1 / 17

Science Planning Committee (SPC)

Science Planning Committee (SPC). Report to USAC July 2009. Role of Science Planning Committee. Chartered by the Science Advisory Structure Executive Committee (SASEC) as primary SAS committee for planning the IODP scientific drilling expedition schedule

neith
Download Presentation

Science Planning Committee (SPC)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Science Planning Committee(SPC) Report to USAC July 2009

  2. Role of Science Planning Committee • Chartered by the Science Advisory Structure Executive Committee (SASEC) as primary SAS committee for planning the IODP scientific drilling expedition schedule • SASEC retains really long-term planning outlook • SPC focuses on annual process for review and ranking mature IODP proposals forwarded by SSEP, approximately one year in advance of preparation of IODP Annual Program Plans • SPC also recommends annual engineering plan in support of science plan, after advice from EDP • All other SAS panels report through SPC, so SPC also synthesizes SAS advice for SASEC + IODP-MI

  3. IODP Proposal Process Proposal submission (4/1, 10/1) Proponent Ext. Review IODP-MI, Sapporo (Proposal database) Data submission IODP SAS Evaluation and Nurturing SSP STP SSEP SSDB EDP EPSP SPC Ranking Scheduling OTF

  4. SPC Proposal Review/Ranking Steps • Review mature proposals forwarded by SSEP within past year or remaining from previous rankings. • Typically 15-20 proposals are reviewed at March SPC meeting; for each, 3 SPC “watchdogs” lead presentation and discussion, with input from chairs of SSEP, SSP, EPSP. • Select proposal pool to rank • Usually, nearly all proposals at SPC level are ranked, but exceptions are made (a) at proponent’s request or (b) for other special circumstances. • Rank proposals and compile results • Each SPC member ranks N proposals 1 to N on a signed ballot. Rankings are compiled and presented with means and s.d.’s. • Select highest ranked proposals to forward to Operations Task Force (OTF) for development of schedule options. • SSEP forwards only strong, mature proposals • Only SPC comparatively ranks proposals. Groupings I, II, and return.

  5. SPC Meeting Science Planning Committee (SPC) Meeting March 16-19, Miami, Florida plus important aspect of August 2008 Sapporo 1. Proposal Rankings 2. Ancillary Program Letters (APLs) 3. Flexible Expedition Implementation 4. Riser Contingency Planning

  6. 1. Proposal Ranking Ranked 28 Proposals 8 new 8 previously sent to OTF 12 residing at SPC - More discussion of proposals in related groups - Asian Monsoon DPG - Hot Spot DPG Tier 2 proposals sent to OTF this year will remain there for 2 years

  7. 1. Proposal Ranking Top 10 Proposals to forwarded to OTF • RankProposal #Short TitleMeanSt. Dev.Tier • 1636-Full3Louisville Seamounts 5.53 4.23 1 (Pac) • 2662-Full3South Pacific Gyre Microbiology 5.65 4.24 1 (Pac) • 3705-Full2Santa Barbara B. Climate Change 6.94 5.23 2* • 4637-Full2New England Shelf Hydrogeology 7.24 6.34 NA* • 5552-Full3Bengal Fan 8.53 6.281 (Ind)* • 6716-Full2Hawaiian Drowned Reefs 9.76 8.542* • 7549-Full6Northern Arabian Sea Monsoon 10.71 3.872* • 8522-Full5Superfast Spreading Crust 10.82 6.422 • 9537A-Full5Costa Rica Seismogenesis A 12.12 6.722 • 618-Full3East Asia Margin 13.53 6.492* • * Indicates that site survey data needs to be submitted before forwarded to OTF • Fairly good disciplinary balance in these top ranked proposals

  8. 1. Proposal Ranking RankProposal #Short TitleMeanSt. Dev. 11695-Full2Izu-Bonin-Mariana Pre-Arc Crust 13.768.95 12686-FullSo. Alaska Margin 1: Climate-Tect. 14.186.18 13659-FullNewfoundland Rifted Margin 14.416.72 14661-Full2Newfoundland Sediment Drifts 14.476.10 15553-Full2Cascadia Margin Hydrates 14.655.70 16555-Full3Cretan Margin 15.066.96 17633-Full2Costa Rica Mud Mounds 16.126.27 18697-Full3Izu-Bonin-Mariana Reararc Crust 16.538.89 19567-Full4South Pacific Paleogene 16.947.69 20581-Full2Late Pleistocene Coralgal Banks 17.537.17 21589-Full3Gulf of Mexico Overpressures 18.945.88 21698-Full2Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc Middle Crust 18.9410.46 23703-FullCosta Rica SeisCORK 19.184.73 24669-Full3Walvis Ridge Hotspot 19.475.33 25535-Full6Atlantis Bank Deep 20.477.98 26584-Full2TAG II Hydrothermal 20.946.57 27556-Full4Malvinas Confluence 21.414.14 28612-Full3Geodynamo 22.187.59

  9. 1. Proposal Ranking Consensus 0903-13: The “holding bin” exists for proposals that are designated to be forwarded to OTF, but for which there are insufficient data for SSP) and/or EPSP) …. After SSP and EPSP have confirmed readiness for drilling, the SPC chair can either forward to OTF or retain at SPC. EPSP SSP 549-Full6 Northern Arabian Sea Monsoon x ok552-Full3 Bengal Fan x ok618-Full3 East Asian Margin x ok 637-Full2 New England Shelf Hydrogeology x x705-Full2 Santa Barbara Basin Climate Change x x716-Full2 Hawaiian Drowned Reefs x x

  10. 1. Proposal Ranking Tier 1/Tier 2 Designations Tier 1 - Highest priority proposal for an ocean region - Important to complete by 2013 - Ready for drilling Tier 2 - High priority proposal for an ocean region - Ready for drilling - Resides at OTF for 2 years then re-evaluated by SPC

  11. Current Tier 1 Proposals • Pacific 601 Okinawa Trough Deep Biosphere • 545 Juan de Fuca Flank Hydrogeology • 505 Mariana Convergent Margin • 537 CRISP B • 636 Louisville Seamounts • 662 South Pacific Gyre Microbiology • Atlantic 677 Mid-Atlantic Microbiology • 644 Mediterranean Outflow • Indian 552 Bengal Fan • (724 Gulf of Aden) • (595 Indus Fan)

  12. Proposal Deactivation SPC Consensus 0903-15: The SPC may deactivate proposals after three rankings. SPC deactivated 535-Full6 (Atlantis Bank Deep) 584-Full2 (TAG II Hydrothermal) 612-Full3 (Geodynamo) because they have ranked low in the last several evaluations and realistically have little chance of being implemented within the current phase of the IODP which ends in 2013.

  13. 2. APL’s SASEC Consensus 0806-11: SASEC encourages the community to continue to submit proposals for drilling… SASEC encourages submission of Ancillary Program Letters (APL’s) for targets of opportunity that may arise as the drilling vessels transit between expeditions. • Difficult to evaluate quickly (email discussions) • Priority decisions in regards to main expedition • Need rapid scheduling of staffing and equipment • 3 day limit Examples of problems with recent APL’s 739-APL Bering Sea Subseafloor Life (email decision, staffing issues) 734-APL Cascadia Accretionary Prism CORK (started with email discussion, cost, time issues) 738-APL Nankai Submarine Landslides (CHIKYU operation 10 days)

  14. 2. APL’s SPC Consensus 0903-07: The SPC adopts the principle that time be allocated in each IODP platform schedule to accommodate ancillary project letters (APLs) and engineering testing, and forwards this to the Operations Task Force (OTF) and implementing organizations (IOs) for implementation. As a guideline, three days per two-month expedition (i.e., less than 10% of on-site time) should be allocated for these activities. If the OTF determines that there is no appropriate engineering testing or approved APL for a given expedition, the time will transfer to the scientific objectives of the expedition.

  15. 3. Flexible Expedition Implementation SPC Consensus 0808-29: The SPC supports pursuing a more flexible approach to expedition design. More flexible implementation may provide better opportunities to achieve top science objectives while operating under operational realities for the remainder of this program and for renewal. 1. Request that the Implementing Organizations (IOs) provide guidance about expedition flexibility, including ramifications of combining expedition objectives and/or staffing and crew rotation to implement various length expeditions and/or combined science parties and/or short-term port calls for crew and scientist rotation. 2. Request that the Science Steering and Evaluation Panel (SSEP) considers how proposals might include additional information about objectives achieved with respect to the overall proposal objectives with streamlined drilling plans.

  16. 4. Riser Contingency • Riser drilling at NT3-01 scheduled to start Sep. 2010 • Kuroshio may be unfavorable • Need a contingency • Possible Expeditions • 537B CRISP • 618 Southeast Asia Margin • 698 IBM • (595 Indus Fan) • CDEX was asked to provide preliminary scoping • for these projects

  17. 4. Riser Contingency SPC Motion 0903-16: The SPC asks IODP-MI to begin scoping of Proposal 618-Full3 (East Asia Margin) as a contingency for NanTroSEIZE. • - China-Vietnam disputed area issues for 618 • Continue planning for CRISP • Priority based on science evaluation

More Related