be retained for 12 months forscientific operations in parts of FY04 and FY05. It is planned that operations – the firstin IODP – will start in June 2004. For this reason SPC and OPCOM were requested byIMI to develop a programme schedule for this period (outlined below).

IMI report

Jamie Austin (University of Texas at Austin) is acting as interim IMI director until areplacement is found and a permanent central management office (CMO) is finallyestablished. This should be in place from about February 2004 onwards. The Japaneseoffice of IMI (‘IMI-J’) is to be established at the University of Hokkaido in Sapporo.Members of the iSAS Office will relocate there in early 2004. Hans Christian Larsen istipped to be IMI-J Vice-President, and Manik Talwani President, though this is to beconfirmed.

SPPOC will meet on 5-6 December 2003 in San Francisco to review and approve theFY2004 program plan before forwarding it to the IMI BoG and ultimately the LeadAgencies for final approval and thence implementation. SPPOC does not at this timehave representation from outside the USA and Japan, but it hopes that this will changeas soon as possible. ECORD institutions may only join IMI as Associate Members untilsuch time as ECORD formally joins IODP.

The Implementing Organisations (IOs) met recently in Bozeman Montana to discussoperational matters and items such as health, safety and environmental policies. ESOwere fully represented at the meeting. The IOs will continue to meet with the CMO on aregular basis, with liaisons from the SAS (especially SciMP) present where appropriate.

Other nations: status reports

The ECORD report to iPC was presented by MacLeod. It outlined the structure ofECORD, the present situation regarding the ECORD internal Memorandum, Arcticplanning efforts, and the activities leading up to the impending negotiations with NSFand MEXT concerning ECORD’s membership of IODP. Concerns raised regarding thenon-representation of ECORD in the SAS were outlined above.

Canada is still pursuing IODP membership from a variety of funding sources through thenewly established Canadian Consortium for Ocean Drilling (CCOD). Its preferred optionis to seek membership via ECORD.

In China the IODP Initial Science Plan has recently been translated into Chinese andpublicised. It was reported by Jamie Austin (as IMI interim Director) that China hasbeen granted Associate Member status of IODP directly by the USA and Japan, thoughno details were given and nothing had been tabled to this effect in any of thedocumentation for this meeting.

Suggested changes to panel operation

J-DESC recently circulated a document via the SSEPs proposing a number of subtle butsignificant changes to the workings of the scientific advisory structure. The documentdemonstrates the deep concerns felt by Japanese panel members about the workings ofthe SAS and the means of evaluating proposals. Some clearly felt intimidated aboutspeaking up and debating issues, especially in front of the largest panels such as theSSEPs, and felt that this disadvantaged the Japanese and Japanese proposals. The J-DESC document was discussed at length by iPC and a number of possible means ofimproving the situation were proposed. There was no agreement from the non-Japanesemembers that the size of the SSEPs should be reduced and that external review shouldbe increased, because that would undermine the unique role the SSEPs play in nurturingproposals (and which should actually benefit Japanese proponents). In response to theproposed change of a ‘western debating style’ for a ‘UN-style’ of debate, no-one couldactually define precisely what the latter meant; however, it was agreed that panel chairshad a vital role to play in ensuring that the language used by native English speakers wasas clear as possible and that they be proactive in ensuring that all panel members werefully engaged in the scientific debate. It was also felt that the use of small working groupsduring parts of the SSEPs meetings was effective. iPC did not feel that a request to set upa third SSEP to deal just with deep biosphere proposals was a good idea, at least for now;instead it emphasised that with the multi-disciplinary nature of most proposals it waseven more important that proposals were not evaluated on an arbitrary discipline-specific basis.

Panel reports

A large number of panel reports and recommendations were received and discussed byiPC and then SPC. Among the more significant items were the following.

– proposal for the establishment of an ‘Information Services Centre’ answerable to IMI,though liaising with SciMP and the Operators, which is responsible for all curation,database management, publication etc. for all platform operations within IODP. This isto be debated further.

– clarification of the status of Site Survey Panel (SSP) and Pollution Prevention & Safetypanel (PPSP) rankings of proposed drill sites. It was felt by iPC/SPC that SSP had thepower only to make recommendations, and its primary role was to assess whether thesite survey information was sufficient to allow the proposed science to be carried out.SPC had the authority to override their recommendations if it saw fit. PPSP, on the otherhand, could and did make requirements for site survey information on safety grounds,and they had the authority to prevent sites from being drilled.

– clarification of the procedure regarding the designation of complex drilling proposals(CDPs). By consensus it was decided that a CDP was defined as a project with “anoverarching scientific goal and pathway involving a series of interlinked components,each achievable in a reasonably short time, and an overall goal that is not achievable as aseries of stand-alone projects”. Potential CDPs are identified by the SSEPs and should bepresented by the SSEPs co-chairs to SPC for designation after submission of a CDPumbrella and at least one component proposal. SPC designation is not necessary forSSEPs to continue nurturing the component proposals. SPC’s role is two-fold: firstly, indesignating a proposal as a CDP (as above); secondly, in recommending to SPPOC thatfunds be committedbased upon evaluation and ranking of externally reviewed proposals.Designation of a CDP does not at that stage commit to it.

Proposal ranking

Seventeen proposals were forwarded by the SSEPs to SPC for ranking and possiblescheduling at the Sapporo meeting. As mentioned above, proposal 533 Lomonosov Ridge(Backman et al.) was considered to be in its implementation phase and thus notreconsidered. Presentations of the remaining 16 were made to SPC and the proposalswere ranked by secret ballot of the non-conflicted members. Members and guests thatwere conflicted were barred from the discussions and the entire ranking process. Theproposals were ranked from 1 to 16 by each delegate. The results were as follows:

rank: proposal: title: lead proponent: mean: st dev:

#1. 519 (MSP) S Pacific sea level Camoin 4.43 2.56#2. 512 Atlantis oceanic core complex Blackman 4.57 3.16#3. 545 Juan de Fuca hydrogeology Fisher 4.64 3.88#4. 564 (MSP) New Jersey shelf Miller 5.21 3.81#5. 589 Gulf of Mexico overpressures Flemings 6.21 5.22#6. 553 Cascadia gas hydrates Riedel 8.14 4.00#7. 572 Late Neogene-Quaternary chronology Channell 8.64 3.67#8. 482 Wilkes Land Antarctic Escutia 8.79 4.59#9. 543 Site 643 CORK Harris 9.14 3.96#10. 547 Oceanic sub-surface biosphere Fisk 9.50 3.25#11. 595 Indus Fan/Murray Ridge Clift 9.57 3.13#12. 584 TAG II hydrothermal Rona 10.21 3.14#13. 557 Storegga slide Andreassen 11.14 3.48#14. 581 (MSP) Coralgal banks Droxler 11.14 3.98#15. 548 (MSP) Chicxulub Morgan 11.57 5.77#16. 573 Porcupine Bank Henriet 13.07 3.67

Proposals ranked #1–#12 were forwarded to OPCOM for possible scheduling; of theserankings #1–#5 were assigned highest priority.

OPCOM met immediately after the SPC ranking meeting in order to put together aprovisional schedule for JOIDES Resolution for FY04-05. They considered practicalmatters such as weather windows, a feasible ship track (minimising transits), andfinancial considerations (presented by Jack Baldauf, TAMU/JOI Alliance) based uponthe complexity of the operations proposed. JOIDES Resolution will be in Japan at thestart of the scheduling period. It was also emphasised that an ”expedition” should notnecessary be restricted to a 2-month Leg, as in ODP. Instead, it should be planned so asto maximise the chances of fulfilling the scientific objectives of each proposal. OPCOM’spreferred scenario, agreed by SPC, was as follows:

June–Aug 04 545 Juan de Fuca hydrogeology FisherSept–Nov 04 572 Late Neogene-Quaternary chronology – I ChannellNov 04–Jan 05 512 Atlantis oceanic core complex – I BlackmanJan 05–Mar 05 512 Atlantis oceanic core complex – II BlackmanMar 05–May 05 572+543 Late Neogene-Quaternary chronology – II + CORK Channell/Harris

This programme plan will go forward to SPPOC for approval in early November 2003.No MSP proposals were considered for scheduling; however, SPC will write toECORD/ESO urging them to commence planning for proposals #519 (S Pacific sea level)and #564 (New Jersey) as soon as is feasible. Significantly, these two proposals will beautomatically forwarded to OPCOM for scheduling at their next meeting withoutrequiring re-ranking (as will Gulf of Mexico Overpressures proposal 589 – i.e., the threetop-ranked proposals that were not scheduled). This gives ECORD and ESO a formalmandate to plan and schedule these operations without further input from SPC (thoughrequiring approval from SPPOC before being incorporated into a programme plan).

ECORD Summary SPC Meeting Washington 23-26 March 2004 (Kenter&Ildefonse); Page 1 of 3

ECORD Summary SPC Meeting Washington 23-26 March 2004 (Kenter&Ildefonse) Here follows a brief summary of the most important issues discussed during the SPC Meeting Washington 23-26 March 2004 (see enclosures for SPC agenda and Executive Summary; note that ranking was deferred to the June meeting) An introduction by MEXT, NSF and ECORD learned the following: 1) Kimura is the new MEXT rep in Washington DC (moved in last September); 2) NSF has just implemented the US cooperative agreement with JOI (36 months, starts in March 2004, 15$M); 3) Joides Resolution: unless budget for FY05 changes, plan is to take out of service at end of May 2005 (end of scheduled program = phase 1); 4) phase 2 vessel is to planned to be operational in early summer of FY06. IODP-MI was introduced by Manik Talwani who provided a tour through the proposed structure and operations. The most important issues right now are: 1) a clear distinction between the role of the science structure and the management structure and, 2) there will be only one portal to IODP which will be managed by the Washington office. RFPs will be issued in FY04 for the site survey data bank and in FY05 for the IODP data base. CDEX (Kawamura-San) is very active and planning site survey for crew training, information management system, commissioning of drilling equipment, crew training cruise, data acquisition plan on Chikyu, equipment of Chikyu lab stacks (40% is installed already), etc. The JOI/Alliance or USIO (Franck Rack) provided an overview of the current non-riser project schedule (enclosed but updated following OPCOM Meeting, 15-16 April Washington). Numerous and relatively minor operational changes (technology and logistical) were proposed to SPC) that will not really affect the science objectives or scheduling. Nearly 3000 m of drill pipe will be loaned to ACEX.

Jack Baldauf responded to questions by ESSAC addressing the need for 1) single science parties for North Atlantic 1&2 as well as Core Complex 1&2 and, 2) more detailed information on site locations and science approach. SPC decided to propose indeed single science parties (which was endorsed by OPCOM) and USIO will provide more information at very short notice. Discussion evolved around the Science Ocean Drilling Vessel (SODV, new JR) which is planned to become available spring/summer FY06. However, budgeting is completely uncertain for the time being (November elections). ESO (Dan Evens) provided an overview of ACEX and requested clarification and guidance on the principle of IODP sample requests. Unfortunately no clear answer was given but with the current circulation of pseudo ACEX sample request forms ESSAC is planning to make an official version available on its website (in collaboration with USIO). ESO requested clearance for splitting Tahiti/GBR in two operations in separate years: Tahiti in 2005, GBR in 2006. SPC formulated a motion that indeed recommends this and forwarded this to OPCOM. Jim Zachos presented the very exiting science of Leg 208 (Walvis Ridge; extreme climate) which attracts high European scientific interest. SPPOC initiated working groups on two topics. A SPPOC working group was assigned to deal with the Conflict of Interest (COI) policy that unintentionally and temporarily obscured the activities of the SSEPs. Another working group is dealing with the SAS structure and how the scientific community could be broadened. SAS reports were presented and only the following issues are relevant at this point. SSP discussed a change in categories and of course the question arises whether there is a need for two separate panels: SSP and PPSP (now formally EPSP with environmental). EPSP noted minor discussions with ESO on gas monitoring but this has been resolved. Most of the time was devoted to SciMP (Murray). SciMP would like to be inserted in the proposal loop somewhere at or after the SSEPs to SPC stage, for comments restricted to technical and data needs only. Discussion needed on the integration of observatories within IODP. Rick suggests to rename the "sample and data policy" "sample, data and obligation policy" to increase the motivation of scientists to meet the obligations; which was later adopted as a recommendation to OPCOM (and endorsed) TAP (Kate Moran) and ILP report (Harry Doust) have recently met but no important issues are to be reviewed here. Matrix Working Group (WG) report by Kyoko Okino explains the combination of EPSP and SSP into a web based matrix that would make it easier for proponents to evaluate the needs for their science. Financial support is requested for databank to complete the WEB tools and to turn it over to the SAS office for implementation, testing, and further upkeep. After discussion there is consensus to forward it to IODP-MI, with the recommendation that it is implemented as soon as possible.


Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) working group (Barry Katz) is in flux and concludes that the implementing organizations (JA, CDEX and ESO) and their operational contractors are fully responsible and accountable for drilling and related activities to their funding organizations, the NSF, MEXT and ECORD, as well as to the international public. PPSP is changed to EPSP. PANCH report (Rick Murray) suggests to enhance communication and panel efficiency by bringing into effect several proposed actions: minutes being completed and distributed within two weeks; all panels create 1 page handout of roles/responsibilities of chair; chairs need to reconsider liaison relationships with regard to attendance at meetings and effective communications by means other than attendance; close coordination with SPC chair; membership and chair membership deviation from 7/7/3(1) need to be defined on basis of satisfactory operation of panel; chairs/co-chairs selected by experience/leadership, national balance, assessed across SAS structure, not within one panel. Project Management.(Harry Doust) WG report and remarks made by Kate Moran (TAP) revolve around the PMS (Project Management System) and introduces some changes to the existing plan. Consensus to forward the WG report to the IODP-MI for further development with SAS input and implementation? Consensus: SPC accepts the PMS report in principle, and forwards it to IODP-MI as a framework for further development of an IODP project management system in consultation with SAS representatives. SPC request progress report at his June 2004 meeting. OPCOM and SAS-OPCOM interactions are presented by Tom Janecek (vice chair operations IODP MI). Membership: VP science operations (chair); VP science planning; chair SPC; 2 additional SPC members (Kenter and Becker); IO representatives and outside experts and SAS liaisons as needed. First OPCOM meeting 15-16 April. Fundamental difference with the passed: SPC does not formally approve anymore the program plan developed by OPCOM but is only consulted. Tom suggests that with the representation of SPC at OPCOM, there is potentially no problem. There is a clear fear in the room the program plan may escape from the scientific community. Proposed schedule of events: ranking SPC meeting; OPCOM meeting; SPC scheduling meeting, during which there will be a chance for SPC to review the OPCOM scenarios, and endorse one or several of them. SPC SAS Working Group is requested by SPPOC to provide input to the SPPOC WG on the same issues (SAS). Mike Coffin has approached SPC members to be part of this SPS SAS WG: Tatsumi-san, Bob Duncan, Benoit Ildefonse. For clarity: SPPOC established Ad hoc Committee-1 to evaluate the current IODP Science Advisory Structure and modify it in light of the IMI requests issued on and after 2 October 2003. The committee should meet at the March 2004 SPC meeting and the July 2004 SPPOC meeting, and it should give a mid-term report at the July 2004 SPPOC meeting and a final report at the December 2004 SPPOC meeting. ACEX update by Dan Evans indicates that not all contracts have been signed yet, plans for onshore science party in November in Bremen, etc. Serious concerns (Ted Moore, Roger Larson, Terry Quinn) are aired about ESO not having a backup plan for the piston-core system, in case it doesn't work at sea (it will not have been tested at sea). The planned alternate core barrels will not, according to Roger and Ted, work properly in soft sediments. Also concerns arise over the experimental character of the memory tool and. The scoping group will meet here to compile these questions.. Update on proposal #519 (South Pacific Sea Level) repeats suggestion to split Tahiti from BGR and is copied by SPC and forwarded to OPCOM since this doesn’t hurt the science objectives and ESO has no budget anyway to drill both in FY05 (and the permitting for GBR is still far way). A long discussion develops on environmental impact of reef drilling which results in an SPC WG with IO representatives, on reef drilling. Terry Quinn, Jeroen Kenter, and Kato-san, to report during the June SPC Meeting. Costa-Rica CORKII APL receives consensus for forwarding it to the OPCOM if there is no impact on the actual program. Than a discussion on potential FY04 changes in Program Plan: 1) N Atlantic Neogene-Quaternary climate; triple vs Quadruple APC and, 2) Norwegian margin bottom water; existing Hole 642E vs new Hole. Consensus is reached over a recommendation to make sure that a complete section is recovered, without too much operational constraint. An APL is requested from the proponents for item two. CDP proposal presentation concerning CRISP & NantroSEIZE by Tim Byrne requesting SPC acceptance of the designation of these projects as CDPs, and forward them to the OPCOM for implementation of scoping groups is granted.


IODP Publications policy developed by WG is presented by Ken Miller. Draft consensus proposed after a very long discussion. 1. The WEB version of the Expedition reports (analogous to IODP IR) be designated as the permanent archive 2. There be an electronic Scientific Results volume that includes but is not limited to : an expedition science summary coordinated by the co-chief scientists, a continually updated bibliography of all publications related to an expedition, and data reports and technical notes 3. Within the RFP for publications, provisions be made for permanent (> 100 years) archiving, which may be electronic 4. A portion of the community requests paper versions of the expedition reports. We suggest that IMI as part of the RFP request various options for paper production that include less-than archival quality, on-demand copies, and/or subscriptions 5. Each IO be responsible for providing scientific content for its platform(s), but that one contractual organization be a central point for technical editing, layout, and production, ensuring uniformity of style Than a discussion develops over the 7/7/3+1 population of the SAS panels an argument (Kenter and Prell) is made to take this lightly depending on the specific need of panels. A consensus is reached: The SPC acknowledges that proportional representation rights (defined in the memoranda as 7:7:3+1) are important for the SPC and the SSEPs with respect to making decisions on the disposition of proposals. However, we recommend maintaining some flexibility of representation to satisfy the disciplinary needs of the service panels (EPSP, SSP, SciMP, TAP, and ILP). A model for Expedition and Site designation scheme is presented by Rick Murray and instigates a very long discussion. The recommendation is to take the suggestions and have OPCOM designate a WG to resolve this before the June SPC meeting. Similarly, a long discussion on the IODP Core distribution doesn’t result in consensus (ODP/DSDP cores resolved). The discussion is deferred to the August SPC meeting. Guide to IODP is still unfinished but mature enough to transfer it to the IODP-MI for finalization. Co-chief nominations 519 - South Pacific Sea Level: Gilbert Camoin, C. Dullo, A Droxler, H. Kavane, C. Betzler, F.W. Taylor, T. Quinn, Y. Iryu 641 - CostaRica CORK: M. Kastner, YamanoTokunaga, Matsubayashi, J. Morris Additional names can be submitted to the SAS Sapporo Office before May. Next SPC meeting, 14-17 June. Yokohama, Japan (Tatsumi). Possible field trip on 18. August meeting : 16-18 August; Corvallis, OR, USA (Duncan). Possible field trip on 15 august.

IODP Science Planning Committee 2nd Meeting, 23-26 March 2004

Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Inc. Washington, D.C., USA

DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (v 1.0)

SPC Consensus 04-03-1: The SPC approves the minutes of its first meeting on 15-19 September 2003 in Sapporo, Japan. SPC Consensus 04-03-2: The SPC approves the revised agenda for its second meeting on 23-26 March 2004 in Washington, D.C. SPC Motion 04-03-3: The SPC recommends revising Section 1.2 of its mandate as follows.

1.2 Mandate. The SPC encourages the international community to develop and submit drilling proposals for the IODP. The SPC can initiate and terminate temporary SAS groups as needed. The SPC recommends reviews SAS membership to the SPPOC, particularly with respect to disciplinary balance. The SPC recommends SAS meeting frequency and timing to the SPPOC. In addition, the SPC may assign special tasks to SAS committees, panels, and planning groups. The SPC approves the chairs of all SAS panels and planning groups. The SPC chair approves the meeting agendas for all SAS committees, panels, and planning groups other than the SPPOC. The SPC sponsors and convenes planning conferences at intervals determined by long-term science plans for IODP. The SPC assigns its own watchdogs to proposals that are forwarded from the SSEPs. The SPC ranks the scientific objectives of the proposals into final priority after they are reviewed by the SSEPs. The SPC approves by at least a two-thirds majority the annual drilling schedule as forwarded from the OPCOM. The SPC nominates chief scientists to the implementing organizations, who make the final selection.

The SPC periodically reviews the IODP SAS in light of developments in science and technology and recommends amendment of the SAS and its mandates to the SPPOC. Much of the work of the SPC is carried out by the commissioning of reports from other SAS panels, including both formal and ad hoc working groups, ad hoc subcommittees of its own membership, and by its chair or vice-chair. Prell moved, Becker seconded; 16 in favor, 1 abstained (Soh)

SPC Consensus 04-03-4: With regard to SPPOC Consensus 03-12-12, the SPC notes that the nomination of highly qualified, non-conflicted scientists to SAS panels is in the interest of IODP national and consortium committees and the SAS. Conflicts of interest and disciplinary balance are identified by the SPC chair and the IMI Sapporo office and communicated to the IODP national and consortium committees for nomination of members and alternates. We conclude that this oversight is sufficient to address disciplinary balance and deal with conflicts of interest for proposal evaluation. Therefore, SPPOC approval should not be required for SPC members or alternates.

SPC Consensus 04-03-5: The SPC accepts SciMP Recommendations 03-12-02 on conducting the standard suite of downhole measurements when the IODP visits legacy holes, 03-12-03 on including a seismic integrator as part of the scientific party for any drilling project where core-log-seismic integration is required, and 03-12-04 on collecting checkshots or zero-offset velocity seismic profiles (VSPs) whenever correlation of logs to seismic is required for any IODP drilling project. The SPC forwards these petrophysics recommendations to the IMI and the implementing organizations. SPC Consensus 04-03-6: The SPC accepts SciMP Recommendation 03-12-05 on initiation of discussions on integrating observatories within the IODP and forwards it to the SPPOC, the IMI, and the implementing organizations for consideration. SPC Consensus 04-03-7: The SPC accepts SciMP Recommendation 03-12-06 for a revised IODP Sample and Data Policy and forwards it to the SPPOC for consideration. SPC Consensus 04-03-8: The SPC forwards the matrix working group report to the IMI and recommends implementing it as soon as possible. SPC Consensus 04-03-9: The SPC accepts the project management system report in principle and forwards it to the IMI as a framework for further development of an IODP project management system, in consultation with SAS representatives. The SPC requests a progress report by June 2004. SPC Consensus 04-03-10: The SPC establishes a working group to evaluate the current IODP Science Advisory Structure and recommend modifications in light of the IMI requests issued on and after 2 October 2003. The modified IODP SAS should implement effectively the following functions: program evaluation and assessment, multi-platform and long-term science planning, interaction between the IMI and the SAS, and integration with other international earth science programs. The working group of Duncan, Ildefonse, and Tatsumi should give a mid-term report at the June 2004 SPC meeting and a final report at the August 2004 SPC meeting. SPC Consensus 04-03-11: The SPC establishes a working group to evaluate, make consistent, and otherwise modify the revised terms of reference for each SAS panel as presented at the March 2004 SPC meeting. The working group of Kenter, Mori, and Prell should provide a final report at the June 2004 SPC meeting. SPC Consensus 04-03-12: The SPC recommends renaming the Pollution Prevention and Safety Panel (PPSP) to the Environmental Protection and Safety Panel (EPSP), effective immediately. SPC Consensus 04-03-13: The SPC recommends that the OPCOM split Proposal 519 South Pacific Sea Level into two MSP expeditions. The Tahiti component should be considered for scheduling in FY05.

SPC Consensus 04-03-14: The SPC establishes a working group to formulate an environmental policy for drilling on reefs. The working group of Quinn, Kenter, and Kato should consult with the Environmental Protection and Safety Panel and the implementing organizations and present a draft policy at the June 2004 SPC meeting. SPC Consensus 04-03-15: The SPC forwards Proposal 641-APL Costa Rica CORK-II to the OPCOM for consideration for scheduling in FY2004 provided that it does not impact any other previously scheduled expeditions. SPC Consensus 04-03-16: The SPC approves the recommendation of the SSEPs to designate Proposal 603-CDP3 Nankai Trough Seismogenic Zone (NanTroSEIZE) and Proposal 537-CDP3 Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project (CRISP) as complex drilling projects (CDPs) and forwards them to the OPCOM to determine the required level of scoping activity and initiate that activity. We request a report from the OPCOM on scoping activities at our June 2004 meeting. These CDP proposals should also be distributed to the SAS service panels for providing initial technical advice to the SSEPs and the SPC. SPC Consensus 04-03-17: The SPC requests that the OPCOM determine the required level of scoping activity and initiate that activity for Proposal 595-Full3 Indus Fan and Murray Ridge. SPC Consensus 04-03-18: The SPC in consultation with the SciMP recommends to the IMI that: 1) The Web version of the expedition report (analogous to the ODP Initial Reports) be designated as the permanent archive. 2) There be an electronic scientific results volume that includes but is not limited to: an expedition science summary coordinated by the co-chief scientists, a continually updated bibliography of all publications related to the expedition, and data reports and technical notes. 3) Within the RFP for publications, provisions be made for permanent (>100 years) archiving, which may be electronic. 4) The IMI request as part of the RFP various options for paper production that include less-than-archival quality, on-demand copies or subscriptions because a portion of the community requests paper versions of the Expedition Reports. 5) Each implementing organization be responsible for providing scientific content for its platforms, but that one contractual organization be a central point for technical editing, layout, and production, thus ensuring uniformity of style.

SPC Consensus 04-03-19: The identification protocol for naming IODP expeditions is important for communicating the program results to the broad community as well as for use within the program. The SPC recommends that the prime identification of all IODP expeditions be a unique expedition name that describes the location and/or science objectives. Drilling sites should have a unique, sequential, platform- or expedition-based designation. SPC Consensus 04-03-20: The SPC commends the contributors to the draft Guide to the IODP for their outstanding work so far. We ask the IMI Sapporo office to assume the task of producing a completed version for community wide distribution, and we request an update on their efforts at our June 2004 meeting. SPC Consensus 04-03-21: The SPC recommends to the IMI that participants of the North Atlantic I and II and Core Complex I and II expeditions be considered as single science parties, respectively. SPC Consensus 04-03-22: The SPC recommends making all efforts necessary to collect a complete sedimentary section at each drilling site on the North Atlantic I and II expeditions. We understand that obtaining such complete sections may require drilling three or four holes to cover gaps in the core record and that MST correlations of the cores must be carefully evaluated to identify the gaps during the drilling operations at each site. SPC Consensus 04-03-23: The SPC was briefed about discussions with the JOI Alliance regarding drilling a new hole for achieving the objectives described in Proposal 543-Full2. The proposal indicated that Hole 642E would be suitable, and in many ways ideal, for the proposed experiments. We are concerned that drilling a new hole will require additional time and funds, and we request that the lead proponent prepare a proposal addendum that justifies additional ship time and program costs if these are required to achieve the primary project objectives. The addendum should be submitted in time for consideration at the OPCOM meeting on 15-16 April 2004. Otherwise, the proponent and the JOI Alliance should determine the best approach to accomplish the proposed science within the currently allocated ship time and budgets. SPC Consensus 04-03-24: The SPC acknowledges that proportional representation rights (defined in the memoranda as 7:7:3+1) are important for the SPC and the SSEPs with respect to making decisions on the disposition of proposals. However, we recommend maintaining some flexibility of representation to satisfy the disciplinary needs of the service panels (EPSP, SSP, SciMP, TAP, and ILP). SPC Consensus 04-03-25: The memoranda among the funding agencies define the proportional participation in scientific parties by contributing IODP members. We recommend that the IMI should balance the overall participation utilizing a multi-year rolling timeframe and considering the scientific requirements and multi-platform nature of the program.

SPC Consensus 04-03-26: The SPC greatly appreciates the efforts of our host, Steve Bohlen and the JOI Alliance in bringing us together in their new office location. The facilities for this meeting have been excellent, and we have wanted for nothing in the way of a comfortable, commodious room, audio-visual equipment, electronic connection, and food and drink. We thank Steve, Frank, Holly, Bob, Bridget, Maureen, Amy, and Jennifer for their warm hospitality.

1

SSEPs meeting,Boulder-CO, November 2003

•The first SSEPs meeting….

Rapport de Gilbert CamoinSPC meetingWashington, March 04

Proposal # Title Lead Proponent Last review

EXTERNALLY REVIEWED PROPOSALS477-Full4 Okhotsk/Bering Plio-Pleistocene Takahashi iSSEP505-Full5 Mariana Convergent Margin Fryer iSSEP522-Full3 Superfast Spreading Crust Alt SCICOM535-Full3 735B Deep Dick SCICOM555-Add Cretan Margin Kopf iSSEP

PROPOSALS THAT COULD BE SENT OUT FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW537-CDP3 Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project von Huene iSSEP537A-Full3 Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project Stage 1 Vannucchi iSSEP552-Add Bengal Fan France-Lanord iSSEP556-Full Malvinas Confluence Wefer SSEP591-Full2 New Ireland Forearc Herzig iSSEP600-Full Canterbury Basin Fulthorpe iSSEP602-Full2 Tropical Epeiric Seas Edgar iSSEP603-CDP3 NanTroSEIZE Overview Kimura (Tobin) iSSEP603B-Full2 NanTroSEIZE Mega-Splay Faults Kinoshita iSSEP605-Full Asian Monsoon Tada iSSEP607-Full2 New Jersey Slope Dugan iSSEP620-Full Hotspot Seamounts Sager iSSEP621-Full Monterey Bay Observatory McNutt (Paull) iSSEP623-Full Ontong Java Plateau Neal iSSEP

PRE-PROPOSALS628-Pre2 Mjolnir Crater Dypvik (Tsikalas) iSSEP634-Pre Antarctic Circumpolar Current Barker New635-Pre Hydrate Ridge Observatory Torres New636-Pre Louisville Seamounts Koppers New637-Pre Nantuckett Hydrogeology Person New639-Pre Izu-Bonin Arc Crust Tamura New640-Pre Godzilla Mullion Ohara New

ANCILLARY PROJECT LETTER638-APL Adelie Drift Dunbar New

Status Status of of proposalsproposals (27)(27)

2

Proposal # Title Lead Proponent ISP Panels

ISP Theme 1 (7)505-Full5 Mariana Convergent Margin Fryer 1 I/E555-Add Cretan Margin Kopf 1 I/E591-Full2 New Ireland Forearc Herzig 1 I/E607-Full2 New Jersey Slope Dugan 1 I/E621-Full Monterey Bay Observatory McNutt (Paull) 1,3 E/I635-Pre Hydrate Ridge Observatory Torres 1 E/I637-Pre Nantuckett Hydrogeology Person 1 E/I

ISP Theme 2 (9)477-Full4 Okhotsk/Bering Plio-Pleistocene Takahashi 2 E552-Add Bengal Fan France-Lanord 2 E/I556-Full Malvinas Confluence Wefer 2 E600-Full Canterbury Basin Fulthorpe 2 E/I602-Full2 Tropical Epeiric Seas Edgar 2 E/I605-Full Asian Monsoon Tada 2 E/I628-Pre2 Mjolnir Crater Dypvik (Tsikalas) 2 E/I634-Pre Antarctic Circumpolar Current Barker 2 E638-APL Adelie Drift Dunbar 2 E

ISP Theme 3 (11)522-Full3 Superfast Spreading Crust Alt 3 I535-Full3 735B Deep Dick 3 I537-CDP3 Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project von Huene 3 I/E537A-Full3 Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project Stage 1Vannucchi 3 I/E603-CDP3 NanTroSEIZE Overview Kimura (Tobin) 3 I/E603B-Full2 NanTroSEIZE Mega-Splay Faults Kinoshita 3 I/E623-Full Ontong Java Plateau Neal 3 I/E620-Full Hotspot Seamounts Sager 3 I636-Pre Louisville Seamounts Koppers 3 I639-Pre Izu-Bonin Arc Crust Tamura 3 I640-Pre Godzilla Mullion Ohara 3 I

Proposals Proposals / / ISP ISP themesthemes

E : 4E/I : 8I/E : 9I : 6

SSEPs dispositions

Proposal Title Code Lead proponent SSEPs disposition535-Full3 735B Deep Dick Submit a revised version556-Full Malvinas Confluence Wefer Submit a revised version591-Full2 New Ireland Forearc Herzig Submit a revised version602-Full2 Tropical Epeiric Seas Edgar Submit a revised version605-Full Asian Monsoon Tada Submit a revised version607-Full2 New Jersey Slope Dugan Submit a revised version620-Full Hotspot Seamounts Sager Submit a revised version623-Full Ontong Java Plateau Neal Submit a revised version634-Pre Antarctic Circumpolar Current Barker Develop to Full proposal635-Pre Hydrate Ridge Observatory Torres Develop to Full proposal636-Pre Louisville Seamounts Koppers Develop to Full proposal637-Pre Nantuckett Hydrogeology Person Develop to Full proposal638-APL Adelie Drift Dunbar Submit a revised version639-Pre Izu-Bonin Arc Crust Tamura Submit a revised version640-Pre Godzilla Mullion Ohara Develop to Full proposal

Proposal Title Code Lead proponent SSEPs disposition535-Full3 735B Deep Dick Submit a revised version556-Full Malvinas Confluence Wefer Submit a revised version591-Full2 New Ireland Forearc Herzig Submit a revised version602-Full2 Tropical Epeiric Seas Edgar Submit a revised version605-Full Asian Monsoon Tada Submit a revised version607-Full2 New Jersey Slope Dugan Submit a revised version620-Full Hotspot Seamounts Sager Submit a revised version623-Full Ontong Java Plateau Neal Submit a revised version634-Pre Antarctic Circumpolar Current Barker Develop to Full proposal635-Pre Hydrate Ridge Observatory Torres Develop to Full proposal636-Pre Louisville Seamounts Koppers Develop to Full proposal637-Pre Nantuckett Hydrogeology Person Develop to Full proposal638-APL Adelie Drift Dunbar Submit a revised version639-Pre Izu-Bonin Arc Crust Tamura Submit a revised version640-Pre Godzilla Mullion Ohara Develop to Full proposal

Proposals for revision (15)Proposals for revision (15)

3

SSEPs dispositions

Proposals sent out for external review (10)Proposals sent out for external review (10)

Proposal Title Code Lead proponent SSEPs disposition477-Full4 Okhotsk/Bering Plio-Pleistocene Takahashi sent out for external review505-Full5 Mariana Convergent Margin Fryer sent out for external review537-CDP3 Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project von Huene sent out for external review537A-Full3 Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project Stage 1 Vannucchi sent out for external review552-Add Bengal Fan France-Lanord sent out for external review600-Full Canterbury Basin Fulthorpe sent out for external review603-CDP3 NanTroSEIZE Overview Kimura (Tobin) sent out for external review603A-Full2 (*)NanTroSEIZE Reference Sites Underwood sent out for external review603B-Full2 NanTroSEIZE Mega-Splay Faults Kinoshita sent out for external review621-Full Monterey Bay Observatory McNutt (Paull) sent out for external review

(*)(Accepted at the Niigata meeting, May 03)

Proposal Title Code Lead proponent SSEPs disposition477-Full4 Okhotsk/Bering Plio-Pleistocene Takahashi sent out for external review505-Full5 Mariana Convergent Margin Fryer sent out for external review537-CDP3 Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project von Huene sent out for external review537A-Full3 Costa Rica Seismogenesis Project Stage 1 Vannucchi sent out for external review552-Add Bengal Fan France-Lanord sent out for external review600-Full Canterbury Basin Fulthorpe sent out for external review603-CDP3 NanTroSEIZE Overview Kimura (Tobin) sent out for external review603A-Full2 (*)NanTroSEIZE Reference Sites Underwood sent out for external review603B-Full2 NanTroSEIZE Mega-Splay Faults Kinoshita sent out for external review621-Full Monterey Bay Observatory McNutt (Paull) sent out for external review

(*)(Accepted at the Niigata meeting, May 03)

SSEPs dispositions

Proposals forwarded to SPC (2)Proposals forwarded to SPC (2)Proposal Title Code Lead proponent SSEPs disposition522-Full3 Superfast Spreading Crust Alt Forwarded to SPC555-Add Cretan Margin Kopf Forwarded to SPC

Proposal Title Code Lead proponent SSEPs disposition522-Full3 Superfast Spreading Crust Alt Forwarded to SPC555-Add Cretan Margin Kopf Forwarded to SPC

Proposal Title Code Lead proponent SSEPs disposition628-Pre2 Mjolnir Crater Dypvik (Tsikalas) Rejected

Proposal Title Code Lead proponent SSEPs disposition628-Pre2 Mjolnir Crater Dypvik (Tsikalas) Rejected

Rejected proposal (1)Rejected proposal (1)

4

The reviewing processThe reviewing process

Guidelines for proposal writingo National programs and committees can help with

proposal writing (e.g. Educational workshops)o Post general guidelines on SAS website

• ‘Best Practices’ document• Examples of well written, successful proposals ?

Watchdogso 5 is a good number of watchdogso Continuity of watchdogs for a proposal

• Consistency of message to proponents• Permanent contact watchdog for proponents

External reviewso Quality of reviews is high in general.o SSEPs decide when proposals are ready to be forwarded to SPC.o Poor reviews : SSEPs provide comments on the review.

Proposed additions to SSEPs mandates :

Full proposals can be removed from the review process only after the proposal has been externally reviewed and the proponents have submitted a letter responding to the external reviews (i.e., a PRL). The SSEPs decide when a proposal is ready to be forwarded to the SPC (iPC consensus 4-4 at the Austin iPC meeting). The SSEPs will meet approximately twice per year. Additional electronic meetings may be held as appropriate.

The reviewing processThe reviewing process

5

Final review by theFinal review by the SSEPs SSEPso New style of final review to improve the “message” to SPC :The final review from the SSEPs may include both a review of the current version of the proposal and an additional general review including information and recommendations to the SPC.

This final review would mark the end of the SSEPs nurturing process and should not require a PRL from the proponents. The final review should include :

a. Overall objective.b. Simple history.c. Relevance to ISP.d. General impression on successive reviews (SSEPs, external).e. Strengths and weaknesses.

SSEPs SSEPs « « messagesmessages » » to SPC to SPC

External reviewso Propose that only the most recent set of external reviews be forwarded to SPC.

4.3 • SciMP (Science Measurement Panel). Javier Escartín

4.4 • SSP (Site Survey panel). Marc-André Gutscher

4.5 • PPSP (Pollution Prevention and Safety Panel). Jean Mascle

Rapport sur la réunion du iPPSP (NAGASAKI 15-17 décembre 2003)Jean Mascle

Présents : Bob Bruce, Jiro Chirju, Akito Furitani, Hans Juvkam-Wold, Susamu Kato, BarryKatz (charman), Jean Mascle, Toshi Matsuoka, Nobuo Morita, Craig Shipp, Dieter Strack,Manabu Tanahashi and Joel WatkinsAbsent : Tim FrancisOnt participé en outre à la réunion Jack Baldauf (Tamu), Colin Brett (ESO) George Claypool etMartin Hovland (Tamu safety pannel), plus un certain nombre de représentants des diversinstances japonaises et internationales liées à IODP, ainsi que divers proposants d’éventuelsfuturs legs. (en italique mes impressions générales)

En tout cette réunion aura vu la participation de 37 personnes ! C’est un peu pléthorique !

Le lundi 15 et le mardi 16 la réunion a lieu dans l’immeuble Administration de l’Université deNagasaki. Après diverses présentations concernant le futur des forages sans Riser, les deux derniers legsODP ( 209 et 210) et l’utilisation du Joides pour le phase 1 IODP ( à partir de juin 2004) par J.Balauf, Nobu Eguchi (SAS office) fait un bref état des proposals dans le systéme actuel (109actuellement). Les propositions sont originaires de 16 pays avec un gros pic US. Très peu depropositions françaises (5/6).- Uko Suzuki présente ensuite les diverses étapes de la préparation du Chikyu dont lepremière sortie opérationnelle devrait avoir lieu en 2006. Il est chargé de préciser le rôle duPPSP en ce qui concerne la première campagne du Chikyu. C..Brett (ESO) précise lesconditions des forages prévus en Arctique au cours de l’été 2004.- Masa Kinoshita présente ensuite le pré-projet du proposal 603 qui concerne la zoneseismogénique de Nankai. Le PPSP demande de répondre au différents points suivants avant dese lancer dans une analyse détaillée: distribution du gaz à proximité des sites, stabilité du fond,activité biologique associée aux sorties de fluides, procédures d’abandon, lien éventuel avec lanucléation d’un séisme important, fournir des cartes structurales et isopaches à proximité dessites, évaluation des pressions interstitielles, synthèses des forages antérieurs (DSDP et ODP),fournir les paramètres et les caractéristique des traitements des données sismiques.L’après midi du 15 a été consacré à la visite du Chikyu, actuellement en cours de finition dansles chantiers Mitsubichi de Nagasaki. Navire impressionnant (voire photo) avec deslaboratoires et autres facilités déjà presque entièrement installés et quasiment opérationnels. Onmesure là tout ce qui sépare le dynamisme japonais de la « vieille Europe », et en particulier lafoi qui existe au Japon dans le développement de la recherche pour laquelle des moyensconsidérables sont mis en œuvre !- Le lendemain Mike Coffin présente un bref état d’activité du SPC (Science PlanningCommittee) et indique que ce dernier prépare un programme de forages pour les deux annéesavenir. Le cas des CDP (Complex drilling program = plus ou moins plusieurs opérations à lasuite) est également discuté. Un groupe est en train de se mettre en place pour un CDP Indusfan. Enfin une discussion est en cours pour une éventuelle participation de la Chine à IODP.

Le reste de la réunion est consacré aux présentations et aux discussions de divers proposalspotentiellement réalisables dans un avenir proche. Il est à noter que pour l’un d’entre eux(proposal 589 dans les golfe du Mexique) un membre du PPSP (Bob Bruce, consultantpétrolier) est associé au dossier. Il est décidé qu’il a le droit de participer à la discussion maisne peut pas voter.- La proposition 589 (P. Flemming et al) est dédiée aux questions suivantes : mécanismesphysiques contrôlant la stabilité des pentes, formations des échappements de fluides et contrôlede la stabilité d’un forage dans un milieu sous pression. Il s’agit là et en particulier dans cetterégion productrice de pétrole (golfe du Mexique) de questions fondamentales pour l’industriepétrolière qui a fourni, ; semble-t-il, les données de base pour le choix des forages. mais qui nes’implique pas financièrement. On est entre autres très proche de zones de production de Shell.Le PPSP m’est apparu plutôt embarrassé par ce projet et demande que soient fournis avantrevue finale : des enregistrements sismiques avec amplitude relative ( contenu éventuel en gaz),une analyse du programme d’utilisation des boues de forages (et de leur éventuelle toxicité),une évaluation indépendante des contenus potentiels en gaz, la fourniture des logs des foragesindustriels voisins, et des sites alternatifs en cas de pbs de pollution et de sécurité.- Andy Fisher présente ensuite la proposition 545 qui concerne les circulations de fluides àtravers une dorsale sédimentée (Juan da Fuca Ridge.). C’est un dossier comportant deuxcampagnes et le PPSP passe en revue l’ensemble des sites qui sont tous acceptés, y comprisavec un rayon de possibilité de 500 m. autour des sites proposés.- Le reste de la séance est consacrée à une réunion commune entre le PPSP et le SciMP(auquel appartient Javier Escartin) afin d’écouter et de discuter une présentation de D.Goldberg (Lamont/USIO) et S.Kuramoto (Cedex) sur le LWD (loging while drilling). Il estdécidé que Goldberg et le PPSP, ainsi que les représentants des opérateurs doivent préparer unrapport sur les conditions et les raisons de l’utilisation du LWD en fonction des différents typesde plateformes, des conditions géologiques et de l’aide que cette technique peut apporter aucontrôle d’un forage

Le lendemain matin, la réunion du PPSP reprend à l’hôtel Nagasaki Prince

- Y.Tsuju et K.Ochiai (JNOC = consortium de pétroliers japonais) font une présentation pourune revue de courtoisie du programme de forages dédiés à l’évaluation du potentiel énergétiquede la province d’hydrates de gaz sur la marge de Nankai. Il existe tout un réseau de donnéesMCS et sismique 3D permettant de préciser les cibles et les sites d’un vingtaine de forages quidevraient pénétrer de plus d’une centaine demétres sous le BSR. Ce programme sera réalisécourant 2004 par le Résolution qui a été loué pour environs 80 jours pour l’occasion Leprogramme comporte également un certain nombre de trous avec LWD et de forages aveclogging seulement. Sont egalement expliquées les précautions de sécurité qui seront prises encas de problèmes de sécurité/pollution. Une fois deplus on peut mesurer la différence depercéption entre nos collégues japonais et nous, ou plutôt nos décideurs européens ; ilsn’hésitent pas à se doter de tous les moyens nécessaires pour aller au fond du pb. Il est vraique dans ce cas, comme dans celui de la zone sismogéne, l’évaluation des éventuellesressources en énérgies est un pb crucial pour le Japon. En fait l’effort est plein et entier sur cesdeux aspects : risque et énergie.- J. Channel présente ensuite les différents sites de forages du proposal 572 consacré àl’analyse du paléoclimat dans des sédiments pliocènes à quaternaires l’ Atlantique Nord. Laplupart des sites sont approuvés sans pb majeur; deux des sites nécessitent cependant d’avoirdes données sismiques retraitées (soucis de possibilité de gaz). D. Quoidbach (ODP Data bank)est chargé de fournir ces données pour le prochain PPSP en juin 2004.

- M. Riedel (Canada) présente ensuite les grandes lignes du proposal 553 dédié auxhydrates de gaz de la marge de Cascadia (au large de Vancouver). Le proposal inclut deuxtransects de 6 sites dont la réoccupation du site 890 qui est le seul à être approuvé. Les donnéessismiques sont jugées très insuffisantes pour permettre des forages pour les autres sites. Il estdemandé de retraiter les profils présentés et si possible d’acquérir de nouvelles données plusadéquates. Les proposants doivent faire savoir pour la mi-avril si cela sera le cas pour unéventuel réexamen en juin 2004.

- Finalement le PPSP discute du projet de « gas monitoring » pour les plates formesspécifiques et ce à la demande de A. Skinner. Il est demandé à C. Brett de fournir lesspécifications concernant l’instrumentation prévue par ESO pour surveiller les indicesd’hydrocarbones pendant forage. B. Katz présente ensuite le projet concernant les principesIODP vis à vis de l’environnement (cf document joint). Ques autres points sont brièvementdiscutés : maintien de documents papier pour évaluation des conditions de sécurité ( oui à lamajorité) ; consultations électroniques pour les proposals 512 (oceanic core complex) et 543 (cork dans le site 642 E).

Le prochain meeting du PPSP aura lieu à College Station du 21 au 23 juin 2004. B. Katzpropose que la réunion de décembre ait lieu les 6 et 7 à Hawai.Le meeting se termine le 17 à 15h15.

4.6 • ILP (Industry Liaison Panel). Philippe de Clarens

5 • Structure IODP : fonctionnement, représentation française

ECORD est représenté dans chaque comité ou panel du SAS par 4 membres (3 votant + 1non-votant)

Report from ECORD

European Consortium

for Ocean Research DrillingCatherine Mével,

EMA director

SPC, Washington DC, 23-26/03/04

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Iceland

ItalyNetherlands

Norway

Portugal

Spain

Switzerland

Sweden

UK

ECORD

council

ECORD was officially created on Dec 15th, 2003

when 12 countries signed the «!internal!» MOU

A 13th country joined in Feb 2004

ECORD is now composed of 13 countries

We expect Canada and

Austria to join in the near

future

Discussion are in progress

with Belgium, Ireland and

Greece

We have contacts with

Russia and Turkey


The ECORD council is composed of one representative of

each participating country at the funding agency level

The ECORD chair rotates every 6 months

The present chair, Raymond Schorno (Netherland), will

rotate off at the end of March

John Ludden (France) will be the new chair from April 1st

At the last council meeting (Bremen, March 17th), Soeren

Dürr (Germany) was elected as the new vice-chair and will

become chair on Oct 1st


- the ECORD managing Agency (EMA) to manage

the funds from the European member countries

- the ECORD Science Support and Advisory Committee

(ESSAC) to promote and cordinate the scientific

involvement of the Europeans in IODP

chair : Jeroen Kenter (Netherlands)

vice-chair : Chris Mc Leod (UK)

- the ECORD Science Operator (ESO) to operate the

Mission Specific Platforms

science manager : Dan Evans


The ECORD council has set up the

structure for European participation

in IODP by creating :

These efforts are supported by the European Commission

ECORDnet - 2.32 M" over 4 years

to implement the ECORD structure in order to move forward

towards a single research and operational funding network

for scientific ocean drilling in Europe

The EMA is administered by CNRS-INSU, in Paris

The CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research) is a governement

Agency funding basic research

The INSU (Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers) is a CNRS

Institute that has as its central role the coordination of national and

international programmes and large infrastructure projects in the natural

sciences

Director : Sylvie Joussaume

EMA pools the funds from all the member countries

The EMA Director is the official contact point for ECORD in all

relationships with the Central Management Office (IODP MI)

and the Lead Agencies (NSF and MEXT)

The ECORD Managing Agency

manages the participation of

ECORD members in IODP.


The EMA Office is located at the

Institut de Physique du Globe (IPG),

on the Jussieu campus, in ParisEMA staffing

Director : Catherine Mével

Scientific officer : Patricia Maruejol

Executive secretary : Svetlana

Zolotikova

[email protected]


www.ECORD.org

ECORD Newsletter

#2 issued this month

On behalf of ECORD, EMA negociated and

signed the Memorandum with NSF and MEXT

in Bremen, 16/3/2004

ECORD is now officially a member of IODP

ECORD aims to contribute 4 P.U. to IODP

- 2 participation units in SOCs and 2 in POCs during

the implementation period (FY04-06)

- 3 participation units in SOCs and 1 in POCs when the

Chikyu will be in operation (from FY07)

The POCs will be devoted to the operation of MSPs

We expect to operate 1 or 2 expeditions per year


This makes of ECORD a contributing member

and allows ECORD :

- an average of 8 scientists on each IODP expedition

- 3 voting and 1 non voting member in every panel

ESSAC is responsible for nominating ECORD scientists


IODP town meeting, 8/12/2003

ECORD

Council

EMAECORD Managing

Agency

INSU-CNRS

ESSACECORD Science Support and

Advisory Committee

ESOECORD Science Operator

BGS, EPC, Bremen

links to

international

IODP entities

MSP

Operation X

MSP

Operation X

MSP

Operation X

money

advice

SOCs

SOCsPOCs

IODP MI


NSFMEXT

NSF/MEXT/EMA

NSF Program Officer

MEXT Liaison

Platform

and

Drilling

Operations

Riser Drillship Operator

(CDEX)

MISSION SPECIFIC

SCIENCE SERVICES

MISSION SPECIFIC

PLATFORM OPERATIONS

SCIENCE

SERVICES

Platform

and

Drilling

Operations

Non-Riser Drillship

Operator (JOI Alliance)

SCIENCE ADVISORYSTRUCTURECMO

SCIENCE

SERVICES

ADVISE

CONSULT

EMA

Other

SCIENCE SERVICES

SUBCONTRACTS

MSP Operator (ESO)

SPC, Washington DC, 23-26/03/04From IODP MI

8 to 10 European institutions/universities are in the process

of joigning IODP MI

among them

Alfred Wegener Institute (Germany)

British Geological Survey (UK)

Institut de Physique du Globe (France)

University of Stockholm (Sweden)

Vrije Universitat (Netherlands)

ETH (Switzerland)

ECORD is now ready to fully participate in IODP !


International leadershipThe 15 European research funding organi-

sations that participated in ODP agreed to

join its successor – the Integrated Ocean

Drilling Programme (IODP) – under a single

European umbrella. They have now formed

the European Consortium for Ocean

Research Drilling (ECORD) to represent and

fund European ocean drilling studies at an

international level. As a coordinated unit,

ECORD enables Europe to achieve critical

mass and economies of scale in its

progress towards equal partnership with

the USA and Japan, which are currently

considered the world leaders in marine

geosciences.

The ERA-NET scheme is helping ECORD to

implement its vision of Europe-wide strate-

gic planning, funding and research in the

field of ocean drilling. In particular, it pro-

vides a structure through which joint

drilling programmes can be managed and

coordinated, and their results disseminated

to the marine scientist community.

The interaction between national pro-

gramme managers will be particularly effec-

tive in the preparation of scientific propos-

als. ECORD ERA-NET is creating a database

that pools all existing information on drilling

proposals by European scientists. The con-

sortium expects this information-sharing to

produce a steady growth in collaboration –

for example, the sharing of marine site-sur-

vey protocols and joint exploratory projects

– which will create high-quality competitive

proposals at international level.

We only began to take records of

weather patterns a few hundred

years ago, yet scientists can trace changes

in the earth’s climate over geological

timescales. Historical climate models are

based in part on analysis of the sediment

and rocks that form the bed of our seas and

oceans. By studying samples of seafloor

material, scientists not only build a picture

of the earth’s geological and environmental

past, but also develop models for predict-

ing its future. Scientific ocean drilling has

provided important evidence for the theory

of plate tectonics, revealed surprising bio-

logical and mineral resources, and uncov-

ered many of the natural mechanisms that

affect sea level and climate.

The drilling and subsequent analysis of

‘cores’ – cylindrical cross-sections of the

sea floor up to ten metres in length – brings

together multidisciplinary teams of scien-

tists and technicians. The human and finan-

cial resources and expertise required for

major drilling projects and shore-based

analysis have encouraged international co-

operation in the form of the Ocean Drilling

Programme (ODP). This consortium was

disbanded in October 2003.

Ocean drilling providesessential material for the

study of climate change, geo-physics and the discovery of

new biological and mineralresources. The ECORD con-sortium has been formed to

represent the interests ofEurope in ocean drilling, par-ticularly in the international

Integrated Ocean DrillingProgramme (IODP). Memberorganisations share informa-

tion and best practice inorder to produce high-quality

research proposals at inter-national level. By pooling

their funding of shore-basedresearch, the national pro-

grammes involved will alsoencourage European labora-tories to develop particularareas of geoscience expert-

ise. This ERA-NET is keen toexpand its membership, and

to organise outreach andtraining programmes inocean drilling. ECORD’s

transnational programmecoordination and funding will

enable Europe to become aworld leader in the marine

geosciences.

Coordination ActionE

RA

-NE

T

collaboration at thecore of ocean drilling

“Our project will enable Europe’s network for

ocean-floor sampling through deep-drilling to

develop for the first time as a single entity.

”Dynamically positioned, the drilling vessel M/V Bucentaur

(DNSD, Norway) operates in depths of 13-2000 metres.

haps in their own territorial waters. With a

pool of renowned ocean scientists and an

excellent reputation as a leader in the techno-

logical aspects of ocean drilling, Russia could

be another key ECORD partner in the future.

ECORD has been established to provide a

structure for the financial, managerial and

scientific planning of ocean drilling

research for Europe within IODP, but its

remit will not stop there. The consortium

will also represent member organisations

within other European and international

research groupings such as the European

Science Foundation’s ‘Euromargins’, which

focuses on the physical, chemical, and bio-

logical processes occurring at the transition

between continental and oceanic crust.

Climate studies require long-term records

and world-wide coverage. Coring is

required on land, in ice sheets, in lakes and

across entire ocean basins. The ECORD net-

work will also maintain close links with

related programmes such as the

International Continental Drilling

Programme. An extensive outreach pro-

gramme, including the training of school

teachers, is also planned.

ECORD ERA-NET is raising the profile of

ocean drilling at home and internationally. It

is providing Europe with the resources to

become a major contributor to a geo-

science that may determine the shape of

tomorrow’s international treaties.

Best practiceThe promotion of best practice is especially

important. As well as having a single

European science team on different drilling

platforms, the ECORD ERA-NET partici-

pants aim to pool research funding for post-

cruise research projects. A European call

for research using drilling samples is

expected to encourage European laborato-

ries to develop expertise in high-profile sci-

ences such as climate change, bio-geo-

chemistry of extreme environments, and

new energy sources. A network of special-

ist facilities, open for mutual access, will

enable European scientists to expand the

scope of their research and better exploit

the results of drilling operations.

ECORD ERA-NET also promotes the dis-

semination of research results. The partici-

pants are working together to build a data-

base of published research that will help

European scientists to exploit the work of

partners more efficiently. Managers can use

the database to support evaluation of proj-

ects and the benchmarking of European

achievements in the international field.

Expansion and promotionThe ECORD consortium is committed to

expanding its membership base, especially

among funding organisations in Accession

countries like Bulgaria, Poland and Turkey,

which are already involved in ocean drilling

operations – and which ECORD will include in

research proposals for drilling projects, per-

Full title:European consortium for oceanresearch drilling

Research field:Geosciences

Coordinator:France: Centre National deRecherche Scientifique / InstitutNational des Sciences de l’Univers

Partners:• Germany: Deutsche

Forschungsgemeinschaft• Iceland: The Icelandic Centre for

Research• Netherlands: Netherlands

Organisation for ScientificResearch

• Norway: Research Council ofNorway

• Portugal: Office for InternationalRelations in Science and HigherEducation

• Sweden: Swedish ResearchCouncil

• Switzerland: Swiss NationalScience Foundation

• UK: National EnvironmentResearch Council

Further information:John Ludden, Centre National dela Recherche ScientifiquePO Box 287, 3, rue Michel-Ange,Paris, 75766 FranceFax: +33 1 44 96 49 [email protected]

Duration:4 years

EC funding:€2.2 million

Project reference:CA-510218-ECORD

Coordination Action

“Europe can now look forward to equal partnership with the

USA and Japan in a new era of deep ocean-floor sampling.

”

Black smoker hydrothermal vent at theAtlantic’s mid-ocean ridge.

Courtesy OAR/NURP/NOAA. Photo P. Rona

Draft minutes of the 1st ESSAC meeting in Amsterdam, Page 1 of 12

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE 1ST ESSAC MEETING IN AMSTERDAM

Location: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Time: Friday, November 14th, 10:30 to Saturday 15th, 13:00

Present:

Jeroen Kenter (Chairman The Netherlands) Chris MacLeod (Vice-Chairman United Kingdom) Gilbert Camoin (France) Benoit Ildefonse (France) Judith McKenzie (Switzerland) Angelo Camerlenghi (Italy) Dan Evans (UK - ESO) Andy Kingdon (UK - ESO) Eve Arnold (Sweden) Kathy Gillis (Canada) Kari Strand (Finland) Raymond Schorno (Chairman ECORD Council; NWO The Netherlands) Catherine Mevel (France - Director EMA) Fernando J.A.S. Barriga (Portugal) Antje Voelker (Portugal) Rolf Birger Pedersen (Norway) Hermann-Rudolf Kudraß (Germany) Susanne Egelund (Denmark) Harry Doust (Netherlands - ILP) Sam Purkis (Interim Science Coordinator The Netherlands) Xavier van Lanen (Interim Science Coordinator The Netherlands)

Unable to attend:

Menchu Comas (Spain) was unable to get to Amsterdam as a result of flight delays. Iceland, Ireland and Greece were not represented at the meeting.

Item 1 Opening remarks by Jeroen Kenter and Chris MacLeod

Kenter and MacLeod welcome the delegates to both Amsterdam and the first ESSAC meeting and begin with a round-the-table introduction of those present. The logistics for the next two days are outlined and Kenter proposes that we commence discussions without delay.

Item 2 Adoption of the Draft Agenda

The draft agenda is adopted with consensus

Item 3 Minutes from previous ESSAC Meetings

No comments are returned.

Item 4 Update on ECORD Council negotiations

4A Draft minutes of ECORD Council Meetings, The Hague (26-27 August 2003) and Paris (23-24 October 2003) (Encl.)


Kenter hands the floor to Schorno, who proceeds to explain that it was agreed during the ECORD Council Meetings, The Hague (26-27 August 2003), that the ESSAC office will reside in Amsterdam for a minimum of one year. Furthermore, during the Paris meeting (23-24 October 2003), the representation of ECORD and its voting rights was extensively debated. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the ECORD partners should be finalised prior to 25 December, which Schorno feels is plausible, since the text is in place and the majority of partners are now in a position to sign. Schorno anticipates that the signing of the MOU will be accompanied by an official ceremony, marking the formal incorporation of ECORD into IODP.

Item 5 News on Science Planning Committee (SPC) Activities

MacLeod and Ildefonse open the discussion and explain that they attended the SPC Sapporo meeting, although they were excluded from voting. Both delegates were concerned that they were unable to vote, since important matters such as the Science Plan for FY 04 (i.e. the Arctic Proposal), were discussed. To this end, MacLeod requested that they be able to participate in the voting regardless, but the request was rejected. However, it was decided that although the ECORD representatives could not participate formally, they would be included in all discussions, with the exception of those in which voting took place. MacLeod and Ildefonse agree that this gesture affirms that the science community is supportive of ECORD involvement in the program. Both delegates were concerned that since they were not in a position to vote, they would not be able to act if it transpired that the Arctic Proposal would be demoted. Responding to their concern, Mike Coffin agreed to include a motion stating that the proposal would not be re-ranked and can now be considered as in its "implementation phase". The motion was subsequently passed. Ildefonse reported that he believes that SPC fully supports ECORD's continued effort with the Arctic Proposal. MacLeod goes on to explain how the Japanese and U.S. delegates voted on numerous proposals forwarded by the SSEP's, including Gilbert Camoin's Tahiti proposal, which incidentally, is now the top-ranked MSP proposal following the designation of the Artic as under implementation. He adds that the ODP drill ship, the JOIDES Resolution (JR) will be retained for a further year (2004-05) since there is a delay in finding a replacement vessel. Considering this, SPC voted on five JR-type legs, which were re-ranked and scheduled for drilling. Ken Miller's proposal for the New Jersey Shelf is currently ranked 4th and has been forwarded to OPCOM for potential scheduling. The operator can consider such proposals ready for drilling, pending the finalisation of the legs logistics. MacLeod adds that it is the science that is important in the upcoming IODP operations and that delegates should now understand that proposals can be implemented, even if they require more than the standard sixty days of ship time. In this way, two legs can be included within a single drilling proposal and the community must not be restricted by the limitations of the old strategy. Gillis and Ildefonse discuss, that in such situations, the initial leg can be dedicated to the preparation of the holes, which can be subsequently drilled on the second leg. However, they believe that the staff at College Station recognise that scientists participating on the initial and preparatory leg, would be bored and it would be a more realistic strategy if active drilling were conducted on both legs. Gillis concludes the discussion that the issue shouldn’t distract us, since it is bound to be raised later. MacLeod agrees and proposes to wait and see how these matters unfold, since the present discussion from the operators can only be considered provisional.

ECORD Report SPC Meeting Sapporo 03 meeting

Kenter asks if there are any questions on this enclosure and since none are returned, takes the opportunity to update Angelo Camerlenghi and Raymond Schorno, who have just arrived.

Item 6 ESSAC Terms of Reference

6A Implications for SAS panel and shipboard staffing procedures (Encl.) Kenter initiates discussion on enclosure 6A (Implications for SAS panel and shipboard staffing procedures) and cites its importance in the context of the ramifications that the discussion will have


on how ESSAC will handle staffing in the future. He draws the delegate’s attention to a sentence he feels is particularly important:

"The IODP assigned quota of Leg participants granted to ECORD shall reflect the financial contributions of each member country and specific interests of each participating country over a rolling three-year period..".

McKenzie responds by stating that in her opinion, it is important to monitor the staffing quota on a yearly basis and not just wait and see to how well the numbers balance every three years. Kenter agrees and details a second important point:

"The delegates and alternates on IODP Science Advisory Structure (SAS) panels shall be designated by ESSAC based on national nominations, authorised by ECORD Council and reflect the financial contribution of each participating country: for the first four years the contribution specified in the MOU and thereafter the contribution over a rolling three year period. Normally all ECORD representatives on SAS bodies shall serve for a three-year period and may not be re-appointed for a second consecutive term."

Gillis asks how such matters have been tackled in the past? Kenter explains that at this stage the staffing discussion is somewhat difficult, since the ECORD Council are yet to release the required numbers. While acknowledging this fact, Gillis explains that in Canada, discussion with TAMU on the quantity of berths that will be allocated per year, have already been initiated. McKenzie believes that the situation is simple, with eight positions being available per leg? Camerlenghi goes on to query how the division of membership benefits will be distributed, considering the small countries disparity in financial contribution? Kenter agrees that these are important issues, but discussion should be postponed until Item 7. Moving on, Kenter expects that the ESSAC delegates will live up to their obligations as panel members and MacLeod re-affirms that in Sapporo, ESSAC were under represented. His concern is principally that if ESSAC had been granted voting rights, the lack of delegates present would have severely disadvantaged our potential influence on important decisions. MacLeod states that it is now paramount that if delegates find they are unable to attend a meeting, an alternate must be found. ESSAC must make effective use of its members. Kingdon adds that if an alternate is sent, they must be fully briefed on the relevant issues that will be discussed. MacLeod agrees, while acknowledging that the situation is becoming ever more complex as the volume of material in the system grows. In his opinion, we need to rapidly establish a pool of people who are both up to date with the program and available to attend meetings. Alternates, he envisages, should gain experience by attending meetings as observers. Kenter continues that we must now start acting as ESSAC members and not as national representatives. MacLeod agrees that this is very important and Kudraß adds that it is the science that is important and there is no room for national politics in the new program. Kenter agrees with both MacLeod and Kudraß that from here on in, national politics should not be pursued. Gillis asks if there is a science plan available for ECORD? IIdefonse understands that one is available on the Bremen web site, to which MacLeod is surprised. Kudraß confirms that a science plan is available, but at this stage it is vague and broad and does not represent a summary of European initiatives. Kenter feels that it is now time to make an inventory of the science interests in Europe but believes that at specific European science plan is largely irrelevant in the context of IODP. McKenzie agrees with Kenter that we should not promote the science interests of Europe in this way. However, IIdefonse maintains that it is important to promote the visibility of the program, a feeling shared by Kenter who feels that it would be more efficient if the subject is tackled later on in this meeting. Kenter turns the delegates attention back to the enclosure and highlights:

"The Secretariat shall be determined by the ECORD Council and located with the ESSAC Chair. It will be funded from the budget of the EMA. It shall rotate, on a two-yearly basis, with the Chair of ESSAC. The budget shall be sufficient to provide for a science coordinator with a scientific background, the full cost of maintaining an office and resources to compensate the Chair."

Kenter believes the key point to take home from this is that ESSAC should be driven by consensus, which in the case of ESCO, has always been sufficient. He can only remember one case where an ESCO matter had to be solved using voting. Kenter turns the delegates attention to the proposed tasks for ESSAC, which he considers are too numerous to be completed by the ESSAC office alone. He


envisages that the formation of specific working groups will be required to provide the necessary expertise. Kudraß questions whether funds are available to support the working groups, to which Kenter replies that no money is presently available beyond that allocated for the running of the ESSAC office. MacLeod agrees with Kenter and proposes that funds may become available at a later date through ERAnet (European Area Network). MacLeod asks Evans to what degree he'd want to liaise with ESSAC regarding staffing? Evans is happy with the wording of the enclosure and agrees that we have sufficient breadth of expertise in the group to handle the issue. Besides, in the past he has received advice from Jan Backman, and so contact between ESO and ESSAC has already been established. Kingdon agrees in principle, but foresees that situations will arise where specialist advice is required and has no doubt that ESSAC will be called upon. Proposing that this subject has been adequately covered, Kenter asks if there are any further questions? None are returned.

Item 6B ESSAC and ECORD Council delegates as of 13 November 2003

Kenter asks if anyone can provide an update on the status of his or her ESSAC delegates? Egelund opens discussion by explaining that for the case of Denmark, it is proving difficult to find scientists who are willing to commit to becoming an ESSAC representative. In Canada, Gillis is likely to be the ESSAC delegate with Dominique Weis as her alternate, but this is still under discussion. Kenter reminds the room that ECORD Council requires letters from perspective delegates and alternates, a copy of which will be filed by the ESSAC office. Kenter adds that letters have been received from numerous countries but not all. Italy and Sweden say that there letters have been mailed and will arrive shortly. Members in the German scientific advisory structure are pending, Kudraß explains, but will resolved within two weeks, at which point the official letter will be mailed. Kenter acknowledges that the German schedule is sufficient.

Item 7 ESSAC Shipboard Staffing

Although Schorno explains he cannot speak on behalf of the ESSAC Council, he outlines the status of the membership units (MU). As an example The Netherlands will contribute 7% of an MoU, but exact calculations are not possible given the present uncertainty with the German budget. However, it has been agreed that ESSAC will be allocated 8 berths per leg. McKenzie stresses the importance that as many scientists as possible from the smaller countries become involved in the Arctic drilling proposal, since the national science representatives from these countries will then have something to show their funding agencies at the close of the first year of the program. Kudraß agrees but foresees that both the larger and smaller countries are going to have to be flexible over the staffing issue. Kenter reckons it's not the responsibility of ESO to balance the staffing quota, but the responsibility of ESSAC. His past experience with ESCO highlights how difficult it can be to maintain a national balance. In MacLeod's opinion, it would not be wise if ESSAC submits a huge list of perspective scientists to each upcoming leg, as this will impinge our chances of getting the right people onto the ship. Instead, a concise list pre-edited by the ESSAC community would be more strategic. Evans questions Kenter's staffing strategy and reminds him that science must first and foremost, drive the staffing procedure. Kenter explains that is not even to be discussed that a good scientist would be replaced by a less-experienced one, it should just be recognised that balancing the quota for the smaller countries will not be trivial. Kudraß and MacLeod agree that staffing nominations should initially go to the ESSAC Office and not directly to the operator. During the subsequent ESSAC meetings, the names from the list of applications who will be nominated can be decided. Kenter agrees, but highlights that the nominations need to be made shortly, either in an additional ESSAC meeting in December or January, else via email, which is likely to be complex (at best). To summarize the situation, McKenzie predicts 6 legs to sail in 2004-05 (including the Arctic), which equates to approximately 14 Germans, 14 British and 14 ESSAC scientists. Taking the present level of Swiss membership, this is only equivalent to 1.4 scientists. Taking this example, she urges the smaller countries to be very strategic to whom they put forward to sail, since they won't have an opportunity to make a mistake. Kudraß believes a strict rule should be imposed on the number of people who can join a shore-based scientific party, to prevent the numbers spiralling out of control. Camoin responds to Kudraß stating that, in his opinion, flexibility is


required in the staffing numbers in order to cater for the more complex techniques such as fluid-analysis and microbiology that are more frequently appearing in proposals. Kudraß agrees, but reckons that the number of required scientists will have to be defined case by case, depending on the mission. Ildefonse draws attention to mater of the advertising required for a call for applications, which he believes, should be centralized as well as being promoted at the country level. Also, through what mechanism should people apply? Kenter believes that applications should be routed through a single web page / Email address. On reflection, this is not possible since the Americans already have a web page, but at least ESSAC should operate through a single page, so as to avoid confusion. Kenter talks through enclosure 7C4 (ESSAC DRAFT PROPOSAL TO J-DESC, USSAC), drawing attention to the summary by John Farrell:

"In summary, the national or consortium member receives applications from scientists in their own countries/consortium and forwards candidates to IMI, which coordinates staffing with the IOs".

Considering this, Kenter explains that he is worried that there will not be an opportunity to negotiate and resolve conflicts in interest with staffing issues. Kudraß wonders if involving the IOs excessively will cause serious delay and will make staffing conflicts difficult to resolve? Evans is confident that since the IOs met earlier this year and will continue to meet on a regular basis, there is a mechanism to facilitate discussion and Ildefonse suggests that an ESSAC representative should be invited to these meetings. Camoin asks how the problem of balancing the national quota will be handled at this level and Kenter explains that this is separate issue, to be handled at the ESSAC level, which Camerlenghi believes can be done through Email. To summarise, Kenter asks if consensus has been reached whereby we can live with the first point of contact for staffing issues to be ESSAC (which precludes the need for an IMI office)? McKenzie asks why applicants don't send their applications initially to their ESSAC representative, who in turn will forward them on to the ESSAC office? Kenter agrees, stating that this is a matter for the national offices to decide. Ildefonse recounts the frequency with which French scientists in the past would apply to TAMU without informing the national office of their intention. Purkis and Kenter agree that this often occurred among the ESSAC community. Kenter believes a portal on the ESSAC web site would solve the problem, as once the 'submit' button is pressed; the application is automatically emailed to both the ESSAC office and national representative. Kenter takes the opportunity to inform the delegates that the ESSAC web site is under construction and will be activated shortly. So not to loose sight of the matter in hand, Kenter again asks the delegates if we have agreed that staffing applications can be handles through the ESSAC web site and therefore without the input of IMI? The advantage he points out, would be that it takes the responsibility out of IMI's hands for meeting the internal staffing balance. MacLeod believes that IMI's involvement is a sensitive issue, as there would be no control on who sees the list of who applied for each leg, a point to which Gillis is not worried, since she points out that IMI would have access to the information somewhere down the line. Kenter again presses the question of what the influence of an IMI staffing coordinator will be? This goes against the suggestion of John Farrell, MacLeod adds, to which Kenter agrees. It is agreed with consensus that Kenter will reply to John Farrell, acknowledging a role for IMI in staffing issues, but less active than proposed in Farrell's letter. Camerlenghi and Camoin agree that situation will arise where scientists of a particular speciality will be required to sail on short notice and presently there does not exist a mechanism to facilitate such 'fast-track' applications. Evans reads the mail that he and Kenter have put together regarding the call for applicants for the Arctic proposal. MacLeod, queries the text, in particular classification about the difference between on and offshore scientific party? Evans explains the terminology and Kenter considers that mailing an internal ESSAC call for expression of interest in upcoming legs is not a big job. The internal call can be followed by a full officia l formal call. Kenter announces that he has already received multiple applications and believes that selecting the nominees just through Email, will be extremely problematic and in his opinion, we need a meeting. Evans would like to see the Arctic applications submitted to ESO by 31st January 2004, to which Kenter adds that the internal ESSAC deadline should be January 1st 2004. Kenter confirms with Evans that the US and Japanese should have the same deadlines for applications but highlights that we don't yet have deadlines from JOI for the FY04 JR-type legs. Kenter asks McKenzie, whether in her opinion, applications for both the JR-type and Arctic legs can be handled solely through email? McKenzie and Kingdon agree that it


would be impossible, considering that the UK, Germany and France have no experience with ECOD-like negotiations. Kenter sets a tentative deadline of Friday January 23rd 2004 for a day meeting in Amsterdam to conclude the staffing decisions. With no further questions, Kenter closes discussion on staffing.

Item 8 ECORD delegates and alternates on the SAS panels

Kenter opens discussion by explaining that it has been negotiated between ESSAC, NSF and MEXT that the Tokyo voting rules will apply (6 US, 6 JAPANESE, 3 ESSAC). Although not yet on paper, ESSAC should have 3 voting and 1 non-voting member on the SSEPs (6,6,3+1). Kudraß is pleased with this allocation as put simply, we have 20% of the voting power while paying only 10% of the total contribution, which is a good deal, especially considering we have access to a third of the berths per expedition. The breakdown will be finalised in the MOU, but is already known and accepted by our counterparts. Kenter asks how we want to populate the panels; since it is time we submit nominations and set a deadline on the process? MacLeod corrects Kenter as a deadline has already been set and in fact, expires today! McKenzie queries which positions need to be filled? Kenter believes that at this stage it is sufficient to know that Canada will be contributing financially, without knowing exact figures. McKenzie and Camoin agree that the non-voting position should not be considered less important, since the group of four will discuss the issue and speak as a single voice. Again, Kingdon feels that experience will count for everything and taking the scenario that MacLeod would not be able to attend a meeting, his voting replacement should not necessarily be British, but the next most experienced delegate, regardless of their national affiliation. Kenter agrees entirely and further proposes that we strive for a situation where the delegate and alternate are of different nationalities. Kingdon has observed that the US are already very well organised with regard to this and have started to tune their approach to benefit their national interest. Camoin reaffirms the need for a broad scientific representation on the SSEP's. Raymond Schorno now arrives, apologises for his delay and is updated on the matters discussed so far. Arnold is concerned that the 3+1 voting strategy should not be populated by 3 of the larger countries and 1 smaller. Kenter and MacLeod assure her that this is absolutely not the case and MacLeod proposes that we should from now on consider we have 4 voting members, leaving the detail of which 3 will vote, to be decided in the meeting in question. MacLeod envisages that the ESSAC voting power will be of critical importance when it comes to the matter of proposal ranking, since, we want to ensure that European science is not neglected. McKenzie introduces the principle of 'floating' alternates, where there is not a principle alternate who would be favoured above the others. In essence Kudraß agrees, but points out that he would like to know who will be attending each meeting from Europe in advance. He would recommend nominating 4 principle ESSAC representatives and support their inevitable absence with an adequate pool of alternates. McKenzie reckons that indeed, at least 1 alternate should attend each meeting as an observer; therefore Europe would have 5 (4+1) members present. Kenter asks if 1 permanent alternate would be sufficient, considering the financial burden on alternates country? MacLeod responds by stating that it is important that to prevent conflicting situations, the alternate does not necessarily take on the role of the delegate, once the delegate rotates out of the system. Continuing down the lines of Arnold's previous statement, Kenter asks Schorno how the cumulative financial contribution of the smaller countries will compare with that of the larger countries? Schorno postulates that it wouldn't match that closely, but is of course dependant on the future status of Canada. With financial contribution in mind, Kenter and Camerlenghi question that for the critical panels, the 3 members should be Britain, Germany and France, providing that their expertise matches that of the smaller countries? Consensus is returned that the decision of who fills the 3+1 positions should be left to the meeting in question, but providing that their expertise is appropriate and a conflict situation is not created, the 3 should be taken by the 3 major countries and the +1, by the minor countries. Kenter adds that any country can also send an observer, but as Camoin points out, for the case of proposal ranking, SAS will not provide the observer with a copy of the proposals in advance as this would breach the confidentiality of the system. Ildefonse remarks that members who do receive the proposals should not forward them to anyone else. Kenter ensures that the minutes contain reference to the fact that ESSAC meetings are always open to the presence of observers and


Gillis adds that Canada may not have sufficient finances to send observers to numerous meetings. Kenter aims to conclude this section by agreeing with Kudraß that the nominations to the technical panels are another story, but asks the floor if consensus has been reached on how the scientific panels should be populated? Consensus on the issue is returned. Kenter proposes that a deadline of Friday 28th November 2003 should be set for the submission of panel nominations, which should be mailed to the ESSAC office with a CV and cover letter. Pedersen questions whether the smaller countries should strive to submit nominees for each of the 10 panels? Kenter responds by citing that they should submit nominations to as many panels as they have scientists with expertise. Doust adds that the technical panels will also require expertise and this should be borne in mind, to which Barriga agrees. Kudraß questions whether each country should submit multiple applicants for each position? Kenter believes this it is up to each country how they handle this and he would advise that it would be only worth promoting candidates who possess the required expertise. Gillis believes that it would be sensible to restrict the number of panel alternates as they are unlikely to be called upon more than once during their 3 year service. Instead fewer, highly qualified alternates would be most effective, an opinion shared by McKenzie, who thinks that a signal alternate for each delegate is sufficient and a maximum of 2 should be imposed. Kenter agrees that every delegate should have an alternate and ideally they should frequently attend meetings under the capacity of observers. Doust foresees that the optimum situation would be that the alternates are members that will be attending the meeting anyway, as delegates to another panel. MacLeod adds that this makes financial sense and was discussed in Sapporo, but should only be initiated as an exception and it should not become the norm that one person sits on multiple panels. McKenzie questions whether panel members on SSEP's should all rotate off simultaneously at the end of their membership period, or rotate off in a staggered manor, so as to maximise the retention of expertise in the group? Camoin agrees that the staggered approach is preferable and Kenter adds that it would be sensible to re-nominate members back onto the panel. Kudraß asks how the list of hundreds of panel nominations be slimmed down? Kenter explains a ranking procedure will be followed and Gillis wonders if the smaller countries will be adequately represented? Kudraß suggests that the chairs make a proposal on this issue and Kenter agrees. Arnold proposes that the smaller countries should be allowed to rank their nominees, prior to submission, since they don't have sufficient diversity in their science community to have panel nominees for all the panels. This would maximise the representation of the smaller countries on the critical panels (SPC, iSSEP, ESSEP and SSP). Following lunch, Evans and Kingdon give a presentation on ESO (ECORD Science Operator), during which Kenter announces that he has withdrawn his membership from the European Petrophysics Consortium, as it would represent a conflict of interest. A colleague at the VU fills the position. Kingdon explicitly demonstrates that the number of offshore participants on the Arctic MSP drill will be limited to approximately 10, since the majority of the science will be conducted retrospectively onshore. McKenzie proposes that for bio-chemical analysis, the lag-time between core acquisition and analysis should be kept to an absolute minimum. This action is particularly important for investigation into the status of the bacterial assemblages. McKenzie asks if it possible to conduct pore-water geochemical analysis on the support vessel Oden? In theory this should not be a problem, Evans agrees, but some thought will have to be given to the logistics. Kenter asks how the ESSAC delegates can become involved in the decision making process? Evans explains that ESSAC should be represented in the numerous upcoming, planning meetings. Following the presentation MacLeod, draws the delegates attention to the suite of emails that have been circulated regarding costs for the Arctic Scoping Group and for the large part, their confidentiality at this stage. Evans adds that an complete breakdown of the costs is provided in ESO's IODP program Plan 2004. Kudraß takes the opportunity to congratulate the ESO group for staying committed to the Arctic proposal and seeing it through to this stage. MacLeod thanks Kudraß and asks at what point we will know that the Arctic can be considered an absolute definite for drilling? Evans says that this will be for certain once SCOP have given their approval. He outlines that at this stage there remains a slight financial shortfall, but contingency plans are in place in the UK to deal with this. Kingdon states that an early round of signatures on the MOU, would be of great comfort to NERC. Rounding off the


conversation, Kenter asks if the ESSAC community can have a copy of the Evans's PowerPoint presentation, once sensitive information such as the ships names have been deleted. This is agreed. Evans hands the floor to Kingdon who continues with the ESO presentation by outlining the key points to IODP staffing, namely; No centralized IODP staffing structure has yet been agreed, but there is consensus that one is required. J-DESC (equivalent to the Japanese ESSAC) however, have come up with a proposed staffing model but Kingdon identifies the major drawback to be the lack of resources allocated for its implementation. Additionally, ESO have produced an 'ESO preferred staffing system'. Kenter explains why ESCO was less flexib le than the US, UK and Germany with regard to staffing as it was a consortium of 12 smaller countries and predicts that ESSAC will operate in a similar fashion. Regarding the Arctic proposal, MacLeod wonders what can be done if it transpires that the members of the shore-based party are not meeting their tasks. He foresees that members of the party may be distracted and not work with the same degree of energy as if they were aboard a standard JR-type leg. Kingdon reminds the delegates that something equivalent to the ODP initial reports will be produced and this will place a deadline on the researchers, but acknowledges that the work should be treated in the same way as an offshore leg. Arnold adds that scientific output should be monitored by imposing rigorous deadlines for the publication of results. Kingdon feels that it is the responsibility of the national ESSAC offices to install in stark terms how they perceive their scientists to perform. Camerlenghi agrees, but feels that as is sometimes found with offshore science crews, non-performers will be identified in the shore-based party. Kenter aims to wrap up discussion and proposes ESO come up with a set of recommendations, ready for discussion at the next meeting. As a last point, Kingdon stresses that the real privilege is to be part of the shore-based science party and participation comes with the associated privileges and obligations outlined under the IODP principles. Kenter thanks Kingdon for his presentation and suggests that we direct discussion onto staffing, as this will take considerable time and without delay, turns the floor to Schorno.

Item 9 Update from JEODI TN Work Package Groups

Kenter explains that the JEODI report is in progress and will be delivered on 15th December 2003 at the ECORD MOU signing ceremony, followed on the 16th by the inaugural meeting of ERA_NET. No further discussion followed.

Item 10 News on IODP Science Steering & Evaluation Panel Activities

Kenter invites Camoin to give his presentation summarising the outcome of the last iSSEP's meeting in Niigata - Japan. Camoin begins by explaining that the meeting was purely electronic, which can at best be described as inefficient! In summary of the 26 proposals discussed, 14 were revised, 6 were full- and 6 pre-proposals. Of these, 18 were sent back to the proponents for revision, 2 were accepted but not sent for external review, 3 were sent for external review and 2 were forwarded to IPC. Camoin highlights the next SSEP's meeting will be in Granada, Spain, 24-27th May 2004. Of the 109 active proposals, 62 have ECORD participation (27 ECORD first proponents), 65 with ECORD and/or Canadian participation (31 ECORD or Canadian first proponents). Evans, asks Camoin approximately how many proposals would be suitable as MSP's? Camoin believes out of the 109 active proposals, approximately 10 would be MSP compatible. Additionally he perceives that 3 pre-proposals may have MSP potential. Kenter thanks Camoin for his presentation and following no further questions, suggests that the first day of the meeting should be adjourned.

Item 11 News on IODP Service Panels Activities

Mevel comments on Camerlenghi remark that all guarantees on individual country contributions are received and the signing of the agreement will take place early December. The CNRS will perform, after the signing, as the general banker and will have to receive the guaranteed country contribution before June 2004. Mevel continues that organization of Mission Specific Platforms will run through ESO.


Kenter opens discussion on how ESSAC can active stimulate scientist of member countries to apply for future IODP activities and write proposals for future legs. Ildefonse proposes an ECORD mailing list. Kudraß finds that the distribution should take place via the national delegates. Arnold thinks it will be efficient to make an internet link that contains all the information. Kenter agrees and aims to wrap up the discussion and proposes to use the national delegates promote applications and new ESSAC developments in their respective countries. Furthermore ESSAC will make a pro-active website for this purpose with contains all the necessary forms and information. Ildefonse opens the discussion on maintaining continuity in the panels and proposes a rotation system where no more than 1/3 of the panel members are replaced at once. Camoin and Kenter agree that maintaining knowledge in the panels is necessary. Mevel states that the deadline for panel nomination is 28 November 2003.

Item 12 News on IODP Scoping Activities (Dan Evans)

Kenter explains the item is discussed under item 7, in the presentation of Evans and Kindon.

Item 13 News on IMI Inc. Activities and ECORD member memberships

Kenter initiates the item with the following lines from the enclosure 13A: “SPPOC is committee created by SciMP…” Kenter explains that it is ESSAC's task to give the ECORD council our nominees for SPPOC members. McKenzie stresses that it should be a scientist which holds a senior position at an oceanographic institution. Kudraß advices SPPOC member nominees should have an ODP background. Kingdon states that it has to be the ECORD council problem. Mevel comments that the SPPOC nominee deadline will be within 3 weeks, than the ECORD council will discuss the matter. Following this explanation, Kenter requests nominations for SPPOC (preferably persons who will be able to attend the upcoming meeting in December): Kudraß nominees for Germany are Gerald Wefer and Jörn Thiede; McLeod nominates Dave Falvey (for one year only; no additional UK nominee available, yet); Kenter nominates McKenzie; Camoin nominees for France are (Prof, Paris/Villefranche sur mer; president of "commission Geosciences Marines") and Yves Lagabrielle (DR CNRS/Montpellier; Chairman of GDR Marges); Pedersen nominees for Norwegian is Olaf Eldholm; Arnold nominees for Sweden is Jan Backman; Camerlenghi nominees for Italy is Iginio Marson. Additional information on these nominees, a short CV (0.5 A4) and addresses, is expected by e-mail. Also, new SPPOC nominees can be submitted to ESSAC. Kenter will submit nominees to the ECORD council for approval.

Item 14 ESSAC support for the IODP Conference in Greece (scheduled for March 2004)

Kenter describes Sakellariou’s request for ESSAC supports to promote a workshop for the IODP conference in Greece. Sakellariou has requested the Greek government to join ECORD. There is general support for ESSAC assisting Sakellariou with support in organizing and contributing to the Greek conference.

Item 15 ESSAC support for the European Ocean-Drilling Community Meeting, 17-19 March 2004, Bremen University, Germany (Hermann Kudraß, Encl.)

Kenter invites Kudraß to introduce the item due to his involvement in the organisation of the European Ocean-Drilling Community Meeting. Kudraß thinks that the meeting can be a good opportunity for ECORD, ESSAC and EMA to introduce themselves to the European Ocean-Drilling community and have an ESSAC meeting. The meeting will have the following themes: sub-seafloor oceans, gas hydrates, paleo-environments and cycles. McKenzie comments top scientists like Bo Barker and Siprianca will be in Germany during the Community Meeting. They can be invited to give a lecture. Kenter and Kudraß will together set up the program in Bremen between 12-15 December to get ESSAC actively involved in the Community Meeting. The program will be forwarded to the


ESSAC delegates. MacLeod proposes to set up a proposal writing workshop to stimulate and improve proposal writing. Camoin states time should be left to allow people to meet, discuss and to get them involved. Mevel notes no overlap is required between the workshops and the proposed ESSAC meeting. Arnold and Kingdon will get involved in setting up a proposal writing workshop. Ildefonse raises points concerning the workshop; the communication and the funding. Evans proposes ESSAC should be responsible for the European Ocean-Drilling Community meeting, but should it be called an ESSAC meeting? Kingdon agrees and emphasizes ESSAC and ECORD should mark the meeting. Kudraß comments both communities IODP and ICP should be stated in the title due to sponsor commitments. After some discussion the delegates agree on the following title of the meeting: “IOPD and ICP EuroForum 2004” with the sub-title “Organized by ECORD and hosted by the university of Bremen”. Kudraß comments the university of Bremen has a website for the meeting.

Item 16 ESSAC Business various (Encl.)

Kenter and Macleod request an approval to extend the appointment for ESSAC Chair and Vice-Chair to 2 years. Kenter explains it is hard to find a science coordinator for a period of 1 year. Ildefonse agrees and states that it will be better for the continuity and more can be achieved. Arnold and Mevel point out Vice Chair have to become Chair after the 2 years period for the continuity. Gillis comments on the long commitment period that has to be made. Mevel agrees and asks MacLeod about the 4 year commitment? MacLeod answers he has to be released of teaching and that will be no problem. McKenzie states that the Science Coordinator can reduce the work load. Kenter and MacLeod agree but respond that research may not suffer. Kenter continues that compensation should come from the national science foundation and/or faculty country but reminds the delegates that the Dutch Science Foundation is already supporting the ESSAC Office with funding of 60 kEuro and it cannot be expected to add compensation as well. Kenter and MacLeod leave the room to give the other delegates an opportunity discussing the proposed extension. McKenzie opens discussion and states it will be good if they are willing to commit themselves. Gilles wants to know how the current chairs were selected? McKenzie and Ildefonse answer selection took place during the last meeting. Ildefonse aims to wrap the discussion and asks if there is consensus? The delegates all agree. Kenter and MacLeod re-enter the room and Kenter concludes MacLeod will take over the Chair October 2005 and the search for his Science Coordinator will be done in consultation with the ECORD council.

Item 16C Liaisons to USSAC and J-DESC, ECORD Council (Empty)

Kenter concludes ESSAC will have no liaisons with USSAC and J-DESC.

Item 16D Letters of support by ESSAC and J-DESC to JOI application managing USSSP-IODP (Encl.)

Kenter states ESSAC supports the application and ESSAC would seek similar LoS when needed from J-DESC and JOI.

Item 16E ESSAC input requested on the issue of publications – letter by the Chair of the Publications Subcommittee of the Science Planning Committee (SPC) of IODP, Ken Miller (Encl.)

Kenter lets McKenzie initiate the discussion on Ken Miller’s letter. McKenzie puts it to the meeting if there should be an ODP journal and Special Publications on legs. Barriga comments the ODP quality research can be recognized with a journal and will have the needed citation index. Mevel states the problem of publication is discussed in the past and decided people could publish in all places, for the reason that special issues are not being read. McKenzie opposes the question if there is need for a new journal and should it be electronic or paper copy. Kenter aims to wrap up the discussion and proposes a working group consisting of McKenzie, MacLeod, Kudraß, Ildefonse and Camerlenghi, they will


provide a draft report summarizing arguments for out-sourcing the publication of ODP material as discussed in the letter of Ken Miller (Encl. 16E). Deadline for the report is December 24th.

Item 16F Minutes of the U.S. Science Advisory Committee Meeting (USSAC), Hamilton, Bermuda, July 9-11, 2003 (Encl.)

Kenter advises that the enclosure contains all necessary information.

Item 16G Minutes of J-DESC – http://www.aesto.or.jp/j-desc/index.html (Empty)

Kenter contacted J-DESC because available minutes and website were in Japanese. ESSAC anticipates that J-DESC will make an effort to provide English translations of their meetings in the future.

16H ECORD (EMA or ERA Network) support for ESSAC (one per year?) and SAS panel meetings in ECORD countries (Empty)

Kenter initiates the discussion national support is needed, because there is no support from ECORD. Mevel will mention it next meeting, as Kenter thinks J-DESK and USSAC have arranged their panel support better. Camoin states ESSAC will need support for organising workshops like USSAC; their workshops are going very well. Camoin continues bringing scientists together to write proposals will be very effective, as they never will submit one alone and it will give them the possibility working together with skilled proposals writers. Mevel agrees, but states ESSAC should actively seek out support, otherwise the workshops will be unnecessary postponed. Kenter wraps up and asks Mevel to request advice from the ECORD Council on how ESSAC can obtain financial support for the organisation of workshops.

16I ESSAC input requested to JOI/USSAC “U.S. IODP Education Workshop” and student trainee program (www.joiscience.org/USSSP/Ed_Wksp/Ed_Wksp.html) (Encl.)

Kenter invites Arnold to introduce the item. Arnold summarises the goals of the U.S. IODP Education Workshop, they looked how many people are needed for the development of education material to give the non-ODP world inside what ODP does for science. The primary results consisted of lectures and courses provided by scientists and special teachers programs. The conclusions on the student trainee program were positive and will be continued, but will not be available for every leg. Kingdon comments on the complications on offshore possibilities for students. Mevel stresses problems will be inevitable, implementing one educational program to the different educational systems throughout Europe. Kenter wraps up and proposes a working group consisting of Arnold, Kingdon and Mevel, they will provide a brief summary of how they envisage the ODP system to be promoted amongst students. Deadline for the report is December 24th.

Item 16J ESSAC/ECORD speaker requested at the IODP Town meeting at the Fall AGU meeting in San Francisco, December 8 (Encl.)

Kenter accepts Mevel willing to take up the responsibility of providing a talk on ECORD at the IODP Town meeting at AGU.

Item 17 ESSAC Communication and PR (Encl.)

Kenter states that the ESSAC website (http://www.geo.vu.nl/~essac/) is being modified and asks for advice what it should contain. Ildefonse stresses the importance of a simple accessible and adjustable website and proposes not to work with the Xdrive FTP system. Kenter response the problem with Xdrive is due to firewall settings and asks for advice on other FTP option. Ildefonse has found another FTP option and will discuss it with Van Lanen. Strand states there should be links to the national ODP


related sites. Kenter wraps up and states there should be one general ECORD website, as for the time being ESSAC will create their own. Kenter opens discussion on the need of a newsletter. Ildefonse proposes to make a simple electronic newsletter that people can subscribe to. Mevel stresses the need of one uniform newsletter from ECORD. Kingdon replies that the ECORD Council should discuss a general structure of the newsletter that the national offices can copy to preserve a similar style. Kenter proposes a working group consisting of Mevel, Kingdon and Ildefonse, WG on ECORD Newsletter, they will provide a brief investigation into the need and publishing medium of an ECORD newsletter, cc communications to ESSAC, and report before years end.

Item 17C ESSAC Distinguished Lecturer Series (like USSAC) (Empty) (check http://oceandrilling.coe.tamu.edu/curriculum_modules/)

Kenter states it will be good for us and overall not that expensive to send ESSAC lecture delegates over Europe, but funding will be needed. It is agreed that the initiative should be started once funding is in place. Mevel will discuss the matter in the ECORD Council.

Item 17D PECVI, SciMP (geochemistry) questionnaires (Encl.)

Kenter stresses the disappointing response from the ESCO community. Macleod adds Susan Humphries visited Europe to get more support.

Item 17E Activities related to the celebration of the start of ECORD/IODP

Mevel explains that no concrete plans are made, the signing date is not known and ESSAC will be updated when information is available.

Item 18 ESSAC support to ESO Lomonosov Ridge (proposal #533, forwarded and South Pacific Sea Level (IODP proposal #519, ranked #1) ) planning (Andy Kindon, Empty)

Discussed under Item 7

Item 19 ODP Legacy documents: Achievements and Opportunities of Scientific Ocean Drilling (http://joides.rsmas.miami.edu/legacy/) and ODP Highlights (http://joides.rsmas.miami.edu/files/ODP_Highlights.pdf) (Empty)

Kenter mentions the websites and advises the delegates to check out the content.

Item 21 Upcoming Meetings List of relevant upcoming meetings (Encl.)

• Second ESSAC (staffing) meeting is tentatively planned for January 23rd 2004 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands (for convenience).

• The third ESSAC meeting is scheduled for March 15th 2004, pending further discussion. Enclosures:

- Updated list of ECORD Council delegates and alternates - Reply to John Farrell, concerning ESSAC view on staffing procedures

Draft minutes of the 2nd ESSAC Meeting in Bremen, 16-17 March 2004; Page 1 of 16

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE 2ND ESSAC MEETING IN BREMEN, 16-17 MARCH 2004

General remarks: The agenda was too heavy to manage during the one day meeting. As a result,only a limited number of items were discussed among which the staffing of the North Atlanticas well as the nominations for the SAS panel structure. Other items were just discussed brieflyand most were deferred to the next ESSAC Meeting (Aix en Provence, September 23 th -26th

2004). These minutes not only cover the discussions during the meeting in Bremen but werealso updated with more recent developments. Finally, since staffing for FY04 and FY05 willcontinue through the next months we will soon brief you on the staffing deadlines for severaldrilling projects. We will have to deal with these electronically as we did with those for ACEX.

Furthermore, the latest non-riser expedition schedule is enclosed (ESSAC2MinEncl08A) and shows an APL has been scheduled that provides a berth for ONE ECORDscientist. ECORD may send one scientist to participate in this operation and the JOI/Allianceneeds the nomination by the Friday, April 23! Please, make sure to submit nominations to theESSAC Office before or on Thursday April 22.

Finally, OPCOM decided (and SPC recommended) that North Atlantic and CoreComplex cruises be considered as single science parties, respectively. This implies thatESSAC will submit nominations for both Core Complex 1&2 in one batch. I am waiting fornews on the (final) deadline for North Atlantic 2 nominations.

Location: DFG Research Center for Ocean Margins, Universität Bremen, Bremen, room3020 (geology building; see www.uni-bremen.de/uniplan or http://www.rcom-bremen.de/English/IODPICDP_2004.html

Date, Time Tuesday, March 16th, 09:00 to 18:00 and Wednesday, March 17th, 18.00 to18.45 (*present delegates)

Present:

Hans Brumsack*, delegate of Germany

Kathryn Gillis*, alternate of Canada

Angelo Camerlenghi, delegate of Italy

Gilbert Camoin*, delegate of France

Benoit Ildefonse*, alternate of France

Menchu Comas*, delegate of Spain

Kari Strand, delegate of Finland

Fernando J.A.S. Barriga, alternate of Portugal

Helmut Weissert*, alternate of Switzerland

Eve Arnold, delegate of Sweden

Rolf Pederson, delegate of Norway

Bryndis Brandsdottir*, alternate of Iceland

Jeroen Kenter*, ESSAC chair and delegate of The Netherlands

Chris MacLeod*, ESSAC co-chair and delegate of Unite Kingdom

Valentina Zampetti*, ESSAC science coordinator

Invited observers:

Herman-Rudolf Kudraß (Germany)

Catherine Mevel (EMA-France)

Patricia Maruejol (EMA-France)

Dan Evans (ESO-UK)

Andy Kingdon (UK)


Item 1 Opening remarks by Jeroen Kenter and Chris MacLeod

Kenter and MacLeod welcome the delegates to both Bremen and the second ESSAC meeting. Themeeting starts with a round-the-table introduction of those present and the new science coordinatorValentina Zampetti. Kenter communicates that the ESSAC office will be fully active by May 1st

2004.

Item 2 Adoption of the Draft Agenda

2a Draft agenda 1st ESSAC Meeting (ESSAC2Min Encl01).

The draft agenda is approved.

Item 3 Minutes from previous ESSAC Meetings

3a ESSAC Meeting, 14-15 November 2003, Amsterdam

No comments are returned. However, Kenter suggests handling the discussion of the minutes fromthe previous ESSAC Meetings via e-mail.

Item 4 Minutes from previous ECORD Council meetings

4a ECORD Council meeting, 15 December, Paris

Mevel reports that ECORD is officially established, Spain officially joined and Greece is willing tojoin. However, Belgium, Ireland and Canada are still in doubt. Gillis replies that Canada hopes tohave the final decision in two weeks. [note IODP membership was recently funded for a one yearperiod only].

4b Draft memorandum of understanding between ECORD member countries – update

Mevel reports that the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) is finalized and that this evening theofficial ceremony will be held, marking the formal incorporation of ECORD into IODP. However,Mevel specifies that Spain is not yet included in the ECORD partners listed in the MOU, because itwas not able to join in time, the partner list will be updated soon.

Item 5 ESSAC Science Party Staffing

5a IODP non-riser drilling science summaries and updated schedule

Kenter shows the table summarizing the IODOP operations (see old enclosure 5). He suggests tolabel the operations using a specific code and to record it on the ECORD/ESSAC websites. Mevelhighlights that in Paris, it was decided that a specific code for each platform will be used.

5B Invitations for Juan de Fuca (#545) and ACEX (#533)

Kenter explains that the staffing is now complete for ACEX and that the scientists for Juan de Fucahave been selected and the invitations will be mailed. He acknowledges that Nielsen’s applicationwas not considered because it was not received in time by the JOI-Alliance, the non-riserimplementation organization (IO). Brumsack communicates that 3 German scientists will participatein Juan de Fuca. He points out the low number of applications and suggests that the delegates


encourage scientist participation. Arnold indicates that the ESCO system applications also used tobe limited. Gillis wonders what pressure will be exercised by Japan and the U.S. in the ranking ofthe nominations. Evans replies that the U.S. will be allocated 14 berths and Japan 9. Kenterstresses that Juan de Fuca has too few participants. Barriga suggests filling the empty positionswith scientists from the smaller countries that have been not selected because of quota balancing.Gillis points out that ECORD has a surplus of 2 scientists in ACEX; therefore it is expected to forfeit2 berths in the subsequent operations. MacLeod and Barriga propose that nationality, andtherefore quota balancing, is not to be taken into account in the case of substitutes. Kenter agrees,stressing that in case of substitutive scientists, this will not influence the country quota. Brumsackrequires a clear rule and statement. Kenter responds that the staffing strategy has to be flexible,but that the decision has to go via the ESSAC community. Ildefonse raises the issue of on-shorescientists; he highlights that on-shore scientists apply almost exclusively for samples. Therefore,Kenter proposes to make the sample request form available on the ECORD-ESSAC websites. Headds that the availability of samples for the science community will not create conflicting situationsbecause the scientists directly involved in the operations can benefit from the 1 year moratoriumperiod. Comas and Ildefonse conclude by suggesting a clear regulation for sample requestsrecorded on the ESSAC-ECORD websites.

ECORD Science Party Invitations IODP Expedition Juan de Fuca

Name First Country (work) Nationality Date of appl Field of ExpertiseRemark

s

1 Bartetzko* Anne Germany Germany 08/01/2004Logging scientist;petrophysics; downholemeasurements

2 Coggon* Rosalind United KingdomUnitedKingdom

12/01/2004Petrologist;metamorphicpetrologist

3 Dumont* Marion Sweden France 18/02/2004 Organic Geochemist

4 Engelen* Bert Germany Germany 08/01/2004 Microbiologist

5 Heuer* Verena Germany Germany 08/01/2004Inorganic/organicgeochemist; hydrologist

6 Steinsbu* Bjoern Olav Norway Norway 03/02/2004 Microbiologist

ECORD Science Party invitations IODP Expedition ACEX


1 Brinkhuis Henk Netherlands Netherlands 03/10/2003Paleontologist(Dinoflagellates)

2 Eynaud Frédérique France France 22/01/2004 Paleontologist(Dinoflagellate)/(Foraminifer - Planktonic)

3 Gattacceca Jerome France France 19/01/2004

Geophysicist;paleomagnetist;stratigraphic correlator;structural geologist

4 Jakobsson Martin Sweden Sweden 19/01/2004

Geophysicist; PhysicalProperties Specialist;Geospatial Databaseand Geoscientific DataIntegration Expert

5 Kaminski Michael United Kingdom USA 15/01/2004

Paleontologist(Foraminifer -Benthic)/(Foraminifer -Planktonic)

6 Koc Nalan Norway Turkey 19/01/2004Paleontologist(Diatoms)

7 MatthiessenJensJurgen

Germany Germany 08/01/2004Paleontologist(Dinoflagellate);sedimentologist

8 Pälike Heiko United Kingdom Germany 25/11/2003

Hydrologist;Oceanographer;Physical PropertiesSpecialist;Sedimentologist;Stratigrapic Correlator

9 Rio Domenico Italy Italy 18/01/2004Paleontologist(Nannofossil);Sedimentologist

10 Stein Ruediger Germany Germany 08/01/2004Sedimentologist;organic geochemist

11 Jenkins Hugh United KingdomUnitedKingdom

16/01/2004Sedimentologist;paleoceanographer

(1)

Notes: 1) Shore-based when basement reached only when basement reached only; 2) In bold shipboard and shore based

Science Party members

Kenter shows the tables for the ACEX and Juan de Fuca nominations and explains, the temporarilyconsequences for the ECORD staffing balance.

5C ECORD staffing balance IODP Phase I (Raymond Schorno, Encl.)

Kenter summarizes the staffing balance up to and including the Juan de Fuca invitations andprovides the delegates with an Excel spreadsheet that allows the user to “compare” the staffingwith the funding ratios (ESSAC2Min Encl02).

5D IODP staffing balance IODP Phase I

No data provided. Will be provided at a later stage by IODP MI.

5E ECORD Applications for North Atlantic 1&2 (#572) and Core Complex 1&2 (#512)


ECORD Applications IODP Expeditions North Atlantic 1 & 2 - version 4.7 March 11 2004)

Name Firstcountry

workNationality Applic.date Field of expertise Oper.

1 BartoliGrettaLinda

Germany France 08/01/2004

Biologist, Paleontologist(Foraminifer - Planktonic),Sedimentologist, StratigrapicCorrelator

NA 1

2 ClarkeLeonJohn

UnitedKingdom

UnitedKingdom

28/02/2004

Inorganic Geochemist, PhysicalProperties Specialist,Sedimentologist, StratigraphicCorrelator

NA 1&2

3 Cleroux Caroline France France 20/02/2004 Sedimentologist NA 1

4 De Abreu LuciaUnited

KingdomPortugal 09/03/2004

Paleontologist (Foraminifer -Planktonic), Sedimentologist,Physical Properties Specialist

NA 1

5 de Vernal Anne Canada Canada 03/12/2003Paleontologist (Dinoflagellate),Palynologist

NA 1

6Dinares-

TurellJaume Italy Spain 13/01/2004

Logging Scientist,Paleomagnetist, DownholeMeasurements

NA 1

7 Esmerode Estela Denmark Spain 03/03/2004Geophysicist, Oceanographer,Sedimentologist NA 1

8 Ferretti PatriziaUnited

KingdomItaly 03/10/2004

Physical Properties Specialist,Sedimentologist

NA 1&2

9 Frenz Michael Germany Germany 16/01/2004 Sedimentologist NA 1

10 Gruetzner Jens Germany Germany 28/01/2004Physical Properties Specialist;Stratigrapic Correlator

NA 2

11 GuyodoYohanJean

BernardFrance France 23/02/2004 Paleomagnetist NA 2

12 HefterJens

NorbertGermany Germany 26/01/2004 Organic geochemist NA 2

13 Hoogakker BabetteUnited

KingdomNetherlands 10/03/2004

Paleontologist (Foraminifer -Planktonic), Sedimentologist

NA 1&2

14 Keller ChristinaSwitzerlan

dSwitzerland 07/11/2003 NA 1&2

15 Kuhlmann Holger Germany Germany 16/02/2004Sedimentologist, PhysicalProperties Specialist NA 1

16 Lanci Luca Italy Italy 05/02/2004 Paleomagnetist NA 1

17 Leigh SashaUnited

KingdomUnited

Kingdom10/03/2004 Sedimentologist NA 1

18 Maiorano Patrizia Italy Italy 30/01/2004 Paleontologist (Nannofossil) NA 1

19 Mazaud Alain France France 05/12/2003Paleomagnetist, PhysicalProperties Specialist NA 1

20 Nielsen Simon Denmark Danish???? 05/03/2004

Logging Scientist, Paleontologist(Diatom), Paleontologist(Megafossil), Sedimentologist,Stratigrapic Correlator

NA 1&2

21 Riisager Peter Sweden Denmark 12/03/2004 Paleomagnetist NA 1

22 RomeroOscarEnrice Germany Argentina 05/02/2004

Oceanograph, Paleontologist(diatm & Silicofl) biologist NA 1

23 Schiebel RalfSwitzerlan

dSwitzerland 30/10/2003

Paleontologist (Foraminifer -Benthic), Paleontologist(Foraminifer - Planktonic)

NA 1

24 SierroFrancisco Javier

Spain Spain 16/01/2004Paleontologist (Foraminifer -Planktonic)

NA 1&2

25 St-OngeGuillaum

eCanada

Canada&France

23/12/2003Paleomagnetist, PhysicalProperties Specialist,Sedimentologist

NA 1

26 Voelker Antje Portugal Germany 29/12/2003Paleontologist (Foraminifer -Planktonic), Sedimentologist NA 1

27 Wastegård Stefan Sweden Sweden 10/03/2004Stratigraphic Correlator(tephrochronology) NA 2

28 Wienberg Claudia Germany Germany 05/02/2004Physiccal properties specialistand Sedimentologist

NA 1

ECORD Applications IODP Expeditions CoreComplex 1 & 2 - version 5.0 April 1 2004)


Name Firstcountry

workNationality Applic.date Field of expertise

Oper.

1 Andreani Muriel France France 21/01/2004Metamorphic Petrologist,

Structural GeologistCC 1&2

2 Ball PhilipUnitedKingdom

UnitedKingdom

04/03/2004

Geophysicist, StructuralGeologist (both key areas),

Petroleum Geologist, PhysicalProperties Specialist, Downhole

Measurements

CC 1&2; alsoProposal 543,

Installation of aCORK in Hole 642E

3 Brunelli Daniele France Italy 26/12/2003gneous Petrologist, Inorganic

GeochemistCC1or2

4 Bullock AndrewUnitedKingdom

UnitedKingdom

09/03/2004Geophysicist, Physical Properties

SpecialistCC 1&2

5 Delacour AdélieSwitzerland

France 12/11/2003norganic Geochemist, (igneous &

metamorphic) Petrologist,Structural Geologist

CC 1&2

6 Escartin Javier France Spain 09/12/2003 not listed CC 2

7 GardienVéronique

France France 10/03/2004Petrologist, Igneous Petrologist,

Metamorphic PetrologistCC 1&2

8 GodardMarguerite

France Australia 12/02/2004Igneous Petrologist, Inorganic

GeochemistCC 1&2

9 Hellebrand Erik Germany Netherlands 01/02/2004 Igneous Petrologist CC 1

10 Ildefonse Benoit France France 09/01/2004Logging Scientist, Physical

Properties Specialist, StructuralGeologist

CC 1&2

11 Jovanovic Zoran AustriaSerbia andMontenegro

29/03/2004Petrologist, Igneous Petrologist CC 1&2

12 McCaig AndrewUnitedKingdom

UnitedKingdom

12/03/2004Metamorphic Petrologist,

Structural GeologistCC 1&2

13 Morris AntonyUnitedKingdom

UnitedKingdom

04/03/2004Paleomagnetist CC 1

14 Searle RogerUnitedKingdom

UnitedKingdom


SpecialistCC 1 alternatively

2

15 SeylerMonique

France France 09/01/2004(Igneous&Metamorphic)

Petrologist,CC 1&2

16 SuhrGuenterRobert

Germany Germany 29/03/2004Petrologist, Structural Geologist CC 1 alternatively

2

17von derHandt

Anette Germany Germany (Igneous) Petrologist CC 1 alternatively

2

18 Ball PhilipUnitedKingdom

UnitedKingdom

04/03/2004

Geophysicist, StructuralGeologist (both key areas),Petroleum Geologist, PhysicalProperties Specialist, DownholeMeasurements

CC 1&2; alsoProposal 543,

Installation of aCORK in Hole 642E

19 Brunelli Daniele France Italy 26/12/2003Igneous Petrologist, Inorganic

GeochemistCC1or2

20 Bullock AndrewUnitedKingdom

UnitedKingdom


SpecialistCC 1&2


5F ECORD Nominations for North Atlantic 1&2 (#572) and Core Complex 1&2 (#512)

MacLeod lists the British applications for North Atlantic 1 & 2. Many participants did not specifywhich of the two North Atlantic operations they want to participate. According to MacLeod this isdue to the imprecise proposal descriptions. He expects that this might generate problems for theranking of both ESSAC nomination and the expertise of the applying scientists. He believes thatmore consistent and accurate descriptions of the operations need to be provided and recorded onthe ESSAC-ECORD websites. Arnold proposes to identify the nominations on scientific skills.MacLeod points out that not all the scientists will be available at the time of a specific operation;therefore it is necessary to pay attention to “time-availability”. Kenter shows the table of theapplicants for North Atlantic 1 & 2 suggesting the examination of each candidate. Because of thetime schedules for the operations, Kenter proposes to finalize the list for North Atlantic 1 and toleave the applications open for North Atlantic 2 and Core Complex 1 & 2 untill April 16th 2004.Consensus is returned, however Brumsack stresses the necessity to provide a list of the mostsuitable candidates based on scientific expertise. Kenter reminds the community that the balancingof quota needs to be respected as much as possible. Camoin wonders whether it is more efficientto list all the received applications or just the nominations selected by the countries. MacLeodresponds that a transparent strategy is to show all the applications but, at the same time, toindicate the preferences. Gillis believes that it will be more effective to work directly with theselected nominations for each country. MacLeod promotes to involve also young and less knownscientists in the operations. Ildefonse and Mevel recommend not nominating many scientists withthe same field of expertise. MacLeod proposes to proceed with the nomination ranking by creatingtwo distinct lists for North Atlantic 1 and North Atlantic 2. Holm is concerned about Master and PhDstudents’ applications; Gillis is in favor for them applying. Ildefonse stresses that studentapplications need to be regulated. Participation of students needs to be encouraged, but ESSACmust require a document which states that a particular student is connected to a scientific structure(e.g. laboratory) which can guarantee scientific research and results. Kenter suggests involvingstudents particularly in “low-pressure” expeditions. Arnold proposes to develop a policy foreducation on the ships for master students and teachers. Arnold and Kenter propose to discussthis topic under items 13B and 13C (education) and remind that science is the first priority. Kenterstarts the ranking for North Atlantic nominations. Brumsack proposes to give more nominationsthan required, relying on the co-chiefs for the final decision. Mevel stresses that if there are toomany candidates, smaller countries might encounter problems for nominations. Camoin believesthat this would complicate the ranking and proposes ESSAC to filter the applications. Ildefonsesuggests to list all of the received applications and to mark those selected using a “star-scale”system. Kenter states that participation for applicants belonging to the smaller countries will beguaranteed. Camerlenghi communicates that Italy will not contribute to the North Atlanticoperations. Ildefonse proposes that the smaller countries with no scientists participating in theACEX need to have preference in the ranking for the North Atlantic operations.

Consensus is returned regarding the decision to list all the applications and “star” the ESSACselected nominations. The starred applicants from the smaller countries in one of the North Atlanticoperations will be considered as a low priority for the other North Atlantic operation.


ECORD Nominations IODP Expedition North Atlantic

Name Firstcountry

workNationality Applic.date Field of expertise Oper.

1 BartoliGrettaLinda

Germany France 08/01/2004

Biologist, Paleontologist(Foraminifer - Planktonic),Sedimentologist, StratigrapicCorrelator

NA 1

2 ClarkeLeonJohn

UnitedKingdom

UnitedKingdom

28/02/2004

Inorganic Geochemist ,P h y s i c a l P r o p e r t i e sSpecialist, Sedimentologist,Stratigraphic Correlator

NA 1&2

3 De Abreu LuciaUnitedKingdom

Portugal 09/03/2004

Paleontologist (Foraminifer -Planktonic),Sedimentologist, PhysicalProperties Specialist

NA 1

4 de Vernal Anne Canada Canada 03/12/2003Paleontologist(Dinoflagellate), Palynologist

NA 1

5Dinares-Turell

Jaume Italy Spain 13/01/2004L o g g i n g S c i e n t i s t ,Paleomagnetist, DownholeMeasurements

NA 1

6 Esmerode Estela Denmark Spain 03/03/2004Geophysicist,Oceanographer,Sedimentologist

NA 1

7 Ferretti PatriziaUnitedKingdom

Italy 03/10/2004P h y s i c a l P r o p e r t i e sSpecialist, Sedimentologist

NA 1&2

8 Frenz Michael Germany Germany 16/01/2004 Sedimentologist NA 1

9 Hoogakker BabetteUnitedKingdom

Netherlands 10/03/2004Paleontologist (Foraminifer -Planktonic), Sedimentologist

NA 1&2

10 Kuhlmann Holger Germany Germany 16/02/2004Sedimentologist, PhysicalProperties Specialist

NA 1

11Leigh Sasha United

KingdomUnitedKingdom

10/03/2004 Sedimentologist NA1

12 Mazaud Alain France France 05/12/2003Paleomagnetist, PhysicalProperties Specialist

NA 1

13 Riisager Peter Sweden Denmark 12/03/2004 Paleomagnetist NA 1

14 RomeroOscarEnrice

Germany Argentina 05/02/2004Oceanograph,Paleontologist (diatm &Silicofl) biologist

NA 1

15 Schiebel RalfSwitzerland

Switzerland 30/10/2003Paleontologist (Foraminifer -Benthic), Paleontologist(Foraminifer - Planktonic)

NA 1

16 SierroFrancisco Javier Spain Spain 16/01/2004

Paleontologist (Foraminifer -Planktonic) NA 1&2

Notes: ESSAC proposes 9 invitations to the IO: 5 from the UK/Germany/France and 4 from the remaining countries; * (here in bold)identify ESSAC preferences and require discussion when not invited.

Gillis stresses that Canada has a prior interest, as a national topic, for North Atlantic 1 and statesthat Canada needs to participate to the operation in order to be supported by its funding agency.Weissert replies that it is difficult to give priorities to countries that have a minor quota, and that theCanadian situation is even more complicated because it did not yet contribute. Kenter outlines thenominations for North Atlantic 1 with regards to the countries and specialties. He points out thesurplus of paleontologists, but Kudraß comments that many paleontologists are required asoceanography is the main topic of this operation.

5G ESSAC/USSAC/J-DESC discussion proposal for centralized Call for participation –update

No comments during meeting.

5H ECORD Invitations/Nominations for FY04-05 co-chiefs (Encl.)

ECORD-IODP Co-chief Invitations (as of 10 March 2004)


Name Country

Lomonosov Ridge (#533) – ACEX

Jan Backman Sweden

Core Complex I – Expedition Non-riser 3

Chris MacLeod UK

North Atlantic II – Expedition Non-riser 5

Rudiger Stein Germany

5I ESSAC Staffing: face-to-face vs. electronic and future staffing schedule (Empty)

No comments.

Item 6 ECORD delegates and alternates on the SAS panels

6A Mandates of SAS Panels (Encl.)

Kenter states not changes have, yet, been made (see enclosure).

6B ECORD members for ILP, SSP, and SPC (Encl.)

Kenter suggests that ITEMs 6B and –C need to be resolved this meeting because of the upcomingSPC meeting in Washington where ECORD nominations are expected. Gillis communicates that achange in the voting committee has been proposed. For each SAS panel, Japan and the U.S. havethe rights of 7 voting members, meanwhile ECORD may have 3 voting members and 1 non-votingmember. Kenter proposes that this rule is not taken into account for the upcoming meeting andalso to nominate the members on based on their expertise rather than nationality. In addition, it isagreed to nominate additional scientists as “permanent” alternates. Especially for SPC one of thoseshould attend the meetings to make sure that 4 member ECORD contingent is present at eachmeeting. Nominations for SPC, SSP and ILP were submitted last fall and are summarized below.

ECORD SAS Panel members - ILP

Name Nationality Period

Harry Doust Netherlands Oct03-Oct06

Philippe de Clarens France Feb04-Feb07

Heiko Möller Germany Feb04-Feb07

John Hogg Canada Oct03-Oct06

Alvaro Pinto** Portugal

Peter Jeans/Richard Davies** UK**permanent alternates

ECORD SAS Panel members - SSP



Marc-André Gutscher France Oct03-Oct06

Carlota Escutia Spain Feb04-Feb07

Soenke Neben Germany Feb04-Feb07

Roger Searle UK Feb04-Feb07

Holger Lykke-Andersen** Denmark

Luca Gasperini/MicheleRebesco**

Italy

**permanent alternates

ECORD SAS Panel members - SPC


Jeroen Kenter NL Oct03-Oct05

Chris MacLeod UK Oct03-Oct07

Benoit Ildefonse France Mar04-Mar07

Hans Brumsack Germany Mar04-Mar07

Kathy Gillis** Canada

Eve Arnold** Sweden

Jose Monteiro** Portugal


6C1 Nominations for PPSP, SSEPs, SciMP, OPCOM, TAP (Encl. old 6C)

The fall 2003 nominations that were communicated by e-mail will be reviewed again under ITEM6C2.

6C2 ECORD nominations (proposal) for PPSP, SSEPs, SciMP, OPCOM, TAP (Add Encl.)

Kenter proposes to nominate 4 names; MacLeod suggests 3 members as representatives of thebigger countries and 1 for the smaller ones. Kenter states that priority for these technical panelshas to be given on the basis expertise and not nationality. Camoin proposes to involve and rotateyoung scientists in the panels, and to inform the alternates with the ongoing discussions in thepanels. He finds it necessary that the alternates receive the official minutes (confidential proposalexcluded) of the meetings. Kenter proposes not to charge the alternate position held by Gillis toCanada’s quota. Gillis suggests providing clear rules for charging in alternates to country quotas.MacLeod believes that it is necessary to have a rose of rotating alternates in case of conflictingsituations for proposal ranking. Kenter concludes by asserting that one (or more) permanentalternate will be nominated for each panel, the alternate positions will not be charged to the quotaof the country and a substitute will be nominated if necessary. Gillis asks if Canada may be treatedas an official member, even if it did not officially sign [Note: Canada recently got funded for oneyear period].

Kenter and MacLeod close the meeting and propose to convene again tomorrow, March 17th,at 18.00. Consensus is returned.

17th March:

Kenter shows the table for ECORD 2003-2007. He proposes Arnold and Gillis as permanentalternates. He outlines the rotation of alternates will only involve the smaller countries. Brumsackproposes to start the rotation in March 2004 in order to avoid rotation in all the technical panels,simultaneously. Kenter agrees. He also guarantees that the ESSAC office will check whether theofficial delegates can attend the panel meetings and in the case of non-attendance it will provide areplacing alternate. Consensus is returned for the SAS panel nominations.


The nominations were submitted during the SPC meeting in Washington (25 March) for the reasonthat it was decided to query the membership ratio and number for the service panels. It turned outthat SPC supports flexibility and leave sit up to the co-chairs to invite additional scientists from US,Japan and/or ECORD. The notes below were included with the nominations:

General remarks: 1) Canadian members provisionally until funding decision (end March at thelatest); 2) * Chair and Vice-Chair; 3) ** Permanent alternates and/or additional members if selectedby (co-)chairs - we assume that invitations by the (co-)chair(s) will follow the flexibility towards the7/7/3+1 membership ratio as worded in the consensus motion by SPC in Washington on March 252004. CVs missing for Peter Jeans and Richard Davies (ILP)

ECORD SAS Panel members nominations - PPSP


Jean Mascle France Oct03-Oct06

Dieter Strack Germany Oct03-Oct06

Bramley Murton UK Jun04-Jun07

Martin Hovland Norway Oct03-Oct06

Neil DeSilva** Canada


ECORD SAS Panel members nominations – ESSEP

Name Nationality PeriodReplaced

byNationality Period

Gilbert Camoin* France Oct03-Oct06

Jürgen Thurow UK Oct03-Oct06

Rüdiger Stein Germany Mar04-Mar07

Helmut Weissert Switzerland May04-Jan05JanBackman

Sweden Jan05

Elisabetta Erba** Italy

Francesca Martinez-Ruiz**

Spain


ECORD SAS Panel members nominations – ISSEP

Name Nationality Period Replaced by Nationality Period

Damon Teagle UK Oct03-Oct06

Pierre Henry France Oct03-Oct06 Javier Escartin France Jan06

Jörg Erzinger Germany Mar04-Mar07

Rolf-BirgerPedersen

Norway Oct03-Jun05Jens Konnerup-Madsen

Denmark Jun05

Gretchen Früh-Green**

Switzerland

Luis Pinheiro Portugal

Dominique Weis Canada


ECORD SAS Panel members nominations – SciMP


Name Nationality Period Replaced by Remarks

Mike Lovell UK Oct03-Oct06

Javier Escartin France Oct03-Sep04ChristopheBasile

France Sep04

Heinrich Villinger Germany Jun04-Jun07

Annakaisa Korja Finland Jun04-Jun07

SilviaSpezzaferri**

Switzerland

DouglasSchmitt**

Canada


ECORD SAS Panel members nominations – TAP

Name Nationality Period Remarks

PeterSchultheiss

UK Apr04-Apr07

Axel Sperber* Germany Oct03-Oct06

HermanZuidberg

Netherlands Apr04-Apr07

Erik Nygaard Norway Apr04-Apr07

Tim Francis** UK


Kenter highlights the item concerning the hosting of meetings. MacLeod reports that in the ECORDmeeting of 16th of March, ECORD offered financial support for the host country. Comas proposesBarcelona as a possible location for the coming (June 14th-17th) meeting.

Due to time limitations, only a limited number of the following items were discussed during themeeting.

6D ECORD SAS Panel membership Balance

Enclosed is a rather complex spreadsheet that allows the comparison of the number of SAS panelmembers with the national funding level (ESSAC2Min Encl03). The spreadsheet is up to date withthe existing members for SPC, ILP and SSP as well as the nominations for the remaining panels(ITEM 6B). However, only when ESSAC receives the final invitations the spreadsheet can befinalized.

6E ECORD position and rules on SAS panel alternates (Empty)

See comments under ITEM 6C2.

Item 7 News on Science Planning Committee (SPC) Activities

Most of the items following were deferred to the next ESSAC Meeting in September. Onlycomments where needed.

7A Minutes SPC Sapporo 03 and 2nd Agenda Book SPC Washington March 04

The Executive Summary for the SPC Washington meeting is available (ESSAC2Min Encl04).

7B General urgent SPC issues (Encl.)


7C1 SAS conflict-of-interest policy pertaining to SPC and SSEPs (SPPOC Consensus 03-12-13)

Recent Conflict of Interest issue that affected most of the SSEPs panel members was withdrawn.As a consequence a special SPPOC Working Group was assigned the task to come up with a newCOI strategy. This WG (See item 7C2) will meet in Japan the 23rd of April and Benoit Ildefonse isrepresenting ECORD.

7C2 Conflict of Interest SPPOC Ad hoc Committee-2 (SPPOC Consensus 03-12-07)

7D SAS panel membership: IODP member ratios and co-chair issue

7E Co-chief Nominations: IODP member ratios

7F IODP Council Presentation Coffin&Austin

Item 8 News on IODP Science Steering & Evaluation Panel Activities (Camoin)

8A Draft reports SSEPs meeting. 22-25 May, 2003; Niigata Japan

8B Draft agenda and members SSEPs meeting Granada, May 17-20, 200

Comas confirms that University of Grenada is hosting the meeting.

8C ECORD scientists on active IODP proposals (Gilbert Camoin, Encl.)

Gilbert Camoin presented this ITEM and the presentation is attached as PDF file (ESSAC2MinEncl05). Ildefonse adds that he will make available in English the French presentation about theESSAC facilities.

8D New IODP proposal submission guidelines (http://www.isas-office.jp/)

Item 9 News on IODP Service Panels Activities

9A IODP SAS Panel meeting schedule

9B Draft report ILP meeting, 22-23 February 2004; Houston, US

9C Draft report PPSP meeting, 15-17 December 2003, Nagasaki, Japan

9D Draft report SciMP meeting, 15-18 December 2003, Nagasaki, Japan

9E Draft report SSP meeting, 11-13 February 2004, Tokyo, Japan

9F Draft report TAP meeting, 21-22 February 2003; Amsterdam, Netherlands

Item 10 JEODI activities

10A Draft Final JEODI TN Work Package Report – WP2 update

Item 11 ESO activities

11A Report on ACEX project (Dan Evans)

Evans presentation is available (ESSAC2Min Encl06).


11B Update on future MSP projects (Dan Evans)

11C ACEX Outreach activities – In Confidence (Andy Kingdon)

The Outreach Activities for ACEX have been extensively discussed outside the ESSAC Meetingand will be regarded confidential until further notice.

Item 12 News on IODP MI and SPOCC

12A Science Policy Planning and Oversight Committee (SPPOC; the former EXCOM)Mandate

12B Executive Summary SPPOC, 5-6 December 2003, San Francisco, USA

12C Draft report IOs Meeting #2, 27-28 February 2004, Edinburgh, Scotland

12D ESSAC Nominations for SPPOC

12E IODP IMI Manik Talwani presentation Austin February 2004

Item 13 ESSAC Working Groups

13A ESSAC draft report on IODP Publications

The ESSAC WG on Publications submitted their draft report on February 15 which wassubsequently forwarded to Ken Miller (SPC Publications WG) and discussed at SPC Washington.

13B ESSAC draft report on Education & Outreach (Eve Arnold)

Arnold proposes that more attention is paid towards education, a policy that is better developed inthe U.S. She suggests organizing courses on IODP science for PhD students in different Europeancountries, favoring student exchanges, thesis funding and promoting PhD thesis awards. She asksthat the ESSAC community involves teachers, offering them the possibility to participate withoperations. Gillis believes that it is better to involve students rather than teachers. But MacLeod,Kudraß and Ildefonse indicate that press involvement would be more outreaching. Mevel stressedthat a teacher is part of an education program and cannot be compared with a journalist. Arnoldstresses that last minute substitutive positions might be a good opportunity to involve Universitiesand Colleges in IODP. Camerlenghi points out the economical costs for extra people onboard, andsuggests instead inviting teachers and students to the meetings. General consensus is returned tothe proposal of using substitutive positions for the purposes of education and outreaching.

13C Draft report on Education & Outreach workshop, February 20-24, 2004, Austin, Texas –In Confidence

See under ITEM 13B.

13D ESSAC WG on Down Hole Tools (DHTs) - Workshop on "Autonomous Downhole Toolsin the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program: Goals, Techniques, Needs, and Strategiesfor Development" May 24, 25, 2004 Washington, D.C.

Item 14 ESSAC Science workshops and conferences

14A IODP Conference in Greece in spring 2004 – update


The Greek meeting has been deferred since Dimitris Sakellariou has not received any informationyet from the Greek General Secretariat for Research&Technology regarding the ECORD/IODPworkshop proposal that he submitted last fall.

14B IODP-ICDP Euroform Conference, 17-19 March 2004, Bremen, Germany – update

Item 15 ESSAC Business various

15A Minutes of the U.S. Science Advisory Committee Meeting (USSAC), 21-23 January2004

15B Minutes of J-DESC - http://www.aesto.or.jp/j-desc/index.html

15C ESSAC and ECORD website

It has been discussed to have only one portal to ECORD which would be the EMA site recentlyupdated by Patricia Maruejol (EMA-France). Patricia and Valentina Zampetti will work together andhost the ESSAC website under the official ECORD site.

15D ESSAC and ECORD Newsletters (Encl.)

Recently a 2nd ECORD Newsletter has been generated and distributed during the meeting. Anelectronic version is enclosed (ESSAC2Min Encl07). The ESSAC newsletter is suggested to beelectronic and part of the ESSAC website. Unclear is who will maintain this part of the website andthe discussion was deferred to the next ESSAC meeting.

15E Funding for Distinguished Lecturer Series (like USSAC) and ESSAC panel meetings

15F ESSAC Office science community database of addresses

15G CLORA - ESF RFP for workshops in 2005 (deadline May 1st 2004)

This item raises an important responsibility of ESSAC: the generation of proposals fundingimportant ECORD science (support) projects. During the ECORD Council meeting a suggestionwas made that ESSAC should submit a EUROCORES for European Collaboration for OceanSurvey Science (EuroCOSS). However, the deadline was 6 April and there was no realistic waythat ESSAC could embark on this. Another initiative was proposed by Mevel (ITEM 15G) andESSAC will take the initiative to nominate a Working Group to investigate these and otheropportunities in the very near future.

15H Chikyu MOHO capability – ECORD community scientific justification – WG?

Item 16 Upcoming Meetings

List of relevant upcoming meetings:

2004

AAPG European Region Conference with GSA, 10-13 October 10-13, Prague

32nd International Geological Congress (32IGC), 20-28 August, Florence, Italy


SPC #4 16-18 August 2004 Corvallis, OR, USA

SSP #2 2-4 August 2004 Palisades, NY, USA

SPPOC #2 7-9 July 2004 Europe

TAP #1 28-30 June 2004 Nagasaki, Japan

SciMP #2 23-25 June 2004 Boston, MA, USA

PPSP #2 21-22 June 2004 College Station, TX, USA

SPC #3 14-17 June 2004, Yokohama, Japan

SSEPs #2 17-20 May 2004, Granada, Spain

EGU, Nice, 25-30 April, Nice, France

AAPG/SEPM, 18-21 April, Dallas, TX USA

Item 17 Miscellaneous (Empty)

No comments.

Item 18 Date and Place of the Next Meeting (Empty)

Next meeting hosted by Benoit Ildefonse, Aix en Provence, September 23 th -26th 2004

Than the meeting is adjourned and the remaining agenda items will have to be dealt withelectronically or deferred to the next ESSAC Meeting. We will keep you informed on this.

8 • Projets en cours d'évaluation dans IODP

Après la deadline du 1er Octobre 2003109 Proposals

Affiliations des proposants :

Argentina 1 0.1% au sein d'ECORD :Australia 15 1.6%Belgium 3 0.3% Canada 25 8.1%Brazil 1 0.1% Denmark 2 0.6%Canada 25 2.7% France 47 15.2%

Chile 6 0.7% Finland 0 0.0%China 6 0.7% Germany 92 29.8%Costa Rica 2 0.2% Italy 8 2.6%Denmark 2 0.2% Iceland 0 0.0%France 47 5.2% Netherlands 20 6.5%Germany 92 10.1% Norway 37 12.0%Greece 1 0.1% Portugal 2 0.6%Ireland 6 0.7% Spain 8 2.6%Israel 2 0.2% Sweden 6 1.9%Italy 8 0.9% Switzerland 2 0.6%Japan 126 13.8% UK 60 19.4%Mexico 1 0.1%Netherlands 20 2.2% Total 309 100.0%

New Zealand 7 0.8%Norway 37 4.1%Pakistan 4 0.4%Philippines 1 0.1%Portugal 2 0.2%Romania 2 0.2%Russia 5 0.5%South Africa 1 0.1%South Korea 12 1.3%Spain 8 0.9%Sweden 6 0.7%Switzerland 2 0.2%Taiwan 1 0.1%Turkey 2 0.2%UK 60 6.6%USA 395 43.3%Vietnam 3 0.3%

Total 912 100.0%

USA 395 43.3%Japon 126 13.8%ECORD 309 33.9%

Chine 6 0.7%Autres 82 9.0%

918

Lead Proponents :

Australia 2 1.8% au sein d'ECORD :Belgium 1 0.9%Canada 4 3.7% Canada 4 12.5%France 4 3.7% Denmark 0 0.0%Germany 11 10.1% France 4 12.5%

Ireland 1 0.9% Finland 0 0.0%Italy 2 1.8% Germany 11 34.4%Japan 16 14.7% Italy 2 6.3%Netherlands 1 0.9% Iceland 0 0.0%New Zealand 2 1.8% Netherlands 1 3.1%Norway 3 2.8% Norway 3 9.4%South Korea 1 0.9% Portugal 0 0.0%Spain 2 1.8% Spain 2 6.3%Sweden 2 1.8% Sweden 2 6.3%UK 3 2.8% Switzerland 0 0.0%USA 54 49.5% UK 3 9.4%

Total 109 100.0% Total 32 100.0%

USA 54 49.5%Japon 16 14.7%ECORD 32 29.4%

Chine 0 0.0%Autres 7 6.4%

109

Tous proposants

USA42%

Japon14%

ECORD34%

Chine1%

Autres9%

Porteurs de Projets

USA50%

Japon15%

ECORD29%

Autres6%

9 • Participation française aux campagnes programmées (2004-2005)

Participants français :

Invités :Frédérique Eynaud (EPOC, Bordeaux) ACEX (Arctique)Jérôme Gatacceca (Cerege, Aix-enProvence) ACEX (Arctique)

Nominés ESSAC :Alain Mazaud (LSCE, Gif-sur-Yvette) North Atlantic 1Johan Guyodo (LSCE, Gif-sur-Yvette) North Atlantic 2Muriel Andréani (IPGP, Paris) Core Complex 1Marguerite Godard (ISTEEM, Montpellier) Core Complex 1Véronique Gardien (PEPS, Lyon) Core Complex 1Daniele Brunelli (CEA-DRECAM, Saclay) Core Complex 2Javier Escartin (IPGP, Paris) Core Complex 2Benoît Ildefonse (ISTEEM, Montpellier) Core Complex 2

Candidats "shore-based"Martine Buatier (université de Franche Comté, Besançon) Juan de FucaMonique Seyler (IPGP, Paris) Core Complex

10 • Bilan du bureau IODP-France

Budget 2003 :Total % du Budget global

MISSIONS ODP

embarquants 14874.45 22.6%Post-cruise 5711.66 8.7%Panels et comités 35409.11 58.5%Conseil scientifique ODP France (une réunion) 2747.49 4.2%Colloques (EGS, AGU, EuroForum, …) 1834.38 2.8%

(sous total missions) 60577.09 91.9%

BUREAU ODP-France Communication (presse, radio, déplacements séminaires …) 559.20 0.8%Fonctionnement (tel, photocopies, ...) 987.85 1.5%Affranchissements (volumes ODP, …) 347.66 0.5%Informatique 3156.19 4.8%Organisation réunions (Comité Scientifique, workshop, panels ...) 289.65 0.4%

(sous total bureau) 5340.55 8.1%

TOTAL pour FY03 65917.64

Crédits 2003 : 80 k€Dépenses 2003 : 66 k€Reliquat 2003 : 14 k€

Le comité scientifique ODP-France a été présidé par Philippe Pezard de Octobre 2001 àSeptembre 2003. Bien que la participation française soit maintenant réalisée au sein d'unconsortium européen (ECORD), il est essentiel de maintenir, au niveau national, un comitéIODP-France, avec un bureau qui permettra d'établir et d'entretenir le lien entre lacommunauté scientifique française et le programme IODP, plus complexe et ambitieux que nel'était son prédécesseur ODP (les participations aux différents comités et aux campagnesseront dorénavant gérées au niveau européen). Ce bureau est maintenu à Montpellier, sous ladirection de Benoît Ildefonse depuis octobre 2003. Les fonctions et objectifs du comitécomprennent notamment :• la maintenance d'un site WEB IODP français (www.isteem.univ-montp2.fr/IODP-France),qui constitue le principal support de diffusion et de suivi de l'information liée au forageocéanique, dans le cadre du programme IODP et en marge du programme IODP (programmespartenaires tells que Interridge, ICDP, etc..),• la transmission (notamment via le WEB et une lettre électronique régulière) desinformations relatives au fonctionnement scientifique et administrative du programme vers lacommunauté scientifique nationale,• l'information vers le public et l'éducation,• la représentation française dans les comité scientifique d'ECORD et d'IODP,• le soutien des français impliqués dans des demandes de forage (soutien pour participationaux réunions de préparation, ateliers, etc..),• le soutien des français participant à des expéditions (prise en charge des missions lies à lacampagne, y compris d'échantillonnage post-campagne.• une action incitative pour la rédaction nouveaux projets (présentation régulière duprogramme dans les laboratoires, soutien d'ateliers de prospective, …).

Date post:	15-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Comité scientifique IODP-France Ordre du Jour · du total; 6.3 publications par Leg en moyenne),...

Documents