 So, here we are and by the way I'm not standing behind the lectern I'm standing next to it because when I stand behind it I feel you won't be able to see me given how short I am so it seems like it's better. So for a bit of background right we're here the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine and of course this is a for those of you who do not know and also for the many of you who are online. This is a non profit non partisan organization that is the nation's pre eminent source of expert evidence based and objective advice on science on engineering on health. The National Academies provides independent objective advice to inform policy. And with objective scientific findings, we want to spark progress and innovation and confront challenging issues for the benefit of society and that indeed is important work and I think it's. It's great that we're in this building that sort of represents that too. And this building of course on this building sits in Washington DC and I do want to start with a land acknowledgement. Can I advance these is that working know not yet. So we can you advance for me. Um, so National Academies is physically housed on the traditional land of the nicoch tank and Piscataway people past and present the nicoch tank. And as it turns out, that name was westernized to a constant a constant, which is really the background or the source for the name for the river that is joining the Potomac just here. So we do want to honor with gratitude the land itself, the people who have stewarded it throughout the generations, and the enduring relationships that exist between these peoples and nations and the land. I was reflecting on this land acknowledgement last night and I thought to myself you know here we are you know we were talking about ocean drilling today we're talking about drilling. We're talking about extraction, right. And there are a lot of conversations going on about extraction. And, you know, about colonial science, and it did make me reflect on an interview that I once read with earth scientist. She's now at Arizona State University. And she, in this interview and this is, while she was at Stanford University, she talks about her science being informed by narrative of restorative balance. I really like that term, and much of what she says in this interview really resonates with me and I want to read one answer that she gave to a question. And I want to read it almost almost verbatim I'll add just a few ideas there to to kind of inform us and motivate us to think really holistically about this land that we're on the lands, the ocean bottom that we're thinking about drilling. So here goes for earth scientists that are curious about how we confront colonization and research. I welcome you to take a step back and understand that we are not entitled to information or space. If you are participating in field research, most likely you are entering unseeded or occupied land that belongs to an indigenous community. Or maybe it's a piece of the ocean that an indigenous community really deeply cares about cares for right. For scientists and researchers, it is not our right to be in certain spaces or to collect data, the public domain and commons movement, even well intentioned has to be careful to not infringe on the rights of indigenous communities. That said, I want to remind everyone that no matter what role you have or what experiences you come from, you bring something important to the table. You all bring something very important to this discussion, whether or not you're physically seated at a table here, or whether or not you are online and Zoe or Eric how many people do we have online am I seeing the number 107 participants. That's phenomenal. The work we're doing here is important and clearly there are a lot of people who want to understand more. Okay. With that, you know, we're going to have some spirited conversations here today. I know there are a lot of opinions, a lot of emotions, a lot of thoughts, a lot of passion that you all are bringing and that's wonderful. We want all of that. But I do want to review our expectations for how we're going to engage with each other right our expectations of conduct. And this is especially relevant because the National Academies really is pretty formal about this. So here at the academies, we are committed to fostering a professional respectful and inclusive environment, where all can participate fully and the harassment free and discrimination free atmosphere. And so we do look to each and every one of you to help us maintain this professional cordial environment. So if you are interested in the academies is policy and preventing discrimination harassment bullying. The link is up there you can just Google it. It is a pretty solid policy so I do encourage you to think about that. Okay, and with that, I want to start by introducing our committee and our statement of task. And what I would like to do is call out the name of the committee member and if you are here please stand or raise your hand to make sure everybody realizes what the name puts the name and the face together okay. All right, and I want to start alphabetically with with Lahini all the way, all the way here. And she she's online is that correct is that what I'm remembering. I think so. Excellent. And she is from the Scripps Institute from for oceanography. Mona Bale is here from University of Georgia and Georgia see grand thank you Mona for being here. Mark bane Boston College. Online. Excellent. Brad de young from the Canadian integrated ocean observing system also online. Carlos Garcia Quijano. And he is from the University of Rhode Island also online. He's from the state of Las Vegas. And he is. Let's see what's whole oceanographic institution not participating today I believe, Laila Hamden I think I saw, I saw you earlier there you are. University of southern Mississippi. Marsha Isaacson. Thank you Marsha on with the University of Texas Austin. He is online and he is with NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service. Allison Miller. There you are, Allison. Hi. I'm with the Schmidt Ocean Institute. Brad Moran. Hi, Brad. Welcome. Brad, of course, is with the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Rick Murray. Hi, Rick. What's whole oceanographic institution? Steven Palombi. Yeah, online. Online. Welcome, Steve. And what's Institute for the Environment at Stanford University? Josie Quintrell. She online. Not here. Okay. Well, she is with the Integrated Ocean Observing System Association. And Shimi Rhee. Shimi is with the University of Hawaii Manoa. Kristen St. John. Thank you for being here, James Madison University. Samuel Sturdevant. He is with Duke University. Ajit Subramanya. There you are. With the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. And Maya Tolstoy. I think she's online. University of Washington. Shannon Valley also online. Couldn't make it today. Excellent. Well, she is a AAA science and technology policy fellow. And then Jim Zekos. There you are, Jim. With University of California Santa Cruz. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Jim. Thank you very much. But not least, but very importantly, my co-chair Jim Yoder. Who is right now hailing from the University of Rhode Island. And Jim, if there's any words you want to share quick. All good. We will keep on moving. Thank you, Jim. All right. To our statement of task. We really are tasked with, and Zoe, one back. One too many Zoe. There you go. We are really tasked with thinking very, very broadly about the ocean sciences enterprise. And as a committee, we've had this conversation multiple times now. I am really challenging us. Every individual on our committee is challenged to think of the ocean sciences broadly. Right. We all bring very specific disciplinary understanding and deep knowledge and passion for what we do. And I'm challenging us all to not just think through that, not just think about that little piece of the pie, but each of us really to think about the broader ocean science enterprise. Of course we will be looking at the broader ocean science enterprise through that disciplinary lens. That's totally okay. But each one of us is charged with thinking of the whole picture, not just advocating for our piece of it. And that's a really important step because it's the only way in which we can arrive at a consensus document that really is prioritized rather than arriving at a document. That's a laundry list. Right. We don't want to revive a document. That's a laundry list. And so that's a big task and one that I think meetings like this can really help with because they broaden our scope. Of what we know is important. And that's what NSF asked us for. And on the next slide here, you'll see the, our task, our statement of task associated with the interim report. Assess progress on addressing high quality, high priority science questions that require scientific ocean drilling. Identify new, if any, equally compelling science questions that would also require scientific ocean drilling. And then secondly of all of the unanswered scientific questions we have here, which can be addressed through the use of existing scientific drilling assets and which questions will require new infrastructure or new sampling investments. And these are really the two questions that we are here today to answer. But really we're going to start out our day. Our day is really going to be made up of three parts. So if you can go to the next slide. So three parts. One, we are going to spend a little bit of time to talk about the ocean drilling program legacy. And this is a really important part to sort of assess where we've been. Then part two is going to be all about imagining the future of the ocean drilling program and thinking about science priorities drawing on work that has already been done. And then breaking out into groups to think really more about the question in the context of the work that was already done. And then part three will be about imagining the future of the ocean drilling program in terms of its infrastructure needs. Right. So there too we're going to have some breakout group discussions. All right. Okay, a final note. Oh, logistics. I probably skipped this and should have not skipped this because this was really important. In case of an emergency exits and there is a slide I think that sort of shows us one more back, my dear. There we go. We are in the room that's at the top left hand corner of this particular slide. And if you go outside into the hallway, the nearest exit is immediately down the hall. So that's something to remember. If you are interested in going to the bathrooms, I found some down the steps and take a left and keep on going through this beautiful building and you'll get yourself to some restrooms. Okay. And then a final note, and this will take us to the very last slide of the slides that I will be discussing. Final note is that we will be using Slido to take questions and comments. And we would like to use Slido for both the in-person participants here as well as the online participants. So those of you who have questions who are in the room here with me, please. Use Slido anyways, because it really kind of equalizes the opportunity for both in person and online participants to participate in the same way. And so if you want to do this on your phone, you can scan this QR code to get there. If you haven't used Slido before, it's actually pretty user friendly. And you can do things like add a question, or you can reply or comment to a question or upvote a question. And so that way, if there's a question on the board that many, many people, that resonates with many, many of you, this is one way to make sure that we really do get to pick that question and ask our panelists when the time comes. And the other cool thing about Slido is then we have these questions and they will be archived, right? We know what your questions are or comments are, and we can make sure that the committee has a look at these after the fact too. So that is another reason why we are doing this. So we're going to go back to the fact too. So that is another reason why we would like to use Slido. All right. So with that, I think I want to dive right into the talks. We're just a few minutes over, but not because I spoke more. I did practice just like I asked all of our participants and speakers to practice, but we did start a few minutes late here. Okay. So we're going to dive right into our first set of talks. And we will hear from about the ocean drilling program, legacy from Mitch Malone. He's a hails from Texas A&M. And of course a study sponsor on the division director of ocean sciences, Jim McBanna civil is here. And so he will speak after Mitch. And with that, here you go. Good morning, everybody. I'll be giving you an overview of, of IODP. And, and I was asked specifically to cover platforms. The partner contribution, and then the scientific findings of just this phase of the program. And I'll talk about that a little bit. Can you advance one, one hit so I can. And so I broke that up into this outline. Talking about the platforms expedition and some basic stats. I have a couple of slides on the joities resolution since it is the US platform. And it is retiring from scientific ocean drilling. A couple of quick slides on governance and the budget model that's been operating in this phase of the program, which my colleagues over at this table know quite well. And then for the scientific findings, I'm calling this science impact. And I'll explain that later when I, when I get to that phase. Okay. Advance one. So here are the three platforms that are been active in this phase of the program and the previous one, the integrated ocean drilling program. The joities resolution, the US platform is a riser list drilling vessel that was designed for scientific ocean drilling in 1985. The chick you became operational for scientific ocean drilling in 2007 and it's different because it's designed. It is a riser vessel. So this is configured very similar to an oil and gas exploration vessel, which allows it to have well control and allows it to drill much more deeply than the joities resolution can. And then our colleagues from Europe have been doing mission specific platforms, which are exactly what like the name says it is executing that the two other platforms cannot do. And they do that by leasing geotechnical or multi-purpose vessels, lift boats, and they've done a couple of expeditions off standard ocean and graphic vessels using a seabed rock drill and then giant piston coin. The table below shows you the number of expeditions, just the stats of what's been accomplished and what's planned in the next year and a half. And you can see a stark different there. And that's probably because of the it's some of this is by the design of the platforms. The joities resolution is globally ranging and has tackled the most expeditions. The chick you and MSP in this phase of the program is probably done less than anticipated. And that's primarily been driven by funding issues. The chick you is an amazing vessel, but it's very expensive to operate and that's provided some constraints and it's only operated around Japan because of some of those issues. Mission specific platforms again, funding is a challenge, but the model that they have to execute has some challenges. They're competing with the rest of industry for access to platforms and it's at commercial rates. And so that's why you see some of the differences there. Okay, let's move on to the next one. This is just a table that shows this what's been done in a similar format. Although these vessels do more than just coring. There is downhole logging, downhole measurements as well as installation of bro-whirl observatories. The coring is the main tool that provides the access to the science party short and long-term and for everybody else long-term. And you can just see the recovery, the differences of sites or the location, holes or multiple holes drilling at the same location and then the recovery and what's been brought back for long-term science. Okay, next one, please. And this is just a map showing the distribution of this phase of the program. So this is since 2014. The end of 2013, but most expeditions were 2014 and beyond. The red circles are the joities resolution. The green triangles off of Japan are what has happened in this phase of the program by the Chikyu. And the blue squares are the mission-specific platforms. There are some you can't see very well off in Japan that were recently done. That was the giant piston coring expedition. Chicks lose impact in the Yucatan, Atlantis Massif in the central part of the of the Atlantic and Corinth Gulf. Everything shown in yellow is what's planned by the three operators in the next year and a half. I'll talk a little bit more about the geographic distribution later. Next slide. A couple slides on the joities resolution and why it's been the workhorse. This is a relatively small drilling vessel. It was built in 1978, so it's second or third generation drilling vessel. Relative to modern vessels, it's small. The good thing about that is it means it costs less to operate. Now, it's not inexpensive, but it does allow it to be globally ranging. It can pick up and move off site very quickly. And it is a coring machine. I mean, that's what it's ended up being. And it does continuous wireline coring, bringing back long cores, nine and a half meters with the custom design coring tools that were developed within the program and refined within the program. The rapid pipe tripping, meaning getting to and from the sea floor. And then the wireline winch on there that is extremely fast means you are bringing more science on board for the time you're at sea. And in particular, this is on the order of talking to some folks in the industry. This is on the order of three to four times faster coring rate than like a standard geotechnical vessel. The water depth range is broad from 75 meters to about six kilometers. And that six kilometers water depth is the limit. Primarily because of the drill string we choose to use to give it the maximum flexibility, but you do start reading, meeting stress limitations on that drill pipe once you get about six and a half kilometers hanging from the Derrick. Although it is not a deep drilling vessel like the Chikyu, it does have deep penetration capability. Your big challenge is keeping the hole open while you try to do that. But here's two examples, one in mostly hard rock and one in sediments where the JR has been able to get two kilometers below the sea floor. Not only is this vessel designed for what we want out of scientific ocean drilling, because of its longevity, the combination of the crew, who once they rotate it on tend to stay. And our technical staff, you get a tremendous amount of experience providing the necessary support for science parties to achieve maximum effectiveness. And that's one of those things I don't think you can overstate and it's going to be a challenge in the future as that expertise is likely lost and has to be regained. Next slide please. This just shows two slides quickly to show that the capabilities of the JR have been used by the science community. The plot on the left is hole count on the y-axis and water depth and meters below sea level bend in 25, 250 meter intervals. And you can see the entire depth range capability that JR has used and over 40% of the holes are in that deep water range of greater than three kilometers. And penetration, that's meters below sea level bend at 50 meters. For all the IOD peers here and online, all the mudline cores, the miss mudline cores, the boarded cores have been removed. So we don't bias that. This is more like what you would see for people actually taking course for science rather than an operational challenge. And you can see the distribution is heavy toward the shallower side because as you go deeper with a riserless vessel, you increase risk. It requires time and sometimes additional costs to put the infrastructure in the sea floor to be able to accomplish that. But again, the entire range of the capability that JR has been used. Next slide please. A couple slides on governance just to talk about how things have operated to put things in context for everybody. Although this is called a program, it is not a program in the sense that the previous version of IODP was that actually had a central management office that was controlling the multiple platforms. This evolved into more of a federated structure, which you see in the graphic here with the funding agencies at the top. Each facility is managed by a facility board, which is composed of representatives from the science community, the funding agency, and then one for the operator. And so that has a focus on just that group. Each one of those groups has just a focus on that platform, which I think has been effective from the U.S. management of the JR. Partnership and participation on the JR is through what's always been called the JR Consortium. And that's where the non-U.S. partners with memorandums with the National Science Foundation gain access to the JR. E-Cord is the European Consortium. Anzac is the Australia-New Zealand Consortium. And that comes about with financial contribution, but it's also with birth exchange with the two other platform operators, which has had some challenges because of the issue of the number of expeditions that have been executed. This one just shows a quick spot on proposal, how the proposals are handled. Unsolicited proposals from the community are submitted and go through a simplified streamlined structure with a panel that evaluates science, the geophysical data required to execute the expedition and technical input on what can be done. After it passes muster with that panel, it goes to the facility board and it takes a step through a technical panel that looks at environmental protection and safety related to drilling. Because there is no overarching central management agency, in this phase of the program, a forum, a panel was set up that allowed the community to provide input and look at things in a more holistic way across all three platforms. And that panel has been charged as the custodian of the science plan and is a mechanism for joint discussions to happen about the program in the future. And a brief talk about the budget model. So in this phase of the program, this is kind of what it looks like. It started off with about an annual cash flow coming in, $64.5 million. It's decreased to something around $60 million. The U.S. annual funding has been fixed through most of it at $48 million per year. I believe it's gone to $51 million this year. Is that right? Yep. And then international partner funding at maximum was $16.5 million. That was in the first three-ish years of the program, this phase of the program. And then as Brazil, there were two partners that dropped out, Brazil reduced and then dropped out and then South Korea and it's dropped to $12.5 million. So that's why that's been a challenge is, as you can see the JR annual budget started off in that realm at $64.5 million. But the ability, just with cost increases, that presents a bit of a challenge. We are at $71 million this year with the JR. And you can see that presents a serious cash flow problem. And that, so we wouldn't be operating if there wasn't a solution to that. And that came about in the next two bullets here. There were one-time partner contributions toward the beginning of this phase of the program. There was a mechanism put into the proposal structure called complementary project proposals, which effectively allowed a partner, if an expedition was in their waters and was a high priority, they could pay extra money to NSF to get additional staff on initial scientists on board. And that happened four times and that brought in $24 million to the program. In this phase of the program, NSF set up a different relationship with the award to Texas A&M University that promoted us looking for cost efficiencies everywhere we could get. And we were very fortunate in the first many years of the program that inflation was low and fuel costs were low, sometimes even lower than we predicted in our budget. And so that generated a cost efficiencies and NSF could direct that money into future years. So that's how the money has balanced. And that's how we got that money. The money has balanced as Jamie has been telling people in our panels that that's running out. And we were lucky it lasted all the way through this phase of the program. Okay. On to science impact. This... That's interesting, that's a blue background. That may be a Mac PC thing. I don't know. So, that was a bit of a daunting question when I got that two weeks ago. It doesn't exist in this phase of the program. And it was fact at the last iodp forum meeting in April, it was a topic of conversation that the community need to start looking about putting that together. That would be a very good thing to do. So, the US science support program at Lamont took that on and formed a working group, and so they're looking at doing that it's going to take approximately a year and a half to do that so anybody here who's been in the program while being asked to put together all the significant scientific findings for this phase of the program as an individual in two weeks knows the daunting chance to people to know me well I was freaking out a little bit. And so, I thought about this and put it in, in context of what you see in these bullets here the first one to realize for those who are not part of iodp is that there's a significant lag from the time the expedition goes until scientists have a chance to take those samples back to their labs and do research and it starts churning out into the, into journals into science into science communication for everybody else to see. And that's typically on the order of four to five years that photo to the right is the expedition 397 science party or part of them at Bremen core repository doing a sample party post expedition and that actually should say June not not February. I had a brain freeze thing and put the wrong thing in there. All those trash bags are not trash those are 55,000 plus samples that were collected out of six kilometers of core collected on their expedition. This expedition is just now getting started at pulling pulling together the work that they need to do to put things into into the journals it's going to take them four to five years. I've seen records from this amazing depth transect off the Iberian margin that has beautiful high resolution signals in the last six million years I guarantee you there's killer scientific findings that are going to come off of this. But that's four to five years down the line. So I've taken the point of view of doing these three steps you see here in the next slides, and that is looking at publication statistics we are an NSF facility. So having attended many workshops I know all NSF facilities use this approach to look at the quantitative impact of their facility and that's just looking at the numbers of publications and citations and the like. We publish that we do we do a compilation every year and publish that on our website and another one will come out in September probably. And the question is, are the expeditions actually going to be have have they been done and will they be done in as we in toward the end of the program to meet the different science plan themes. This is the task that the. Can you go back one please. This is a task that the ideal Iod before him looks at periodically. And so luckily, they just did that with the help of the science party and I've stolen a couple of slides from Hank bring cross to to who's the chair of that that board to show you that. And then I went to the task of calling through high impact publications to to produce a list of what I think are the high impact publications are bullets for to show you guys but it I think anybody who's been involved in this know the breadth of the programs. So this is just me going through and pulling these out. I had a little help, but a couple of them but so if you're in a field that's far field from what I do, you will see the naivete as I approach trying to pull a bullet out of these so apologies in advance if you think what I pulled out is not appropriate. So just look at publication statistics a panel on the left is the current phase of the program. It's that y axis goes to 90, and this is just publications per expedition. And the y at the x axis is chronological from the early expeditions to the more recent ones. You see that tail off as you get toward more recent expeditions. They just haven't had time to turn anything out into the literature. So to give you a comparison or to see where things are going. You can look at the integrated ocean drilling program which is on the right panel, the y axis goes to 200, and you can see a lot more publications and you can see the variation. The dark blue and this are the chick you expeditions and they are publication, both a group piled too many and one of those. They aren't quite as linked and then the red ones are the mission specific platforms and all the rest are other jr expeditions. So next slide. It's looking at citations per expedition. Again, this is there's a lag from this one relative to when the publications come out. You can see in the over 15,000 for this phase of the program already. You can see some that have kind of kind of really stand out, including the, the IBMs and, and, and sell China see the beginning the red chicks elube one, which Sean was one of the co chiefs on. You can see the comparison to the integrated phase which is goes the y axis goes to 12,500. And you can, you can see that variation you see per expedition is pretty typical. Okay, next one. And this is just, let's look at the total number of publications in the highest impact journals. This is the top 30 going from the highest impact the lowest impact that's what's in the parentheses. The two colors are here are slightly are slightly different. This is looking at the entire history of scientific ocean drilling. So the dark, the darker blue or purple is 1969 to 2002. So the deep sea drilling project and the ocean drilling program, and the green is the, the last two I ODPs. So well over 6000 publication in the high impact journals. Moving on to the science plan. What you see there are the five major themes in the current science plan, each plan, each theme has some high priority challenges they're 14 and total. If you spend some time reading through this, this, this science plan which is a 10 year science plan. I think you can look at that and see, you know, it's clear that this is, there's there's quite a bit that's aspirational in this that we can certainly make progress but some of this won't will not be accomplished in one, one 10 year plan. And I think you see that the change in tact that Anthony will be talking about later with the scientific framework for for the future. Next slide please. Okay, this is just a number of expeditions plotted against the 14 different challenge numbers. And you can see that there are multiple expeditions that are addressing each major challenge. And so down the road, once all these expeditions start producing a science that we're going to have a significant a chunk of this addressed in on the way to to solving questions and problems but also generating new questions and problems that could be solved. And then this is looking at publications in a broader sense. So these are going from left to right program publications these are the proceedings volume that are part of each expedition publishing some data reports, journal articles, and then abstracts presentation so that gives you the stuff that's too early to go out into journals, and then thesis and dissertations. It's just it's just more same thing so to to move on to scientific findings I wanted to spend a minute to go back to this map because it shows us what where to expect some scientific findings and where it's too early. And this is my only mostly from the JR perspective because it went through a track and a path that allowed both the science community to put proposals in ahead of it, but it also allowed the program with multiple expeditions in the same region tackling regional problems. And so the expedition started in the western Pacific, moved into the northern and sundered Indian Ocean and back into the western Pacific. And so a suite of expeditions are recording different signals from the Asian monsoons. There are various aspects of subduction initiation which was an open question that have been addressed. And then they're interesting connections between expeditions. And so basically everything that I'm going to be talking about now is from the western Pacific, and Indian Ocean. There was a Southern Ocean campaign that most of that was tackled in 2019. So it's a little too early, and these guys were slowed down a little bit by coven. So we're starting to see some of those trickling out but it's another year or so before you see most of it out. And then everything in Atlantic and the Mediterranean that we've been operating over the last few years is premature. Although there are several expeditions in there that are already looking at straight off the expedition publications that they're working on. There's one that's impressed for Nature Geoscience off the Norwegian margin. Looking at hydrothermal venting and impact on global warming in particular the palisthenic eocene thermal maximum. There's one firm around the Santorini volcanic complex and the GNC looking at explosive volcanism and geohazards. One that we just completed in the Central Atlantic recovering an amazing 1000 meters of ultramafic altered rocks that are either lower crustal mantle that is unprecedented so far in scientific ocean drilling and they're working on a paper. So okay here goes my stab in one week coming up with the most significant findings so far in this phase of I ODP. You know, the, just a caveat that, you know, picking the high profile publications does not give you the meat of what's being produced, and are you really advancing the science plan but it gives you a flavor that this kind of science is coming from those. And so the, you know, the monsoon track of expeditions there's been some interesting data, interesting sciences coming out of this, in particular ones looking at the plasticine record of rainfall precipitation from the monsoons, and using it to validate predictions by models for increased CO2, refinement of the origin and timing of the onset of the monsoon, cooling and article and how that's impacted regional precipitation patterns in Australia, and in the Southeast Asia in the myosin, the series of expeditions, we're seeing, you know, indications that salt buildup in the Indian Ocean during glacials is driving circulation through the Agus leakage into the Atlantic and and having an impact on the glacial circulation. Interesting data coming out looking at trying to tease out the processional signal and early early Pleistocene. Next one. From the Southern Ocean expeditions you're seeing some some information coming out showing in a northward shift of melting of icebergs and sea ice is impacting the Atlantic Marino overturning circulation reorganization during glacials. A really cool paper looking at dust and productivity variation, looking at how low productivity glacial sea ice is impacting CO2 drawdown. And then the one economic terms of why there is such large sea level amplitude in the early middle myosin, and that's being answered by the, the, there being a larger Western Antarctic ice sheet during that period and as a present. And the Chicks Lube expedition, trying to pick high, the high profile ones out of that is really, really, really challenging to do. Here's to in the climate and oceans I this amazing paper looking at a huge stick sequence of breccia and and and rock that provides a high resolution record of the immediate days and year time frame aftermath of the Chicks Lube impact. A really cool paper by Chris at all that looked at recovery of marine ecosystems right at the crater which was much more rapid than expected. Going back further in time. So there's a paper that came out looking at massive volcanism and large igneous promises, and how that triggered an oceanic inoxic event in the mid Cretaceous, which is associated with oceanic inoxic event to next one please. And biosphere again here's one that's not my my field. Here's some, you know, these are papers I hadn't had a chance to read these are really some really cool stuff. There was a nice new survey of global marine, a global diversity of looking at 40 sites with depth to 700 meters below the seafloor using the exact same methods. There's a paper on on survival strategies of a low biomass, but globally but a diverse population in crustal rocks below the seafloor. The, the expedition that the chick you did that was designed to test the limit of life in a high geothermal setting off of Japan, had some very interesting variations and microbial abundance and activity of temperatures above 30 degrees in these crazy high high activity methanogens and sulfate reducers at really deep at high temperature. And then another paper that's been with the drilling on brothers volcano off of off of New Zealand looking at community variation and structure with the change in geology and high to thermal regimes that exist in that in that volcano submarine Okay, now we're really getting away from what I do earth connections. So the series of expeditions looking at subduction as initiation, both in the isubonene Mariana region looking at the both the, the, the back arc and the four arc data, both of them are pointing toward isubonene seduction initiating as a spontaneous rather than an induced model which is one of the new in member models that had the needed to be tested. And then, here was one where I'm not a tecton assist so this one was much more complex looking at the Tanda Tonga Kermadec subduction zone and drilling off of Zealandia, off of New Zealand, which is a complex response of up left and depression that that may have elements of both induced and and spontaneous model, a breakup of the South China Sea, not being at the in member that was anticipated pre expedition, and then and then finally alteration of seawater impacting global cycles. Am I out of time. Okay. Last slide please. And this is looking at earth and earth and motion, really cool data on on landslides off of of of Antarctica that were set by pre deposition of the margin, related to climate change and then induced by glacier glacier static adjust readjustment certainly that has implications with rising CO2 levels and ice retreat. And the Chicksalube, one of the main hypothesis of the Chicksalube expedition was to test the origin of the peak rings. And that was a clear clear answer to that one. And then a series of expeditions looking at the major earthquakes, generating zones to mantra and Hikarangi, and, and, and off of, off of Japan, looking at different aspects of what is driving those those major earthquakes, and the slow slip. earthquake regime that's off of Hikarangi and mankind. I'll stop there. Okay, thank you. So we have several questions and got about 10 minutes or so left and the first one has to do with strum arena how fewer. And the question is talks about the, the technical staff and jr is so great and then how can we keep that priceless resource of know how over the next decade. And so there's a two, two prong answer to that and, and it's, it's going to be very difficult, especially if the timeframe to a new new vessel is 15 to 20 years, I mean I think that if it's actually that long I think that's going to be an impossible challenge. I mean we're talking different generations of people probably right. And in the short term, one of the one of the things that we're we're will be submitting a proposal to NSF for the wind down phase of iodp which will be five years after the last expedition. And it'll also fund activity at the repository. And we are going to be moving all the implementations from the vessel and installing it at the Gulf Coast repository and and we'll have some staff that we can retain to help provide those services to the And so that's that's one way but it's it'll it depends on what happens after that next five years. Okay, then the next question is, you mentioned four CPPs over the past decade. And so the question is do you think for per decade is a reasonable pacing that could be planned with any confidence. Well, I think that we didn't see any repeated means it might have been one off efforts from those those partners but it did it was important in the end with the cash flow challenges that this this face hat. The next one is from Allison Miller which is why have so few drilling expeditions taking place in the US easy. Yeah, so there. There haven't been that that many proposed. We did have one in the Gulf of Mexico that we had to pull because of regulatory challenges, but that was drilling gas hydrates and it put us in a non science framework to put it in a basically the regulatory farm it for drilling oil and gas, and the JR is an older vessel and it couldn't be retrofitted for that. The rest of the easy. You know could have could have been drill if there were proposals. Okay. Let's see. The question from Allison is how much scientific drilling could be accomplished if you had equipment that could be moved from research vessel research vessel. I guess that's in the context of perhaps future MSPs. How much of the science on Jr could be done on other vessels. And how much can only Jr do a simple question. Yeah, I mean, there's a whole breakout session on that right. I mean, I'm not going to be able to provide an adequate answer that and, you know, the time here and I might be better to address that in the breakout session. So some next one is, but there's a point someone makes is that see the special issue of oceanography that has a lot of information that to back up here. Yeah, and that was that was published in 2019. And if you look at it, it had a couple of the elements, but the subduction initiation, a nice summary was in there of that. There was a little bit of monsoon in there, but that was mostly monsoon that was in the predecessor program so it captured the very early element of this phase of the program. But most of that is pre this phase so the historical part. Okay. Then there's a question about the Arctic, which is. Can we talk about the cancellation of 377 and 403. Right person talk about that. So cancellation was 404 for number 377 and number 477 I mean there's people in the room to know more about that than I do, including somebody on the committee. But it got canceled for political reasons so when Russia invaded Ukraine it stopped that 404 is the one that got canceled it was on the JR schedule. And that had to do with the end of JR operations, and then having to demobilize the vessel in the this this during this award. And so that that last expedition had to be removed and be replaced by demobilizing the vessel. And that was something that was a discussion item at the facility board that if that happened, then that expedition would have to come off. And then there's a question from Steve Palumbi, which is how much of the ocean drilling conclusions can be applied to current ocean conditions and models, and how much mostly applies to past conditions in the myosin, myosin and Pleistocene. So I guess it's modern, how much applies to the modern ocean I think it's Steve's answer. Yeah, and I'm not the right person to ask that question to I don't think there are plenty in this room who can tear that one up pretty pretty quickly. And I'm sure that's going to come out at some point. I can't see the more that it. Okay, well I think that's all the questions so far and I think you set up the meeting nicely and I'm sure there'll be a lot of opportunities to deal with some of the ones that came up at more depth. Okay, thank you. Jim you're on next. Good morning, can everybody hear me okay. Zoe. So you're in there you are. Good morning, everyone and thank you for having me here this morning. My name is Jim McManus, and I'm the division director of the division of ocean sciences, which resides within the director of geosciences at the US National Science Foundation. I'm also joined by my colleagues. Dr Jamie Allen. Dr Kevin Johnson, and Dr Shelby Walker. Who will be, we will be collectively we will be here in and out of the room over the next couple days. And our task is to listen. You'll have to endure about 10 minutes of me talking. First and foremost, I want to thank the committee and all who are participating in this workshop. This is a big task. The decadal survey is something we don't take lightly at the National Science Foundation. It provides information for how we think about the future, not just the next 10 years, but beyond the next 10 years. Strategic planning sort of has ripple effects extending out past the timing, if you will, of just the strategic plan. Not that the decadal survey is a strategic plan, but it is a document that informs our thinking over the next decade. Part of what I want to do this morning, so I noticed the title, the title is the briefing from the July ODP town hall, and I want to reflect a little bit on that meeting, but largely in the context of the task of this group in the workshop there's lots of elements of the of that briefing that I will not discuss it's available online if you'd like to to to view it. But I'm going to be trying to point us towards thinking about the decadal survey and the context of the discussion over the next two days. So we next slide. Would you hit walk us through this. Thanks. That's good. The current cooperative agreement with Texas A&M for JR operations will end following 2024. We're not retiring the JR. Quite simply the JR is not NSS vessel. And we are not in a position to make that decision. The Division of Ocean Sciences wants to support scientific sub seafloor sampling and needs that enterprise to be sustainable. Mitch outlined some of the challenges in his talk, and I won't repeat those but we've had serious challenges, pretty much over the last 20 years. The current model for IODP which has been in place more or less for that 20 years is simply not a resilient model as it depends on timely contributions outside of the National Science Foundation. We need a base model that allows for predictable and regular operations that will benefit from larger cooperation from outside of the federal funding and support, but will not be reliant on external contributions for the program's execution. I want to express to the international community that we want to continue long standing partnerships through a new financially sustainable model. We want scientific ocean drilling to be an international enterprise that is balanced financially and maintain some level of financial predictability. Science communities sorry that was loud. That's the way I've been told science communities drive what research and infrastructure NSF funds within its budget. Near future proposals workshops, like what's happening here community input for scientific ocean drilling activities, employing a portfolio of sampling approaches will help make the case for sustained and long term investment in the enterprise. Next slide please Zoe NSF recognizes the important emotion drilling enabled science in contributing to understanding the broader earth system. We need to consider how to meet new and emerging scientific priorities. Recognizing fiscal constraints over the next 10 to 25 years and that's referencing the, the, the ripple if you will have of our activities here the next two days. In planning for the next generation of scientific ocean drilling we need to identify science priorities under the framework of the broad oceanographic community and the nation's needs. The planning will require investment and continued dialogue. Next slide please Zoe. As we look forward over both the near and long terms, there are a number of activities that we will continue to support, or we'll begin. NSF has and will continue to invest in research using legacy samples and data for motion drilling cores and Mitch referenced the, the, the lag time if you will that that is sort of on the order of half to full decade for science that comes out of collection of those samples. NSF. The short, sorry, the shorter term. We will consider and continue to plan for mission specific class platform, seabed drilling deep piston coring expedition to meet scientific priorities. And we're currently working on an operating model for how to support those activities. And I did mention that at the, the July meeting. We're developing an approach for how we support the longer term vision for sub seafloor sampling platform or platforms. IE defining what our infrastructure might look like in the future. So we, oh, you're on it. Why did we ask for a decadal survey to answer that question. I want to first point you to our mission that NSF promotes the progress of science by investing in research to expand knowledge and science, engineering and education. NSF also invests in actions that increase the capacity of the US to conduct and exploit such research. So how we go about our decision making process is through community input. One way we accomplish that is through our peer review process, a process that many of you have heard me say I'm most proud of here in the US. But we also need regular input through a variety of other mechanisms like what is happening here this week. So our combined inputs have provided a number of focus areas within the broader geosciences and include topics like climate change, climate intervention, geologic or climate hazards, new technologies and the need for new research infrastructure. The result from a new decadal survey is for our science to remain nimble and consider issues of timeliness urgency societal benefit and technological advances that can create new opportunities to address our most pressing needs. This is a big ask but is how we will focus on the critical role of the ocean in the broader earth system. Under the broad umbrella of what we are looking for from you, we need to continuously address the question what research infrastructure is needed to advance the high priority ocean science research questions over the coming decade and beyond. What we need from you here is to identify the most urgent priorities that need to be accomplished over the next 10 to 25 years with an eye toward a portfolio of approaches to addressing those, those priorities that can meet those objectives. That is all I have to say this morning. The goal here is to really think about priorities as tuba said, I don't know if tuba was was parroting me from the first meeting, but a long list of priorities is actually not a list of priorities. I have asked that the decadal survey committee not produce a long list of priorities because that won't be as useful a guiding document as something that really clearly articulates what the nation scientific enterprise needs for the next decade. With that, I will stop and take any questions. Yeah, thank you, Jim. You have a question, right off the bat from Rick Murray. Okay, Rick. I just stated that NSF wants international support and NSF's eyes is such international support support required in a future program. If a sustainable program can be structured, must it have international participation in terms of dollars. You mentioned the base program. Yeah, let me. Let me attempt to fill that out as clearly as I can. The base program that as we work through our, our annual budgeting process is not going to be beholden to priorities that are outside of the National Science Foundation, we can only read. We could only within limits control what what we have, if essentially the resources that we have a base program means we want to be able to continue. We're able to continue scientific operations at a base level that we're, we feel good about, meaning we feel we can support and accommodate partners to come into that program or to work with us in some other way to be at odds. The current model is not structured that way. That's a good question. I don't know. I don't know what I ODP cubed is but is that something that NSF is potentially going to participate in or does participate in or what's the story on that. So, what I will say about I ODP cubed is, we are currently planning on having meetings at the end of the month with our international partners to explore what. How we might interact. I don't want to address specifically I ODP cube, but where we are with our international partners is continuing the dialogue. Some international partners to varying levels, multiple international partners have talked to us. We're trying to figure out how we can both make a make a transparent and financially feasible relationship with with our international colleagues. That's a little nebulous Jim I know but that that's probably the best answer I can give you in process. It's what it sounds like. Yeah. Okay. See to but has a question. She says I think I heard you say that you are working on a pathway to make available access to potential sampling platforms. Did they understand that correctly. Can you tell us more about the timeline for this work. I'm trying not to answer with no I can't but but we work inside the federal government so there are plans that we are working on. We are hoping I am hoping to be able to say that that the first step in those plans and how we start to accommodate. A new program will come out that that sort of announcement we are still working on the details of what we would like to see but I'm hopeful that that announcement is relatively imminent but I can't say any more than that. I probably said too much but I don't think you can get much out of what I just said. A question from Leon Clark does NSF and visit envisage a future base subsea floor sampling program that will have well over 10 months of sea going operations or something on a smaller scale. It's too early to mention the the operating length the operating season if you will have of any particular program. I mentioned very much in a cursory manner is we're thinking about what the platform support will look like going forward and and that's it's a it's not quite a blank slate but it's a pretty blank slate at this point. The more detailed answer to that question is in every other facility we operate we will have to operate within within the budget constraints we have at that particular time. And sometimes that means we have shorter at sea programs and sometimes it means we can go a little longer and so that that's the most accurate answer I can give to that is we are constrained by our operations are constrained budgetarily and that makes sense. And we will just have to see where we are in the future. There's a question from Jim Zachos, if urgent priorities require just don't urgent priorities require resuming Jr style drilling with three to five years is NSF willing to support that. For example, by funding leasing of another ship and outfitting, possibly with more streamlined operations. I'm trying to think of the exact words of that question, Jim. Yeah, but but I think the answer is, let me answer it without knowing the exact words. NSF is interested in finding ways. So we have budgetary resources finding ways to continue doing sampling operations on the platforms that are available to us. There is no, there's nothing more to say other than than that the I mentioned Miss mission specific platforms. Think of mission specific platforms as a pretty wide open definition. That's what that means. We are working on how we would do that. So now there's two questions related to the 2050 scientific framework. One of them is from Steve, the other ones anonymous, but the anonymous is not hate mail so that's that's good. So anyway, what is the status event at NSF of the 2050 science framework created by the drilling community in recent years. So the way I put this the, the 2050 framework is a document that we recognize as something that identifies the, the priorities of the drilling community writ large over the next 25 years. And what I'm asking today is, tell us what the most urgent priorities are over the next decade. So, I think that's the answer to the question. There was a second question I think or was that combined. That was wrapped into both. Okay. All right. And that's a pretty good segue to that topic. Thank you very much for being here. I want to say one more time. Thank you all. My colleagues and I will be here to bear I have to jump in and out for a variety of meetings and I will be online tomorrow but but we're here listening and we're happy to hear from you along the way so. Thank you again. I know that that folks had to travel and that folks online and, and in the room are taking times out of their, their days and their weeks. And I appreciate it. Thank you Jim. All right, with that we are right on time. Thank you to our speakers. So, next talk will be by Anthony coppers who could not be here in person today, but I believe he is online, and he will be reviewing good segue he will be reviewing the 2050 science framework for scientific ocean drilling for us. Anthony, are you there. Yes, I am. Can you hear me. Yes, thank you for being here. Yes, absolutely take it away. Okay, thank you. Good morning everybody my name is Anthony coppers I'm an associate vice president for research and a professor marine geology at Oregon State University. Before I get started I want to first thank the committee and its co chairs for inviting me to speak to you on behalf of the overall scientific ocean drilling community. To do so as this community is made of a long standing, multi generational multinational, highly collaborative and highly transdisciplinary group of world class scientists and students who together have explored the earth as well know address the most critical science questions of high societal development, tested hundreds of science hypothesis, across dozens of science disciplines and sub disciplines, and were born new fields of scientific inquiry and put together have created a wealth of earth science information that otherwise would be impossible to get our hands on. So, next slide please. So my work with scientific ocean drilling started in 95. For the last 28 years my students and I have been deeply involved with sailing on the jr and doing research with course towards in its IDP repositories. Here on the slider listed two example papers by my students one highly cited an EPSL, and one just published in science, showcasing the relevance of scientific ocean drilling findings that actually go beyond our own science disciplines. We've also served in various leadership positions in IDP since 2010, which accumulated in the honor to actually serve as a colleague editor for the 2050 science framework. And on behalf of the massive national and international scientific ocean drilling community. In this presentation and I will discuss the why and what of the framework, how the science in this framework is of the broader scope, and what will be difficult if not impossible to do if we lose the capabilities of the Jodes resolution in 2024. I also will list for immediate steps that should be taken in fiscal year 24 to keep scientific ocean drilling continuing and strong and starting to deliver on the key scientific goals that are laid out in the 2050 science framework. Exploring earth by scientific ocean drilling, that is the framework's title, but why did we create it. So let's dig into that question together started. Next slide please. The overarching goal of the 2050 science framework is to guide future subsea floor research that will reveal the key linkages, processes, feedbacks and tipping points in the complex complex earth system. In short, it will increase our understanding of earth as an interconnected system, and it will reveal the many complex interactions between the solid earth, the oceans, life, climate and society. To that end, there's so much still to do, so much more to research, so many new drill sites to occupy around the world. For example, it's critical to collect a wide range of pale climate records to test contemporary global climate models that provide competing forecast and that lay out different future scenarios for sea level rise, ocean circulation, ocean acidification, ocean oxygenation coral reef health, and the expanding aridity patterns across continents. Just to name a few. Just look at the news of the past few weeks for scientists and people all around the world are trying to figure out what's the extreme warm ocean water temperatures with anomalies up to eight degrees C right in the North Atlantic may mean everybody's wondering if and when the Atlantic merodional overturning circulation may stop and create an entirely new climate to date on earth. Scientific ocean drilling will be critical in providing lessons from changing global ocean circulations in the geological part. The 2050 science framework is set up to address these kinds of truly critical and timely questions. So before I go on, I think it's crucial to understand what this framework is not simply put it's not a science plan. And it's also not an implementation plan written for specific drilling platform, such as the Georgia solution in the United States, the QQ in Japan, or the mission specific platforms in Europe. Instead, it provides this superstructure on top of which new programs and new facilities are built, such as a brand new, such as the brand new IDP Q program by Europe in Japan, the almost ready new drill ship in China, or a future new rise drilling vessel in the United States. The framework is purposely brought in this build around interconnections, international, multi disciplinary collaborations in this aspirational with new science goals that have clear societal impact. The framework was built by and for the next generation of scientists, and it is a long ranging one, because it goes through 2050. So, and we did that so that we can include science endeavors that require consistent, even decadal attention to get it actually done. There are science questions that are that big. To put it differently, 2050 science framework contains a lot of new science, not yet done with scientific ocean drilling, or in any other science field. Next slide please. The framework at its basis has seven strategic objectives that represent broad areas of scientific inquiry. As you can see in the pinwheel diagram here on the right, these objectives cover many topics in the earth, ocean, life, geophysical biology and polar sciences, and more. They are designed to allow it to investigate interconnections in the dynamic earth system with its climate and the environment and with all life on it. And that's visualized in the center of the pinwheel with a tree interlocking jigsaw puzzle pieces. The new research on those interconnections then will influence our inquiry into understanding of natural hazards, global cycles and rates, and the health and habitability of our oceans and planets, and those are depicted in the tree and circling arrows. Later in my presentation, I will map out those strategic objectives against the broader science themes in the ocean sciences and beyond. But I think it's easy to grasp from those seven objectives that the 2050 science framework is both broad and widely encompassing. Next slide please. The framework also includes five flagship initiatives, which are designed as long term drilling endeavors that aim to inform issues of particular interest to society. They are typically combining goals from multiple strategic objectives. These new flagship initiative inherently require a coordinated military expedition approach, which is best done with skilled coordinating program offices in place, like for example, the Joseph solutions science support office, sorry, science operations office, and the US science support office in Lamont. I'm going to point out here that the flagship initiatives one, three and five are directly relevant to today's societal challenges and of high importance to several natural security risks, say like sea level rise and geo hazards. Next slide please. I already have shown that the scope right of the science framework is really purposely very broad and reaching far beyond the science, the ocean scientists. They dig into how the framework objectives and initiatives are matching up with the science priorities in the first decadal survey of the ocean scientist that was published in 2012. So next slide please. This this slide will need some explanation and sorry for putting such a dense matrix in front of you all. So let me take you through this step by step. First in the brown background color I'm lifting the eight research areas from the first decadal survey of the ocean scientists in 2012. These research areas were considered by the decadal survey committee for each large facility in the US, for example, the economic research vessel, the ocean service initiative, oh I deep submergence and IDP. And determined by this committee, whether that facility was important, indicated by the capital I, or critical indicated by the capital to see in addressing those research areas. If the facility was not critical or not important to that research area this tell is blank. The scoring they came up with is listed here on the row next to the circle with the one in it in the upper left. According to that decadal survey report IDP was important in two research areas and critical in three out of the eight seconds on the second row right with that black circle with two in it. I have updated the scoring based on the last 10 years of IDP operations and science. So that's a first scoring category for first work, capital F, if scientific ocean drilling community has started to work in the research area, newly. And you can see I've updated particularly the work around ocean and climate for ability to critical and we started to really start working in by diversity and marine ecosystems as well. I referred to extend this analysis to the 2050 times framework I needed to potentially expand the table, even that the frame we provide such a broad science superstructure. I do that I therefore edit seven new categories on the right hand side of the table in the great background for these includes habitability and microbiology, ocean health, global biogeochemical cycles, energy matter and marine resources, technology and workforce development, and data scientists monitoring and artificial intelligence. Then from row three downward right the black circle of the tree and that I have added all the 2050 times framework items, the seven strategic objective, the five black ship initiative, and the four enabling elements that are also part of this superstructure. And then I filled out right this matrix by putting either an I is he or an F relative to to this matrix. I'm not going to go through that one row by row. But one, what I want you to leave you with here is the clear impression that the 2050s kinds framework is usually expanding what IDP did from 2013 through 2023. And those providing new important and critical input to all of those research areas. These areas clearly covered the ocean scientists with which far beyond that country on. Next slide please. We chained back here a little bit scientific ocean drilling, unlike industrial or commercial drilling prioritized as recovery of complete sedimentary and rock records to continuous quarry and that way can make a revolution basically in our understanding of the earth. In fact, the oil and gas industry are best equipped for drilling down and not, and they're not that interested in or good and pouring actually and retrieving those nine and half meter course that the GRR does. So in the next couple of slides, I will investigate with you what will be lost in terms of science without it your information and when we may get to work with commercial drilling vessels instead. The next slide please. Most commercial vessels have a real single limit of about three kilometer, which is less than half. When compared to the GR which has about 6.5 kilometer on boards. I also heard earlier from Mitch Malone that these commercial vessels can core at a much lesser speed three to four times slower than a GR. Having said that, there are a few commercial drilling vessels out there that do have more drill string on board. But if you look to the e-court or the European mission Pacific platform operator, they actually recommended scientists only plan for up to three kilometer of drill pipe. These special commercial vessels that have a lot of drill pipe on it are very expensive to rent or lease, and often are oversubscribed because there's a few of them, making those unaffordable, logistically complex and unlikely alternate solutions to the GR. Here on this slide I show two maps on the left. The top one shows where in the world to J are in the cheek you and msp can operate today, which is basically everywhere. The bottom one shows where we can operate after the Joe's resolutions retired in 2024. And when we would potentially start to drill with those commercial felt vessels that have only three kilometer to sing on board. In short, any place in the world oceans where water depth are greater than three kilometer are now blacked out and potentially cannot be used to address the 2015 science framework goals. Installing borehole observatories can be done with commercial vessels, we know that. But the corks, which are special borehole installations developed with scientific ocean drilling, as I said are very specialized and uniquely outfitted for working with the GR. The upper right map shows how few holes have been occupied with corpse for earthquake crystal crystal fluid flow or my capability research. And given that it is so hard to install them with other vessels. It seems in least of my viewpoint, it's very unlikely that many more will get added without the GR. The severely hampering progress on the proposed extensive earthquake monitoring networks in the 2015 framework, or any original life to do my priority research goals for modern day hard rock basement drilling. The current IDP standard is to at least core 200 meter into the basement and and below, so that we can pass the sea water altered top section and get into fresher rocks. Most commercial drills have experience in drilling sedimentary packages where oil and gas resides, but not so much a drilling into the salty basement. The lower right map shows only a couple of dozen holes that have been drilled into basement for at least 200 meters over the whole run of IDP and the other programs. And that hard rock core collection is again unlikely to be expanded on giving, giving those limitations. Rock bottom drills are very interesting, but they also are not of a particular help here, because they typically don't go deeper than 150 meters penetration into the subsea for. Next slide please. Here I show another key example. We all know that we may be living through a sick mass extinction on earth and the first one caused by humans. Therefore, it's critically important to establish the baseline state of our oceans health and examine potential responses by the earth system to compare major perturbation such as the paleo gene using thermal maximum also called PETM. This occurred around 56 years ago when CO2 was rapidly released into the atmosphere. Again, scientific ocean drilling is uniquely positioned to answer those questions. If we can reach deep into those sedimentary sections, and we can recover those sections in a continued and intact manner. As you can see on the left only a few sites have good PETM sections thus far, but most of them collected near the three kilometer water depth limit of commercial vessels. On the right, I'm reproducing two diagrams that Mitch Blone showed earlier. Based on current operational statistics, more than 40% of the JR's work has been in waters deeper than three kilometer. And for nine more than 912, they penetrated more than 250 meters into the subsea floor of those more than 300 deeper than 500 and of those 46 deeper than a kilometer. Those latest statistics statistics show that many expeditions require a lot more drill pipe. I can draw the conclusion here at least one conclusion that a lot of the science in the 2050 science framework requires more of those deeper targets. So let's look at three key examples from past expeditions that require those high fidelity science that are relevant to the 2050 science framework. Over the last decade, many fundamental advantages have been made in deep biosphere studies. Most of that work was done with corks installed by the JR for sampling of fluids for due chemistry and microbiology and carrying out monitoring over several years. In those corks they are using in situ mass spectrometers and enrichment experiments and colonization experiments, for example, as pictured here on the right. The cork itself is shown here as the background background image for people that know don't know what a cork is. IDP data has has shown that the deep sedentary biosphere has as many cells as the entire water column that's oxygen can penetrate into the basaltic basement. And that's a deep biosphere extent down to at least two and a half kilometer beneath the sea floor and into the basaltic basements finding the limit of life. One of the themes in the science framework that seems unlikely if we need to go beyond the three kilometer total drill pipe limits. Understanding the habitability of our planet in extreme environments also will be slowed down as that depends often on work done with those highly specialized corks. Next slide please. Evolution 383 around Antarctica and in iceberg alley has been very profound to understanding ice and ocean dynamics within a changing climate. They set out to better understand how polar ice sheets responded to changes in insulation and CO2 in the past, and how ice sheet evolution influenced global sea level. And also by investigating the mid-plyosine warm periods and the late-plyosine pleasure expansion of the Western Antarctic ice sheet. And actually that is the record that goes beyond the 800,000 year ice core records that we have in hand. However, to get to those continuous climate records, they needed to do two things. They needed to use APT and half APT coring tools that helped and optimized by scientific ocean drilling and the JR over the last couple of decades to get undisturbed course sections that are necessary for this high-resolution climate studies. And second, they needed to carry out a transect of course sites from shallow water on the sub-antharctic front to deep water more than three kilometers deep in the dove and peary basins. They succeeded with the JR on both fronts by getting between 260 and 250 meters of long sections that are continuous and high quality and basically providing high fidelity climate records. Using 3.7 kilometers of drill stream in some cases. These shallow to deep water transects are key in the climate objectives in the 2050s time framework, and those are likely much harder to be attained without a future JR. Next slide, please. Another expedition, 362, drilled the input materials of the North Sumetran Subduction Zone. Where the magnitude nine plus earthquake and tsunami originated that devastated coastal communities around the Indian Ocean in 2004. Around the Christmas break. The expedition was designed to ground through the material properties costing the unexpected tell those types of organic slip. That was not really well explained by any current models at the time. They succeeded with the JR by drilling two sites on the Indian Oceanic plate and recording a logging to a maximum maximum depth of 1.5 kilometers below the sea floor. And in more than four kilometer water depth. And I needed for that almost six 5.6 kilometer of drill string per hole. Some of the studies have not yet been done, but are badly needed for understanding, for example, the cascades reduction zone right here in our us easy waters. Again, without the George resolution this may be harder to pull off in the near future. Next slide please. So let's review a few numbers that make scientific ocean drilling stand down. Next slide. Personally, I do not know of any large facility in the United States that has published so widely and has had such a great impact. Over the last five decades, scientific ocean drilling has produced more than 13,000 peer-reviewed publications. Of those, more than 6,000 appears in the top 30 journals with a larger than three impact factor and more than 800 papers came out in high impact journals such as nature and science with an impact factor larger than 10. More than half of those nature and science papers 491 to be precise were actually published over the last decade alone. Since 2003, more than 600 us research institutions from 50 pay were involved in scientific ocean drilling. Through expeditions or workshops and meetings, showing it's not only being used by the primary primary oceanographic research institutions. In the same period of time, 26 countries were involved across the program, showing the incredible international and collaborative character of the science field. Finally, during the summer of 2022, more than 2200 scientists, students and teachers and more signed a petition in support of continued future rise was drilling in the US, showing that the community is massive and actively engaged in scientific ocean drilling. Next slide please. For scientific ocean drilling, the program by the people and for the people, we are actively engaging with each other in the US and internationally. And for example, US soda, an alliance of 15 large research institutions in the US has been has a strong interest in scientific ocean drilling and have been informing the NSF leadership on behalf of the community with four letters to inform them about the need and future of the program. In addition, 50 pro-force five presidents, Chancellor's deans from the US and international institutions, that led us to the NSF indicated how critical scientific ocean drilling is for the faculty and students. The community also comes together in large numbers, the key community workshops, meetings and town halls. More than 650 scientists worldwide were involved in shaping the 2050 science framework. More than 400 showed up and joined the NSF town hall where NSF leadership laid out the decision making and planning. And more than 45 writers helped in writing the 2050 science framework of which more than half are early career scientists. And then the last impressive fact, the work of scientific ocean drilling resulted in the creation of two entirely new sub disciplines of paleo oceanography and pale climatology. Next slide please. This is a map showing the results of that US soda petition and give you a really great picture from where scientific ocean drilling scientists and students are hailing basically all around the world from many, many countries. Next slide please. Although the need for a direct replacement for the JR is urgent and the most critical, we need to ask ourselves how to bridge the time between 2024 when the JR is retighted when a new ship can be brought online. Next slide please. I therefore, I therefore offer these four high priority media goals, which during the panel discussion later this morning I will flesh out a bit more. It's almost self-evident, but a new US rice, rice, rice vessel that can carry up to seven kilometers of drill pipe and can operate around the world in all the oceans and seas up to six kilometer water depth. This is what is required to seriously start addressing the great science and kept slated in the framework. It necessitates that as soon as possible, a university based program is established to help guide us and carry out conceptual design for such a new drilling vessel and more. And in the transition time and until such a new drilling vessel is built and operational, there are three immediate steps that in my eyes can be taken. First, we need to keep the community alive and kicking through continuation of both the US Science Support Program and USEC, that's the US Scientific Advisory Committee. Second, we need to put into place a US MSP style office to help scientists with the really daunting logistics procurement, international operations, etc., to actually carry out scientific ocean drilling in the interim. And first, we need to resurrect the ODP solicitation program that was retired around the beginning of the second RDP program in 2012 in order to provide scientists with a mechanism to submit a larger variety of scientific ocean drilling related proposals to the NSF. Next slide please. So in summary, it is impossible to open an Earth and Ocean Sciences textbook, or even an IPCC report and not find references to IEP derived discoveries from the discovery of platyptonic to climate change. The oceanographic and paleoclimate data are so fundamental to our understanding of sea level rise, oceanic and atmospheric circulation and climate change that scientists writing the 2021 IPCC report decided to include insight from these records through the report, water than restricting the IEP climate data to just one chapter. There are many other critical societal challenges for natural hazards, for that scientific ocean drilling can help us address in the future. A great example is the planning for natural hazards like earthquakes and tsunamis to protect life in communities in Canada, for example, by providing evidence on full time behavior at plate boundaries that drive these devastating phenomenon. There's still lots of work to be done in these and many other areas, all coherently and robustly documented in the 2050 science framework, which in my viewpoint will stand as an enduring scaffolding around which we can organize future scientific ocean drilling in the US and collaboratively throughout the world with our international partners. So next slide please. So I will leave you with four take home messages. First scientific ocean drilling is a unique science field, including many disciplines and sub disciplines, and with advanced capabilities that are now lost due to the JR retirement. The new state of the art next version of this incredible facilities needed to seriously address the 2050 science framework. In a sense, the Jewish resolution is like the old Hubble telescope. It's an excellent facility generating many thousands of great pictures of the universe. But now sir James Webb space telescope, and it provides strongly improved capabilities resulting in high fidelity imagery that is revolutionizing the science field of astronomy. What we need foremost is the equivalent of the web telescope in the ocean sciences. We need a replacement of the JR that's significantly improved in this drilling and coring capabilities. Second, the 2050 science framework is extremely broad and filling in across the broader ocean science themes and far beyond, as I've shown earlier in that matrix. And first, without the JR, I showed that scientific ocean drilling will be fundamentally different. And a large percentage of the science cannot be done, or at least not easily done, that's encapsulated in the framework. However, there are also a part of the 2050 science framework that can be carried out by seeking alternative solutions in this community is standing ready to engage and map out how that could or should work. While in parallel working together with the National Science Foundation towards designing a new rise list drilling vessel. And fourth, scientific ocean drilling provides a very strong return on investment, as has been shown by the strong publication records and the fact that this program serves to huge national and international community. Investment in scientific ocean drilling today will not only benefit in the short term, but it clearly will deliver returns in the years and decades to come. And with that I thank you for your attention and I'm looking forward to any of your questions. Yeah, thank you for that great talk and it was exactly on time. So thank you for that as well to the second. Thank you for the questions. The first one's really an NSF question so I'll wait on that one but Jim Zachos has a question. Is it possible to identify high priority issues requiring sign scientific drilling that could be classified as urgent. In other words questions we would like to know the answers to sooner rather than later. I think that's that's definitely true. So the science framework right has this long outlook all the way to 2050. And as I said earlier, some of them in particular the flagship initiatives have that long time frame in mind. And so they will be achieved over that long run. There's also a lot of science in this framework that can be started to be done immediately, but also needs to get done immediately. First comes to mind. Crowns routing climate modeling that's happening now. We, as I had this example right about ocean water temperatures changing so drastically today, or like this week right. And we've, and basically you can read online that scientists are basically pulling their heads out. They don't understand what they're seeing. So we need to really make those models better. And one way of doing that, which is important is provide ground footing with scientific ocean drilling data from the recent geological past or even deeper into geological past maybe all the way back to 50 million years, whether when the earth was potentially in a similar state. So those kind of things I think are required to start immediately and would would be actually counterproductive if we have to wait five or 10 years to actually start on those initiatives. The other one is around geo hazards. As I said, it's seen as a national security issue by the National Science Foundation and by Congress. And as somebody asked, right, we're not really in the US EC that much. And that's true, we haven't really substantially are consistently drilled in the cascadia and around the cascadia subduction zone. So a lot of work needs to get done there to truly understand, you know, how does that subjection some works. It doesn't work like the one in Japan doesn't work like the one in Alaska. It doesn't work like the one around Selenia. It's quite different. It's more quiet than the other ones. But we have no idea why, and what that actually means. So there's another national security reason there to really start working on that science question. Immediately. Okay. I was told to ask the questions in the based on the number of votes they get. So the next one then is by Mona Bell. Mitch and you shared the extensive academic scientific impact of research aboard Jr. Could you briefly reflect on the broader societal impacts education outreach workforce development. And if what can we continue to accomplish without Jr. Yes, so that that's a very important question. And I think Mitch will say that on my behalf, if he was standing here, working on broader impact and outreach has been a challenge within the US with centrifugation really, in particular, given the budget that was provided by the NSF that doesn't really have a substantial amount of budget associated with it. In that sense, you know, from a programmatic point of view, this program has not been diligently and consistently working and translating all those great scientific papers and outcomes into societal information that can be digested by communities around us in the US and around the world. But that's important to understand. So a lot of the impact that's happening is happening through social media. And in the panel discussion actually I will provide an example of something that just appeared widely across social media around you know drilling into the Earth's mental. It's a very fundamental earth question, you know, how is the earth structured, and for us to really drill deep into the earth meant for 1.5 kilometer is a tremendous success of this program, but also has a tremendous interest and impact on the communities around us. So a lot of things can be said around climate change and earthquake research, but often again that translational parts still needs to get done and needs to get improved on and I think if you read this kind of framework. There is one enabling element around outreach and engagement and education that we put in there on purpose because we recognize that this is clearly an area where scientific ocean drilling in the US should improve upon to really make that next step to make our findings into something that society can digest. I forgot the second part of the question. Let's see. What can we continue to accomplish in the area of education outreach and workforce development without the jr. That's harder, that's harder to answer it depends on the solutions that we can bring right forward. And I think it's every, and that is if we want to keep collecting new core sites right in the immediate period. If we cannot do that, or we are limited in that sense. The only thing that we can do of course is work with the existing course that we have in our repositories. And in the beginning of my presentation right I guess is one example of the science paper that one of my students just published in time. And that actually was done with course collected 30 years ago with a feed as a program in new in the United States, also with a jr. And so those course are highly valuable and can answer science questions that we have today. And so we went back right into the core course we collected those samples and we're really able to come back, but a substantial new finding that has a much wider interest than just, you know, the science discipline that I am in in the deep mental and dynamics. So I think that's that's the only other F you we have just continuing to do great science and then translating the findings to society as I just said in my earlier answer. Thank you. Let's see I'm going to skip one because it's really from Brad to young just because it's really a topic for tomorrow it's has to do with infrastructure new infrastructure. So, continuing with the science type questions that said you. This is from tuba. You talked about the importance of scientific ocean drilling to improve our climate models. Are there examples of current forecasting models or other tools that are used in decision making that have been improved. Are there other ways to Iodp work. Well, I mean, yeah, I made the disclaimer that I was definitely not a climate scientist and there are many in the room that that can answer that question, much better than I can, but I did mention the IPC report where IDP data and records and findings right are part of the thinking and the forecasting that has been done there. IPCC reports, not so much, but scientists realize that actually the pale climate record is key in understanding future models so in the in the next IPCC reports IPCC reports. More and more of the records got included and in the last IPCC report that actually had had a substantial impact. But then the specific question how they exactly are incorporated in climate models I cannot give you the answer because that's beyond my expertise. No, there was sort of a related question from Jason link and had to do with the same same basic question but how does scientific ocean drilling research specifically feed into current models pertaining to sea level rise. I assume it's very similar I guess in concept. Yeah, and so, so that I'm also following the chat and one of the specialists in the room said, yes, those those pale climate records are, you know, included in those models. So, so I think that I think the answer goes the same way I think the climate models right are important input into sea level rise models, but you can also think of the questions in where you know we level rise is not just only a global issue it's also a regional or even local issue, depending on local geological phenomena so to read the science framework. There's a lot around how opening of gateways, rising of mountain belts, increase in focus and admit ocean spreading centers are influencing actually sea level rise that way so the more like the longer term geological background drivers in sea level rise. So some of those information from IDP and scientific ocean drilling is being used in sea level rise predictions. If we want to really have more regional and local predictions. And of course, many climate records coming out of scientific ocean drilling have been used for sea level rise. So one that's actually not from this current program but there's a lot of drilling around the new Jersey shelf has been very important early on in sea level rise science and predictions. Thank you. But there's another one that's related infrastructure I'll go ahead and ask because it's a little bit indirect so it's kind of interesting is basically has to do with if you if the jr goes back into the industrial fleet will that free up space, or there's a lot of time on this vessels that might provide a future capability for iodp. That's a very good question. I mean, working with commercial vessels certainly if they are you know in the gas and oil industry. The time you know the logistics of that and the scheduling of those expeditions is strongly correlated with the market. If the market around the world, I mean the financial market around the world is doing well. You see, you know, they have more cash and they really start to do more research around the world and actually start to schedule those vessels themselves. And so it's really hard in those, you know, high times of the economy to get into the schedule. Another way that we have experience is that you might be on the schedule but if there is industry coming along and have more money to put towards a vessel that can kick you off or down the schedule. And actually if you are thinking going out in December now you have to go next year. So there's a lot of logistical and scheduling issues with that. I think if the GR right going back to commercial. I think it has maybe, you know, between four to six expeditions per year in that depending on the length of each expeditions, the normal expedition length of the GR is typically two months. And during the last IDP program we typically done between four and five. I don't so I don't think it's significant. Okay. A question from Laila Hampton, and it has to do with the US easy and if they future in a future framework for for I ODP research. So would this be prioritized based are what would, what would be the role of gaps in other words missing limited data regions, would that would that be a priority do you think or should it be a priority for future missions. That's a very good question to and I wanted to actually go back a little bit to one of the maps right that I showed and don't have to backwards on my flight but the maps that I showed with drilling locations right if you look at the map includes all the DSDP ODP and IDP you would see get a map with a lot of dots hunt. But you have to understand what's behind those dots, right during DSDP it was all exploration of the world's oceans and the technology of coring in particular was not really that well developed so most of the DSDP records were body, but very, very important because we were exploring the oceans and a lot of good research came out of that from an exploratory point of view. So we started to see how the DSDP techniques started to improve and we started to more towards hypothesis testing, but still the techniques were not that great yet, and still we didn't have many continuous course, like we really need to address the 2050 science framework, only during the last many years during IDP ODP techniques started to really improve, and we starting to get those kind of expedition results that I showed you, like the one around Antarctica or Sumatra, where we really beautiful continuous records that really inform our science. So, having said that, what that means is there really aren't that many spots that we have occupied over the last 50 years that are of that high quality. The 2050 science framework requires it high quality or high fidelity records to really address the next generation of science hypothesis and questions. So, there are many, many gaps that we need to go out and fill in some of them are in locations where DSDP already drilled. Some of them are where there's no drilling done before yet. But yes, it's very important to do that. And it's also important to do it say in transect or in grids, like I just showed you right with that Antarctic expedition that was done along a transect. Doing the transect is important because it provides a different insight in an interpretation of the records that they recover. So DSDP, as I said, was exploratory, they were basically the punching holes in the ocean and see what they would get. It was not very systematic. So, again, lots of gaps to fill with high fidelity continuous scoring transects and grids needs to get done to really advance our science. Okay, thank you. I think we're out of time. There are a few more questions we'll try to get those answers somehow. And thank you very much Anthony was very informative. I know you'll be back in the panel in a half an hour, but we have a break now. The panel will be the panel members are Anthony Coppers, Adrian Lam, Patrick Bolton and Kathy Marsaglia and if you would all, there's chairs up there in front of you so if you all be back at 1130. And, and if the panel's sitting down and we can get started right on time. Otherwise there's a break I think there's refreshments. That way. Yeah, that way. And thank you again Anthony and we're all really appreciated. I don't know if I can hear you spot. It's going well. With what I see as the current functional reality of US drilling and over four immediate steps to ensure that the US can maintain its leadership position and scientific ocean drilling. I also shortly mentioned those earlier my presentation so next slide. We all may have seen a great outcome of IDP expedition 399 earlier this spring achieving the remarkable and often unimaginable goal of drilling 1.5 kilometer into the earth's upper mental. Some say that one would always stop on the top of the game but I would argue otherwise. This extraordinary success was the clear and single outcome of decades of technology and skill development by the ship owner and the drillers. By the Joseph solution science operator attacks is a name and they're skilled drilling and locking operation supervisors and technical stuff. And they're advanced technology development of drill bits and coring strategies, but also by the scientist who know better. Who now better understand where the best drill for the most sort after science results, often based on decades of previous scientific ocean drilling results. So only after decades of persistent pursuit. We have reached this most critical science goal. This example however shows that it's the worst possible timing to retire the jr. When it is in such a great condition, and it's actually functioning at the top of its game. So next slide please. Given the large gaps in our science capabilities and opportunities now that jr is retiring in 2024. What is the best priority to put into place as soon as possible in fiscal year 24 a university based program office to guide and carry out conceptual design for new and approved global ranging riseless vessel in the United States and whatever follows afterwards in this lengthy process. We cannot afford to lose any more time of this overarching priority. The science will be impossible or severely limited was discussed earlier today. And I think you will see more examples later in the Spanel and over the next two days. The community in scientific ocean drilling is massive and highly collaborative and highly transparent. I already showed that earlier this morning keeping it alive and taking is the second priority in my mind. Therefore, I suggest that you tap the US science support offers and you set the US advisory committee remain in place and the function will be expanded in scope. I will give a few example of what is needed. First, triple the slanger fellowships each year. These highly competent and competitive fellowships are mostly for PhD students and postdocs and result in rather impressive results. This month alone, one paper was published in science and one in nature by two slanger fellows from the 2022 cohort. Second, USEP and USEC should organize at least once per year a large 100 to 150 person community workshop to help chart out the future of scientific ocean drilling programs. And to chart out future science needs relative to the 2050 science framework. USEP in particular is also leading many outreach initiatives for IDP and they should be expanded, expanded over the next years as well. My previous presentations in the Q&A, I basically fell short on that answer because I was focusing on the JR operator and not on USEP, which is actually providing most of the outreach efforts in the US and has gained a lot of team over the last two decades. And third, expand USEC membership to better reflect the community by increasing involvement of early career scientists and transition them into next generation scientific ocean drilling leaders. Finally, USEP and USEC will be critical in my mind in re-establishing international partnerships and any engagement efforts around scientific ocean drilling and the 2050 science framework. Ninth, next slide please. The third priority, next slide please. The third priority would be to put into place again in fiscal year 24, a new US MSP style offers to help scientists with logistics procurement of water commercial vessels and ice breakers if needed, and programmatic international collaborations and operations. We're starting to touch on this. It's very complex scenario. It's very important to have such an office in place early on. The fourth priority is to resurrect again in fiscal year 24, the now retired ODP solicitation of program at NSF OCE. This will meet several goals. First, scientific ocean drilling will not unduly compete with other OCE core research. Second, this program would consider proposals for site survey expeditions, proposals using commercial platforms, proposals working with international programs such as IODP cubed or the new China drilling program, proposals to work with existing course and data, etc. Finally, in my mind that will signal the priority of NSF in creating opportunities for early career scientists to keep their continued interest in and success through scientific ocean drilling real and actionable. And I will give it to the next panelist now. Okay, thank you. The next one will be Adrian Lam. Okay. All right, so with respect to how the US can maintain leadership in the drilling community. One thing we can do is increase involvement of our early career researchers so this includes folks five to seven years post PhD but also includes PhD students and really including them on the co leader PI level on drilling proposals. And this could be drilling proposals on something like a land to shore mission ICDP MSPs and other platforms, especially utilizing the US base ships, such as the UNOS fleets. Next slide. Okay. I can do it. Yeah, there we go. With respect to how we perceive the future of the drilling program in the context of recent reports such as the ocean climate action plan. I do want to point out that a lot of the goals within these different documents, completely or in part overlap with our strategic objectives laid out in the 2050 science framework. Many of the objectives in these other documents cannot be met in whole or in part without scientific ocean drilling and I've got two examples here. The first is the last decadal survey of ocean sciences report. One of the priority science questions is where the rates mechanisms impacts and geographic variability of sea level change from the 2050 science framework strategic strategic objective three. We want to examine variations in ice sheets, ocean and atmosphere dynamics and sea level. To answer the desauce priority question about race mechanisms and sea level change we need to go into the geologic past and understand how sea level has changed in the past to better understand how it will continue changing today. From the White House ocean climate action plan. They state that climate adaptive marine protected areas, I need to be identified. In the 2050 science framework, our strategic objective one states that defining the conditions for and the role of life in the marine realm, something we want to do. So combining defining the conditions for in life in the marine realm and identifying areas of biodiversity hotspots in the global ocean and the geologic past across analogous warm periods and similar climate states to those projected for the future. Links in with identifying today. So there's a lot of regions that need to be protected or may need to be protected under increased anthropogenic warming. Okay, as far as NSF tip initiative. So there's a lot of economic and societal issues that are related to natural hazards, climate change and changing biodiversity trends as well on the warming earth. And these are all core to further understand is within the 2050 science framework or strategic objectives and part of built around those. And to address pressing societal and economic challenges. So as Anthony had already stated we are at the top of our game regarding drilling and the ability to take on new challenges and new opportunities recovering sediments and rocks from the deep sea floor. Oh, thank you. So this is a really great opportunity to train the next generation of our STEM workforce. We're working our early career researchers with industry, learning those techniques on the ship, also potential job prospects through being a part of a really large collaborative and international teams, while they're on these ships, learning the technology and working alongside the texts. Okay, with respect to the current functional reality of the US drilling program and our relationship to international components of the program. I'm going to speak for myself and from my view as an early career researcher in a new PI, having graduate students. The international partnerships from our point of view are very strong. My graduate students and I are all involved with our international collaborators on major projects. Even within their thesis and dissertations that they're working on our international collaborators are key to their success. So the time is really now to increase partnerships among our international partners at all levels. So this is an interesting need today to obtain more sedimentary archives from around the world ocean that are more complete that go deeper in time to continue inferring how climate change of the past affected marine ecosystems or systems dynamics and how in turn, these changes in the earth system will affect us today again under increased atmospheric CO2. The next point I want to make is it may be useful to encourage our early career researchers to go abroad and really forge collaborations and build collaborations and relationships with our international partners. And these collaborations and hopefully the networks that they create will carry forward over the decades without riserless drilling. So this would require but strong financial support for early career researchers, and we need strong infrastructure to support the next generation of ocean drilling scientists. So again, echoing what Anthony said, keeping with us and us and increasing participation of our early career researchers and increasing and expanding opportunities for them to go abroad, learn the drilling systems and these other countries and network with our peers and their peers and colleagues. Okay, I'll stop there. Thank you. Thank you, Adrian. That was a great last point to you made. Next person is Patrick Fulton. Oh, that's mine. You want to go instead Kathy or I can. Sure. Yeah, why don't you go ahead Kathy if you're already up. Yeah. Okay. Can you am I projecting enough. Sorry. So I'm Kathy Marsalia, a professor of the Department of Geological Sciences California State University Northridge, our university only has bachelors and masters programs, and I'd like to argue we're still a research institution we're not an R one but we are a research institution. I currently co chair the I ODP science evaluation panel I'm the science chair and will and will end the program through the end of the program. So I'd like to focus on two questions and I've outlined them there they're written there I'm not going to reread through them. Essentially, I believe that having a joint ease resolution like platform is the critical element for our leadership position in scientific ocean drilling. And I base it on the proposal pressure that that through the years and I'll be showing this in the next slides that requires deep subsea floor coring in deeper water and remember that petroleum companies and petroleum ships are used to drilling, but there's a difference between drilling and coring, and we do it best I think on in our current I ODP program. Okay, what is the current status, essentially of our interactions with our partners and through drilling proposals, writing drilling proposals together science evaluation panel membership where we work in teams and ship and sailing as shipboard scientists. We actually have a very excellent interaction, and I'll be emphasizing that as well. Larry, and others have put forth the and introduced the science evaluation panel. And I'd like to down in the lower left corner there's a highlighted area that actually says who we are. We're 50 scientists, members that come from all of the member companies countries and ecord is 15 countries and we rotate. So when a proposal comes into the set. We look at those many of them pre proposals we look at them and we, we want to cut to to cultivate the best ideas on science. And so we take those pre proposals we nurture them, we provide information we try to get them to the what they can get to the point of becoming a mature drilling proposal, and I put the, the science evaluation that the criteria evaluation criteria up there I won't read through them. But every time a proposal comes through, it's evaluated by those criteria, and it's usually several rounds that eventually get it to the point if you go in the lower right. And at the time those arrows are essentially submission times, and it takes multiple years often for proposal to make it to a point where it eventually gets forwarded to a facility board. The, and that review is not only by the set but also by outside review panel. I've put a map up of the proposals currently at the jrfb. And I want to emphasize in previous discussions we've had why aren't we drilling more around the US. There are proposals there are ship path hasn't been in that direction. Okay. So, there are several proposals. To date, there are 27 proposals at the jrfb to be scheduled. I didn't put a map with the CI be or the e fb that the MSP or chick you proposals because there are so few. So, I think that's important. And if you then go and look at the proposals that are currently being evaluated at the science event evaluation, a panel, you'll see that look at the number of jr proposals there's 21 and in both the ones at the facility and also the ones being evaluated notice how global they are. Okay, they, they're at all extremes, and a lot of them again are associated with us priorities. So, we have also, it's important again to note that that there are proponents on all of these proposals multiple proponents. We also have a number of them representing a multitude of countries and so that's what that act of proponent distribution shows that we have a great number of them are from the US but we also have to work and play well with others. So again, the joities resolution, like platform is essential, and it's shown by the fact that current proposal pressure is dominated by not only those at the facility board but also those in process, and those have dwindled because drilling has ceased or will cease for the jr. So we see diminished input from from those proposals and the proponents and the drilling are globally distributed and those interactions through science evaluation panel shipboard experiences and and etc and proposals form important bonds I think between and make us an international community. And I'll just end with a slide I showed as the background it's I call it we call it for those that sailed on expedition 3551 it's the core wallpaper so it's a wallpaper of core, and that expedition was was only made possible because of deep water drilling, and I'll say ultra deep we drilled in 7.4.7 kilometers water depth. We drilled 1.6 kilometers below the sea floor and we recovered an amazing 1.2 kilometers of core. That to me is a major accomplishment. And that core on the right starts at about for over 40 million years and on the left to today. Essentially sediment relatively recently deposited that history is one of arc or subduction inception, the early sub arc, and then essentially that maturation of the arc, and then ultimately arc rifting and then abandonment essentially. So that history, the life and the birth, life and death of a magnetic arc, and it's a submarine system so the only records we have of this are in submarine core course taken from submarine basins at the time. One of the things to I'll emphasize here is that I've got a couple papers that I started, you know, one student and bachelor's thesis that's Ryan Walton, whose thesis then blossom because he interacted with other shipboard scientists from Japan and European countries into a GSA bulletin paper. He's now a PhD student. And then Johnson et al was another in a collaborative thesis product that was was added to in terms of the pathology, and then a third one so even though I'm at a, again, a research oriented situation where we're piecing together things rather than having a PhD student do the do the do the project as a as a whole. So anyway, I had to to my horn a little bit but thank you for your attention. Okay, thank you. And we'll continue with Patrick Fulton. Great, thank you. So, I really think that the US needs and can benefit from scientific ocean drilling now more than ever, particularly in relationship to climate and hazards which are societally relevant. And I'm going to talk about the hazards part which was identified in the previous decadal survey as one of eight priority science questions. And I think with technology advances, particularly within the past 15 years, the experience of ocean drilling, all of us here in the engineering associated with it, and the societal need for these topics that were positioned to actually make some big advances. But we need a drill chip in a facility to actually do it. I think that scientific ocean drilling is aligned with the broader ocean science community objectives. For instance, SC4D, a community driven kind of science initiative to understand the limits and possibilities of predicting subduction zone geohazards, broad community of utilizing existing ocean science infrastructure, sea floor instruments and other things. I don't know if I have a mouse here, but it's hard to see the label in the bottom there, but those things in the bottom there, you know, there's fiber optic cables and other things. Down there it says new cores and new subsea floor observatories. It's integral, scientific ocean drilling is integral to the science that wants to be done to kind of address these big things. And I think it's because this broader community understands that ocean drilling is more than just collection of shallow sediment cores. It's a lot of things that can really help address uniquely a lot of these hazard questions, particularly related to earthquakes and tsunami. Deep cores in fault zones. We can have shown that if you look at the fault itself and you can look to you chemically or mineralogically you can sometimes see evidence that that fault got toasted. It got heated up by hundreds of degrees there in the past. When we see that that, how does that happen from frictional heating from large fast slip across there. When we see that that is direct evidence that that fault has the potential and has a history of large nomogenic slip. This observation here in Japan is kind of revolutionary in terms of having direct knowledge about how that fault can have nomogenic hazard and helps hazard assessment considerably. Also, after big earthquakes like the Japan 2011 earthquake slipped a huge amount in the shallow part. Did it slip all the way did relieve all its stress or is it still loaded to have another one pretty soon. You can use logging and you can take an image of the, the borehole walls and you can see how it's deforming from trying to collapse and that gives us a direct measure of the stress at that point in time. And here we were able to do that and infer that the shallow fault zone had zero sheer stress on it one year after the earthquake. Probably important in terms of seismic hazard. We can also use observatories to see how the fault zone is changing and how it's starting to slip. I'll show you some other things later on today about some of the things that we've done with temperature stuff, but I really want to talk about sea floor geodesy. And this is another community within the ocean sciences that is really kind of evolved and doing a lot of stuff that we are closely aligned with. Interesting in terms of of hazard. We've noticed that many of the big large magnitude eight and nine earthquakes have precursory slip before them. Unfortunately, we've noticed this after the fact here you could see that there are some earthquakes that proceed. And are kind of migrate towards the eventual epicenter of these big large earthquakes. This is from broad scheme lay science 2014. This understanding has been seen in other things in Antarctica and big ice sheets where they also see this precursory except where they can put instruments out above it. But most of this stuff is out in the ocean where we don't have observations. There's a lot of interest in trying to figure out whether the fault is moving through the sea floor geodesy. Also knowing where is it locked. It's a shallow portion locked. Where is it experiencing shallow so slip relieving some of that stress, or maybe stressing other points. One of the ways as you know GPS doesn't work under water so you have to use different techniques one of the most sensitive and essentially temporarily highest resolution methods to do this is with borehole observatories essentially put straws down into the sediments and instead of measuring the water column and see maybe how the water column change, you're actually measuring this, how the rocks get squished. I think of SpongeBob and you squish him and his eyes pop out. Well the poor pressure increases if you have slip moving towards your observatory increases if the slip is moving away from it, the poor pressure decreases with it. And because we have a sea floor reference, it's really easy to remove the ocean graphic noise which is really difficult on the other techniques. One example from the Nankai trough to observatories here. I don't have a thing but two observatories one closer to the toe another one. You could see after you remove the ocean graphic noise, one of them goes down, the other one goes up. That's telling us it's moving towards one away from the other one. This other one you see it goes down, and that one is going up, and then it goes down, the slip is going towards that red one and then it passed it. You can see this stuff in really high temporal resolution and down at the bottom is ocean bottom seismometers in that same location and what they are hearing in terms of little rumbles and things like that. We can see this thing when we can't see it with ocean bottom sensors right above it. We can't see this stuff at all from from land based stuff. And in the other case we see it, you know, several hours in the observatories, compared to the ocean bottom seismometers. We can see that it can resolve essentially how much slip and where it was going on the order of a centimeter of slip on these fault patches, incredibly important and useful information here. So how do we maintain strength. Hopefully I've convinced you that this is important relevant stuff. This is a deep academic and public interest in this type of science, but to train and retain the next generation of doing this kind of uniquely specialized work. My students need a commitment to see that there's a future in this. They need a commitment to show that, you know, 510 years 15 years that that what they're doing, they're able to do it. I think that there is a process to do that and I think the best way to show that is start the process of acquiring a new ship. Now, so that they know that everyone is committed. We're moving forward. There is a future here. And in that involved the community involved the scientists engineers and the students to inform the process based on our expertise experience and science need. We lose a lot of expertise in this realm. It's, I think the point now is just trying to mitigate that loss. And by including students and others in this, we can start that knowledge transfer and excitement. Other things that Anthony mentioned were are also on here too. One is also, it was addressed earlier, but we need a commitment to support us scientists on non us lab during programs. And then also mentioned is even though all the things I showed you are largely not possible with a ship for hire type of thing and MSP mission specific platform. We need a drill ship to be able to do this stuff. But even if we're going to try to do limited science with an MSP style thing, it's exceedingly difficult and extremely limited in capabilities, but we need a support office to do it. I also do things on land drilling projects. And it's not just that you can hire a ship or a drill rig and do something. It requires all the drilling planning. All the requirements of all the special components for coring and other things that are not standard. So the insurance itself is in the legal aspects as an issue all by itself. So we need an office. Otherwise, I think it will be impossible. But I'm positive. I think we'll, we'll get there. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Patrick. We've got some questions. I'm not sure we captured all of them because it may have disappeared on my screen at least but anyway, here's a couple of them. One of them's more of, well, it says how will the, the Cato survey address how I ODP is fuel measure discoveries about terrestrial systems. And that's an interesting question. I don't know how we'll know that but certainly if, if the panel has some suggestions how we can find that out is sort of an interesting topic for us. I'd like to at least speak to that because one of the places that we've drilled recently and I was a shore based scientist was off of Hickoranging, the Hickoranging margin. And the onshore portion of that margin was thoroughly characterized as a result of the NSF margins program. And so that allowed us to look at the sediment that had been deposited offshore and, and try to fix, we've figured out, we think where it comes from onshore to allow the routing system. So that connection has been made at least in one of the drilling areas that I've worked on and also in South Island, New Zealand 317 and elsewhere. There are a lot of places where any place where there's classics to try to connect the dots between onshore geology and offshore geology and sedimentation has been made. I think very nicely and many I ODP I ODP expeditions. Thank you. I can maybe add to an example on drilling, you know, offshore to inform what's happening on land and we can think about the dust records that have to do with wind and erratity on on continents. The sediment course in the oceans are one of the best archives to actually study those and have access to it. The same with understanding monsoon and their activity again. It's not easy to study those on land, the records in the oceans, more continuous and more helpful. And another one that was like Mitch mentioned that was the Indonesian true flow expedition that went from the seas around Indonesia all the way to the, to the west of Australia and to the south there. Basically, they were able to really put their fingers on when dry, dry, dry periods were really there in Australia right and more wet periods and really tried to map out how the erratity on a continent like Australia actually develops over longer time frames. So there's a clear connection between what we do in the oceans and how it informs terrestrial systems. And in the framework, right, we kept we capture that aspect by what you call lens to see. One of the enabling elements is to really focus on that we both get records in the oceans and on land and combine them that we can truly inform terrestrial systems. Thanks. Another question is, it has to do with the existing core archive and answering. Just things are jumping around here and answering important questions for the scientific ocean drilling community and I, I guess there's a report on that but also any comments from the panel about how important is that archive and data for the questions that are, for example, laid out and iodp 2050. Yeah, I think I can speak a little bit to this. So, there's this working group called plyo myobar. It's looking at the records from the play scene, and also now going back into the myosin so they're pretty much looking at like 23 million years ago to about 5.33 million years ago. And there's a major warming event in the middle myosin of that period that we think is analogous to future climate warming scenarios. So we all intensively study that period called the middle myosin. But the group's next focus is the early myosin. There's not a lot of published data from that time period. Perhaps it's because it wasn't, you know, the middle myosin was our big focus. But we have a lot of archived early myosin age sentiments in these core repositories. So even with new and emerging questions and new and emerging periods of time that we want to go and investigate. There's a lot of material in the core repositories right now that we can use to begin answering those questions about these different time periods that maybe we didn't discover, or maybe we didn't investigate enough about. That's not to say that all of our science objectives can be met by the stuff that's in the core repositories. We still need new data, especially geographically. We need to know the spatial data and time data, because there are different regions of the world ocean right now that are still very under drilled, and that we need to know more about. Thank you. Maybe one, one aspect here too is that some of the science questions you know you cannot answer with what we have in our core repositories I'm thinking in particular about geo microbiology. They're not being retained right they're not being frozen to minus 80 in our repository so to enter new questions in that science field. You really need to get out with dedicated scientists that know how to take the samples on board bring them to their own labs to actually advance that science field. Can I add one thing, real quick. I don't know how many of you have been in a core repository, but that when you go back through time. Oftentimes when you go to sample you have to scrape minerals and in some cases scrape mold slime whatever there's been studies done of it. And a lot of the times also those cores may have been heavily sampled prior to that. So what you, you don't have a lot left, especially of like critical intervals, those are hot, hot tamales everybody wants to have one. Sorry, I'm from the Southwest so our California where things are hot they grow chilies in my area, but also it's important to make connections so, for example that core that I showed you that last study. It's actually connecting core data that I collected as a PhD student still my effective postdoc back in the isuban and for arc. We're connecting up and trying to connect it to that rear arc scenario for that rifting history. It's the only place that we can do that comparison. And remember that that core is only five centimeters wide. You're, you're some places whole parts of the ocean have a record that is only five centimeters wide. That's amazing it's a strong, I mean it is essentially a strong. And the number of holes that have been drilled is so minimal compared to the number of holes that have been drilled in my inventory County where I come where I live in the oil industry so it's, it's just it's, it's, it's where we're essentially going where no people have gone before and many, many areas. I feel kind of passionate about that so I'll be quiet. So a question from Shelby Walker about the, the, the, how does ocean drilling in the future translate results. So how could a future program support transitional efforts, meaning I assume for the general public and policymakers is what the gist of this is. Sure, so I think, you know, another thing for the future is to put more investment into broader impacts and public information about this stuff. There have been lots of efforts to try to communicate these things particularly related to hazards to two century policymakers and people that are making assessments, going out there and looking at the hazards and themselves and trying to make decisions, going to places like Cascadia and talking to the community and presenting our work there. So that even though the general public might not care about the specifics of those things I think that they trust. Government or ever, or I have better trust that that scientists are working on the problem and even when they come to that it's exciting to them, if they can, if they learn nothing more than essentially what to do during an earthquake and what to do in order to go rise to higher ground. I think that that's a lot in itself, but I think that we can do more to try to communicate this with with stakeholders. And I'll add to that point too. So I really think and this goes off both of the question that was asked by Shelby but also in the zoom chat by I think Carlos posted a comment in here about science students needing to see perceived commitment investment to decide to continue their next career. So, I think there's also this pressing need to continue expanding in education and outreach within scientific ocean drilling on everything we do we've had really strong and you know office in the past and today. So again, expanding that, but also professors that use this data in their classrooms or teach using scientific ocean data, perhaps getting even those of us who are in the classrooms involved more with teaching our students about scientific ocean drilling. So one example from this past semester is I ran this little seminar it was called science communications for scientific ocean drilling. And I had five leaders within the ocean science community come and speak to the students. One that wasn't though about science communication with respect to scientific ocean drilling, and each of them summarized a leg or previous expedition, and they summarize that in general language language for the general public. And I'm co president of a nonprofit called times captures. So I leveraged that resource to to put their blogs on the website, one was just released on Twitter today. But to also work with other people like there's these folks at fly over country is an app that you can download, and it'll show you your, you can download your flight path pattern, path or input that, and it will show you important geologic features so you can put that data into fly over country. So that folks that do international flights or their cruises can actually see in the ocean where these different scientific ocean drilling sites are, and they can read about them and what we've done. So it was a very simple thing that I did. I did this with upper level undergrads and graduate students. It was low time investment but it really felt like high payoff for myself and the students. And I think for the folks involved. I think that we can get our students invested in science communication, but also the importance of scientific ocean drilling, I think would be incredibly important to again help train them and bring them into this community and make them feel like they're invested in this as well. So maybe I can add to something too, I think, and Shelby asked about translational efforts around climate right. The one thing that really happened over the last years is the IPP panels, you know, proactively reaching out to pale climates scientists on the panel or maybe you know related to it, and those actually pulling all the records from scientific ocean drilling and helping them in the writing of that report, and actually making that translational step from the fundamental research that's done with IDP into that IPCC report. I think Patrick was mentioning, right, the other initiative around the subduction zone hazards. I've got the acronym from it now. But I think that's another group right that you get, you know, that that's where translation will happen to because of their vision and how they want to pull together data from multiple sources, including scientific ocean drilling. That's another mechanism which fundamental research outcomes from scientific ocean really gets translated into hazards kind of products, including maybe policy or otherwise. Okay, let's see, Tuba had a question about the source of the data that you showed Patrick, was that JR or what's the what are the capabilities of the JR to do the kind of get the kind of observations that you showed off Japan. Sure, certainly so in 2018 and expedition 375 we installed two observatories in the Hikarangi seduction zone. We just went back after five years of data and collected that in March of this year will present some of it at AGU related to slow slip events. But how I read your question a little bit. And then this I said you can't do a lot of stuff with MSPs. Some reason, a lot of these faults and megathrust things are correspond with deep ocean trenches. Of course, and so a lot of this stuff is in deep water, deeper water than you can do with a, you know, two, you know, two and a half three kilometers. We've done things with the Chikyu at even greater depths, but we've done things in Costa Rica, and, and, and, and other places, New Zealand and other places with observatories with the jam. Two and a half three kilometers with New Zealand, but the other bit with especially with the seafloor geodesy part of the observatories, those things need to be installed somewhere around 300 meters below the seafloor. Even if you had a rock drill or something like that, you're not to be, or if you just plunged it like a lawn dart into the seafloor, you're not going to get deep enough to really get the signal that you need. This question has to do with us scientists going on non us drilling vessels and how they can be supported. And is an open data policy a requirement for NSF support of us scientists to go and on us drilling vessels, and will us support if there is no open data policy. And maybe that's an NSF question but is it okay. Anybody on the panel know that. But I think the, the first part the open data policy is a requirement that's clearly the case. I think NSF have been clearly championing that that open data policy. It's also by the way in the 2050 science framework is one of the principal design features of a future program. If the US will support if there is no open data policy that's an NSF question. No, but they should answer this question. Jamie is the answer no. Kevin. No. Quite simply, no, we've had that come up and we've had the decline proposals and decline. I guess for people to be involved in programs that refused to have open data. Availability so no. So another question that maybe for NSF maybe for the panel but it's, how should NSF in the community address legacy course is a non renewable resource. It's essential to ensure equitable and science driven access with better coordination and balancing current and future needs and I don't know if the panel wants to handle that one. Well, I've seen a lot. A lot of core and the repositories and I've been to Bremen sampling as well as. And the old DSDP cores back in the old days they were also transferred and I think it's important that we not mine away our legacy for whatever the flavor of the month is. Because you have to leave something you don't you don't even know what the future questions will be your analysis techniques will be I mean to me the archive should remain the archive half, but that's my own personal preference. I mean, whatever, or at least a quarter of it. Something there's got to be something there can't be a gap. I mean, I had a gap underneath my house when I did the stratigraphy and geology 101 of my house because of the coal had been mined and I left it and I got a bad grade on my project because I left out part of the project and I was like well it's not there. But I think that I think it's important. Those legacy car cores are things to go back and look at that we won't get again we're not going to go very rarely do we go back in the same area and drill. I think on your hand, unless it's at like, what 504 be where you keep going and going going but but it's really important to have those because, because they are so rare, the coring is so rare across the globe. Okay, I guess the question really is then who, how, where in the iod t iod p program is the responsibility for trying to ensure this and or is this a man. There's there's something in place where it's called the course, each of the repositories run by, you know, a curator that those are professionals that know how to, you know, run a core repository. And on top of that there's the curatorial advisory board that actually oversees questions right if there's you know if people come in with a way to big request for samples right created so typically signal them and that the curatorial advisory boards will take that in consideration and look at those things so there is equitable use of the course in particular, of course that are in high demand. So there is. There is policy and guidelines and there's an organizational structure in place for decades now that has been functioning quite well. And so I think that's definitely something that needs to be continued for the, you know, for the foreseeable future. Do you want to. Okay, I think it's really important that the, this group understand that the deep sea drilling program ocean drilling program and chair court iod b course are the property of the US government collected either by contract or under cooperative agreement with stipulation in the agreement that they are that they are owned by the US government, according to the American Pete's act of 2011 NSF is required legally required to preserve and archive that core as a US owned collection period. There's a question here we may get into this more tomorrow but it has to do with hard rock drilling and without the jr and there are other, besides the small seabed drills, tiny and shallow holes, are there other commercial options for hard rock drilling that anyone on the panel is aware of. Well, I think I think, in principle, most most commercial festivals could potentially drill, you know, rotate rotary drilling. But the point I made earlier is, you know, that's typically not what they specialized in. So drilling actually into a hard rock is not a very easy thing to do within the oceans. I mean, if you do it on land with a diamond drill bit and an on land drill it's very much easier to do when you get really good continuous core that way. In the oceans, it's quite, it's quite difficult to get really good core and, and as we said, you really need to drill down quite deep into the basaltic basements to go beyond any of the altered areas. And so, you know, you need to go at least 150 or 200 meters before you get into the place where you get the materials that can be used for science, or can be used for geo microbiology. And yeah, so small seabed drills, indeed they're different, they have much smaller diameter cores. Again, you know, it's hard to drill in those environments and so they're not necessarily that great to do so I think there's options. The question is, is the quality, right, and the depth that you achieve with it, it's sufficient to answer your question. Yeah, and I was, I was going to, I was going to add one more thing. There's hard rock that's igneous rocks basement, and then there's also hard rocks that are sedimentary rocks and sedimentary rocks can be harder and even more problematic like for intervals where you're, you're essentially drilling soft than hard than soft than hard. So there's a lot of dynamics that go on that our expertise currently on the JR that that other ships won't be able to hand. Yeah, I was also told that this is going to come up again tomorrow. So, I think Becky's going to talk about it tomorrow as well so we'll get back to this. Let's see, another question is. Well, it has to do with diversified funding streams and we've talked about the international ones and this question had to do with other agencies and mentioned at NASA, possibly USGS, or any of these other US federal agencies interested in. I know they're interested in the results, but are they, do they ever contribute to the drilling missions in any significant way and I guess that's a question for NSF really than the panel but the panel first has any comment on that. Yeah, I can speak a little bit to this and it may be a little off topic from the question but regardless, so there is this big NSF funded. Some part of NSF funded project called Swayce2C and it's a group of scientists that are going back to Antarctica to redrill and look at records and how Antarctica has changed under more than two degrees of warming by looking at analogous warm periods. So, actually my postdoc supervisor Molly Patterson who's now my colleague at Binghamton is one of the co-leads on this project. So she has leveraged ICDP, the International Continental Drilling Program, their funding. So they do have funding for up to, they have up to 1.5 million for a project and that provides the drill, the drill string and for that project. But she's also leveraged money from other places as well, such as NSF to help with these big drilling projects. So I just wanted to plug that because you know there are other programs. So if anyone's thinking of doing like a from sea to land land to sea kind of drilling thing using ICDP they do have funding. And she's been really instrumental in getting funding from that project to also achieve her drilling efforts. So these co-mingling of funds is definitely something to think about and something I think is absolutely doable. I can give one other example here. It's actually an expedition that didn't get scheduled because the JR was not living up to the standards of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in hydrocarbonate region. But that was actually an expedition where the PI team were bringing funding from the Department of Energy DOE. And so that clearly that was potentially, you know, a collaboration like that that was cross agency. NASA hasn't really been in full that much yet, although in this kind of framework, we've been starting to work with NASA and other space agencies because they are interested in testing out instrumentation in extreme environment. And with the JR like vessel, you know, you can drill for a deep in extreme environments, whether it's acidity, whether it's temperature, whether it's pressure and kind of stuff, but they can actually test out instruments that would bring you know, out in space. Today, they were they are interested in that and we had some initial work with them relative to the framework. The sector entities have been in full to JR in the past as well. You know, Mitch mentioned the CPPs right which are other countries providing additional funding to help with expeditions, but they also early on in the program they had some commercial expeditions which also helped in that sense, you know, with the budgeting of the JR. But that was only as far as remember one time over the last decade. And there was also a part of that question had to do with private money and pick and then another another question had to do with that, particularly in reference to ocean drilling relevance to carbon sequestration research. Any comments on that. Yeah, well garbage, you know, carbon removal has been one of the topics in the in the 2050 science framework we as a community we so far haven't really worked towards that question but we of course we recognize it's important and we recognize that. Marine carbon dioxide removal is a key feature in other funding agencies, NOAA, DOE are ours, but also NSF very instant in marine carbon dioxide removal and knowledge from scientific ocean drilling either in a core approach or in future expeditions could really help with addressing that and has been very much involved. There has been a proposal in the system, maybe five years ago that was looking at the storage of CO2 in in the North Sea and to the to the east of Scandinavia in certain certain aspects. There was a rather, both a multiple expedition, a kind of proposal that in the end didn't make it through to the step system. So if people are thinking about it and scientific ocean drilling is important to contribute to that as well. I say someone. Drilling is complex. It's complicated. My experience is that a lot of other funding agencies appreciate the science with it, but they don't know how to handle funding drilling. And that's why having a facility or NSF supported thing that knows all the intricacies of how to do all the contracting insurance and all that stuff is important. I found that private foundations are really interested in funding the science after you go and collect the data. Other funding agencies will fund the science afterwards, but getting out there and doing it requires an organization. Moving about CO2 sequestration, I think that this is another translational benefit of the scientific drilling program. Is that moving into the future or the now we need job skills and stuff related to drilling into hard rock for G thermal stuff and for see to sequestration. So my own students, six of the last students that have had five of them are now working for G thermal companies, because they learn things about drilling and how to interpret data from the experiences and things that we've learned in ocean drilling. So really quick that follows tips mission right the NSF tip initiative, getting these students with them these other companies and the technology. I think the last question that we have time for is, again, we've come to come talk a little bit about this already but how should NSF support retention of the extensive technological expertise and knowledge gained during prior scientific ocean drilling. We've come to a hi hiatus. So that future scientific ocean drilling activity is not compromised and I think we've heard some of that. Some of something about this but anybody want to elaborate on the panel on this question. So let's start it on on this. I think, if the first realize where the expertise resides, right, I mean, we talked a lot about the science was scientists know a lot but they know about science, but the drilling operations that's different. So the current expertise resides with actually the owner of the J. R. We're actually providing the drill. And those drillers have made their career, you know, not in oil and gas drilling was in J. R. drilling, and by now are just to mentally experienced. And so by not having the jar anymore. There's something that gets lost. And those really will be repositioned within that company for other things and, and they just disappear from from us. Almost immediately. The same with the expertise garnet as the J are a science operator in Texas A&M they have of course, which called drilling superintendent and lots of technical stuff that actually oversee the drilling on board the J are. And that's a skill set very specific to the J are very specific to developing all the coring technology over decade and and applying it with the goal right to collect the best possible continuous core in regardless of the kind of sediment or rock they encounter. So, I'm actually a little bit pessimistic on this question I would say it's going to be really really hard maybe impossible to retain it so I think I would say, if we get a new drill ship 10 years from now or 20 years from now, we have to completely rebuild that expertise. I mean, can I just jump in one quick. I just had a thought. I mean, I remember seeing the Glamar challenger parked up in the Bay Area, when it was, when it was kind of abandoned. If indeed, the J are gets retired. Can we buy it. Can we use it as a training facility. Anyway, that's just my last thought. Okay, I think we've run out of time, and it's time for lunch. That's the good news. And the staff is supposedly going to direct us for lunches. Yeah. So the lunch is in the same room that the coffee and pastries were in. We have sandwiches and salads, and we only have 30 minutes. And we need to stay on that schedule only 30 minutes. I repeat only 30 minutes. So feel free to stay in that room and eat at the tables or you can thoughts about what I heard this morning. So my disciplinary background is not in ocean drilling and so, but still, you know, as an oceanographer I feel like I have a lot to learn in the talks this morning. I love the tone very nicely. So I really appreciate the effort everyone put into it. It was great to see Mitch, Mitch's overview. Of course, always great to have NSF here with us listening and Anthony's overview of the 2050 framework as well. And maybe one thing that stood out to me is, you know, I ODP the D stands for discovery, right. And I think I would be the first person to argue that just discovery as a purpose for research is a wonderful thing. Right. That's really what we ought to be advocating for. But in this case, I think what I am hearing is that this community is very convinced that there is a connection of this work to, you know, decision making tools to modern predictions of sea level rise to, you know, other. There's then the very rich conversation in the zoom chat about some of the ways in which this work really connects to issues that society is grappling with right now. So perhaps though we really have to make sure we connect those dots and not because that's the only way in which we can argue that this this program should exist discovery is a reason enough. But if it is having those impacts, then we ought to be telling that story. And so that's a challenge that I will pose to our committee. The other thing that I walked away with it Patrick, I think it was Patrick somebody said, hey, you know, the general public trusts that the scientists are doing good work and. And part of me, you know, academia science, you know, enjoys the social contract with society, right. You know, we give you money you do good work. But I'm feeling like just between us that that social contract is, you know, it's going to it's starting to be rescinded. And I think it's an existential thing for us to really do a better job making those connections and telling those stories. Because we do have the impact. So we might as well put it in front of people that that impact exists. So, let's keep thinking about those things. Lots of information, also in the chat which I really appreciate and we will, we certainly will save all of that. With that I want to launch us into the afternoon session. So, here we are really continuing the conversation about the future of scientific ocean drilling. And we're going to hear from to existing efforts to think about the future. And then we're going to have a lightning session type panel discussion, and we timed this perfectly to occur between 2 and 245 when the sugar crash comes in. But this is going to be so fast paced you're just going to, you know, there's going to be not a moment to really even think about sugar crash. So, here we go. And with that, our first speaker, Larry Christak, Ohio State University take it away Larry. Thank you to the. Can we go ahead and go to my slides please. It's empty back there. Oh, thank you. All right. Yep. So I'm Larry Christak. I am the present chair of the joities resolution facility board. Mitch introduced to you this morning the idea of the facility boards for each of the three platform providers. So, I am the chair of the joities resolution facility board or I'm going to slip and use the abbreviation of J R F B. So, now you know what the J R F B is. I was also the chair of a working group formed by the J R F B to explore some ideas that have been ruminating out in the community for at least 5 years. About the potential use of legacy assets going into the future. And so that's what I'm here to report on to you about today. So, ocean drilling legacy asset projects or what we call leaps a new approach to collaborative research in ocean drilling science. Next slide please. All right. So what I'd like to do is provide sort of a 35,000 foot level overview, then we'll talk about some details and then close with some some thoughts. So what are leaps leaps are a new opportunity a new opportunity for a portfolio of standalone research endeavors without new drilling so emphasizing the legacy as assets portion. How would a leap differ from a conventional sort of multi investigator project. Well, in the view of the J R F B is working group. Each leap would be larger than a conventional single or multi investigator project and meet certain other characteristics so it would be larger than and perhaps more integrated than a standard multi investigator project. With the goals of scientific ocean drilling writ large. Some of those characteristics include the ones that are listed here. First with objectives that maximize the scientific return on legacy assets. And if you're not very comfortable with what legacy assets are. You were introduced to some of them this morning perhaps without using those terms will do a quick inner intro to those in just a second. So maximizing return on legacy assets of scientific ocean drilling. While addressing at least one aspect of the 2050 science framework that link to the science framework would not be required of just a standard multi investigator proposal that would be coming to NSF. The leaps would also be developed based on some of the enduring principles of scientific ocean drilling that were outlined in the 2050 science framework. Anthony mentioned a few of these in passing but not in a sort of organized way in his presentation. So these include the bottom up proposal submission and peer review process that Mitch introduced you to this morning. Open access to samples and data, which was discussed and in some questions. The collaborative and inclusive international approaches and with the goal of enhancing diversity. Those are all enduring principles of scientific ocean drilling. The elite would be open to participation by the community, not just the original proponents but opened up to the broader community in the same way that our science parties that sale on the various platforms. Again with a proponent group, but by the time you actually sale it is a larger more inclusive group that's doing the actual science and with outcomes that strengthen the impact of ocean drilling science writ large. One of the desires of the working group as we went through these discussions was to mirror as closely as possible. The collaborative and focused nature of the shipboard experience for those of you who have been for those of us who have been fortunate enough to have that experience. Intense focus on research, the collaboration that takes place on a day to day, hour by hour, minute by minute basis in a shipboard setting and the mentoring and professional development that take place in that same setting. So what's the, the origin of this idea for these sort of legacy asset projects. The foundation for this concept arises from community interest and informal to semi formal discussions that have been taking place for at least the last five years. Often using the term virtual expeditions, but without actually having defined what those are. And you'll see, if you go back and look at some of the reports, like the, the next report in 2019, which was a report of a planning meeting for the US community, leading towards the science framework. There was mention of what was called the fourth platform concept, which was basically virtual expeditions. The enabling element, one of the enabling elements in the 2050 science framework mentions big data analytics, which is another way of describing what in many people's minds were virtual expeditions. So about 15 months ago, the jrfb adopted an action item for a working group to develop to explore this concept and associated implementation issues in order to formalize try to formalize it and point out steps towards actual implementation. All right, some of the folks who are here are very familiar with what these assets in involve what the legacy assets are. For those who aren't, you had a bit of an introduction to this this morning, but trying to lay it out all in one place. The major groups of assets that are out there are core. We have about 450 kilometers of core distributed between the three repositories. We have a college station, Bremen in Germany and coach in Japan, but has been has been noted before, both in discussions here and also in the chat the material appropriate for the highest priority science is much less than 450 kilometers. There are designated microbiology samples that have been taken by inventory that seems to be about 1300 samples, but they have been stored frozen, which affects the sort of science that they can be used for going forward. Data, the average I ODP expedition accumulates about a million data points that depends on how much cores is recovered, but it's a lot of data and the associated metadata that goes with it. As well as a large number of core images and other kinds of imagery of the core. There are also for some boreholes. The in the information that's collected after the borehole is drilled and instruments are lowered into the borehole. That's what we call downhole logging. That's not done on every hole, but that data does exist for some locations. And then we have open and instrumented boreholes. I believe this inventory is a little out of date. So it may be up to perhaps 100 boreholes that have reentry cones on them. That simply means that there's a funnel sitting on the seafloor. You can go find it and then try to stick the straw into the little hole in the funnel. But that doesn't guarantee what the condition of the borehole will be once you get into it and there are many ways that boreholes can get complicated. So there are these, these open holes at least at the surface. There are about 50 with observatories and Patrick showed you a slide this morning. There were a few dots there. If you take the whole globe, there are only a few dots there. And as he sort of embedded in his, his discussion, but I don't think pointed out explicitly. Very, very few of those are instrumented so that the information is collected real time. I think Patrick mentioned the case where five years after the observatory was put into the seafloor. It was revisited with a conventional research vessel and the data were recovered. So you're not getting data every day. Real time from, from the, it's not like an ocean observing system for the most part. All right, with that as a little bit of an introduction, let's dive into some details about the jrfb working groups recommendations. Based on what I hope you now see as the breadth of the assets that are out there and the possibilities for using that. And our agreement was that the definition for these activities should be broad and inclusive. Trying to have a big umbrella that lots of different kinds of research activities would fit under. We recommended calling these activities as you've already heard legacy asset projects, simply because virtual expedition had been used by lots of different people over a number of years to mean different things. So rather than trying to back everyone up and make them agree on after the fact on a definition for virtual expeditions. Let's just start from a clean slate. Also, we felt that the name legacy asset projects was much more reflective of the broad and inclusive nature of the kinds of projects that could be proposed. I do want to point out a couple of things that that leaps are not. First of all leaps do not in any way preclude conventional single PI or multi PI projects. Leaps are simply another type of project envisioned to be larger in scope, multi disciplinary international. They do not preclude single PI or multi PI projects. And input from the community as well as our own discussions, the working group recommends that the leaps be reviewed and endorsed. In the same way that drilling proposals have been endorsed reviewed and endorsed as Mitch mentioned and perhaps also Anthony and Kathy. But the body to do that is a body yet to be determined. Perhaps it would be a collaboration between the program or programs that have active active drilling platforms and the partners that are supporting work on last legacy materials. This is a question still to be addressed, but it was outside the purview of our working group. The review and endorsement of a leap does not take the place of review by a funding entity. So endorsement as a leap in some cases might help with review by a funding entity, but it would not take the place of that review. All right, in terms of characteristics of these projects that that the working group suggests should be called leaps. Some of these are a bit of a repeat. They should be a standalone research activity that addresses at least one component of the science framework. The objectives that maximize the return on the legacy assets without new drilling and hopefully you now have a better idea of what those legacy assets are. They should have a duration level of focus and approaches that are appropriate for addressing the objectives of that particular leap as described in a project management plan that would be included in the proposal. For those of us who know and I hope by now some of you are recognizing we love the jr. For those of us who know and love the jr we work in a two month mindset. Because that's what a jr expedition tends to run. But for leaps there's no requirement that things happen in a two month time span. So the duration, the level of focus and the approaches should be what's appropriate for that particular project. So a one size fits one project. Rather than a one size fits all projects. There should be an opportunity provided for members of the broader community to participate. There by promoting diverse international and interdisciplinary science parties, but without recommending a prescribed approach to be used by all leaps. Again, this would be whatever works for that particular project as described in its plant management plan. Should be formally reviewed and endorsed talked about that already. And the, the, the hanging question about what that body would be. And then be implemented in a way that reflects the community driven approach of scientific ocean drilling. So that the leaps and their outcomes are incorporated in that overall structure and history. There was a big concern that leaps not be just one offs, but that they should actually be incorporated into the broader structure of scientific ocean drilling. So the question often comes up, why would a group of people go through the extra step of being evaluated and endorsed as a leap. There are advantages to the project. There are also advantages to the community is laid out here. This provides an opportunity for focused multidisciplinary integration across legacy assets. So what might a leap look like when there were actually some things mentioned this morning that would in a few in a year or so, perhaps, you know, fall pretty readily under the category of a leap. I am a paleo oceanography paleo climate guy. So the examples that I think of, I'll show that bias my apologies to my colleagues who will have other great ideas but these are the sorts of things that easily come to mind to people like me. A synthesis of results and new data across the region. So I think there was a mention, perhaps synthesizing data about deep water circulation history in the Atlantic for the last 40 million years. How has this thing called the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation behave through times of different climate and we had not talked about this coordinating with the people earlier today. You can see that there are certain threads that we all tend to pick up on. Or secondly, a synthesis of results and new data focused on a shorter interval of time. Many of you know that we talk about these as time slices. So what happens during a particular time slice. One of the ones that's drawn a lot of attention and probably will continue to are the warm intervals of the play scene. And I think Adrian mentioned something about this, but the US Geological Survey has had synthesis like this going looking at the play scene for some time. These are proven to be extremely valuable. They encourage open a leap will encourage open involvement participation from the community leading to diverse science parties. It's an opportunity to mentor early career scientists. Those are all advantages to the community. What about advantages to the self because lots of us, you know, do tend to look at what do I getting out of this. We have heard that at least for some of our partners programmatic endorsement as a leap would open the doors to certain funding sources or other resources like supercomputer time. Enhanced visibility of project outcomes within the broader fabric of scientific ocean drilling and enhanced integration of those outcomes. So those are the advantages to the individual. In terms of next steps, we've been encouraged to work towards piloting the process of leaps with the existing science evaluation panel. During the time that it remains, which is about 16 months at this point, because the set will go away with the end of I ODP at the end of September 2024. So proposal guidelines are presently being developed with an eye on a submission deadline that would allow separate view of leaps pre proposals in January. It's an ambitious timeline, but it allows us to take advantage of the existing set structure to run this pilot. Probably not surprisingly, we would expect that the process would be reviewed and revised based on how this pilot run goes. I will mention that Japan is piloting their version of a legacy asset based project. Those are called this is called the record program. It's very prescriptive in how the work is being approached, but it has characteristics very similar to what's been described for leaps. And for them, this year's pilot project is a regional synthesis with additional data from cores and samples. To move this forward in the US, we need to establish some clarity to the path forward, particularly how this leap evaluation panel would act beyond September 2024 when SEP goes away. And this is just my opinion. But if it's been my experience, if you want to incentivize people money is a great way to do it. So as Anthony had mentioned this morning, if there is a pool of funds available within OCE ocean drilling, rather than within core marine geology and geophysics committed to supporting leaps. Those proposals would undergo standard NSF review and award processes, but they would be competing for a designated pot of money. I realize I'm running short of time, but I do want to provide in a quick reality check on the assets that are available. So core 450 kilometers of core 90% or more of that is sediment and sedimentary rocks, less than 10% is igneous and metamorphic rocks. Difficult rock types and by that mean I don't mean rocks that did misbehave when you tell them to do something. I mean the lethologies that are difficult to core and recover. And difficult operational areas like high latitudes, continental shelves in some cases. Other settings like hard rock drilling without a sediment cover. Those areas are significantly underrepresented. Microbiolet, I'll follow up on all of these in just a second very briefly. Bottom line question. Can the science be done with these assets to match the science done with new material and data? The answer is no. I think no one would say that that's possible. Okay. High resolution studies using cores. And we won't go into the details here, but realize to get a continuous high temporal resolution record you have to core that sequence at least twice. Usually more like three times sometimes up to six times. So that you can put together pieces that are undisturbed from the various holes. So when you hear 450 kilometers of core, the prime material for high resolution studies is much, much less than that. You also heard about intervals that are relatively thin, relatively deep. Just so you can see the core photograph over here on the side is a photograph of a 40 centimeter long interval from this thing called the Paleocene, Eocene thermal maximum 55 ish million years ago when the world did natural experiment at high CO2. The white that's in there is all foam that's been put in after samples are taken out so that the remaining sediment doesn't slide around. It's still at the same, the right place in the core. You can see that this is an issue. Mitch showed you that slide of the sampling party with 55,000 samples. One of the four sites that was occupied on that particular expedition was a site that has been occupied twice before. And every time because it has become a reference standard in paleo oceanography, it gets the whole thing gets to look like this. So they fortunately it's an area that's not too far offshore, you know, they pass through fairly regularly. So it's revisited simply to replenish that supply. That is not something that's doable for most of our other core materials. So bottom line cores or finite resources, the intervals of high interest are a small portion or have been poorly recovered. So micro bio, because these have been frozen. It's my understanding and the micro bio people in the room can clearly provide much better information about this than I can. That's suitable for gene surveys and possible metagenomics so it can help you understand what bugs are there. But it's not suitable for telling you what those bugs are doing or at what rates. So they do not. They're not suitable for contributing to understanding of global elemental cycles. Data mining anybody who's done any of that realizes issues with quality control and closing thoughts. I think I've touched on most all of this. I hope you see this as an exciting new way to have large multidisciplinary projects using legacy assets, promising on several levels but the science that can be done with leaps is not a replacement for science that can be done with new materials and data. The challenge is just to successfully implementing leaps in the US, the nature and composition of any evaluation panel, funding, and then the nature of the legacy assets. Excellent. Thank you, Larry. There's actually a lot of questions that have been coming in as you're speaking. So that's partially why I was getting so impatient because I want to make sure we have time for at least a few of them. And you touched upon this one. What sort of funding model is envisioned for leaps and you already told us about one potential way of going about it. But there's this question also goes further and says how much funding might go to each of the participating investigators like what scale are you all thinking about. I don't know. Really still an open question and the funding issue. Well, we know that some of our international partners have been talking about ways to essentially do the seed money for their scientists to participate. So that might mean, you know, grants for each participant of say $50,000 to fund them. If it's a repository based project to fund them to get to the repository, do the sampling, make measurements. If it's an instrumented repository, come back and start to get some work done. That's that's a ballpark number we've heard from other places. That is actually quite well it's a little bit higher but it's in the same range as the post cruise support that's given to us scientists to sale today. Excellent. Okay, next question is there a good estimate for the amount of core material that remains for the most in demand sites and depth intervals. No. But what I can tell you is that the curators, because I asked them for information about this. Nope, sorry, going to back up for just a second so I don't give you the wrong number. Yeah, on this slide the third bullet point down during the international phase. More than 1 million samples have been taken across the three repositories, but more than 30% of those have been taken from only 15 sites. So that tells you that certain intervals of great interest are likely to be already heavily sampled. Then we get into the question of the archive haves, which to this point have been preserved. Some people would argue that with the proper review and oversight. Some of the designs of projects should be given access to archive haves, but that's that that was beyond the purview of our committee. Okay, thank you Larry. Okay, what about this one with the leap model include the ability of additional people to join the program post proposal. Yes. I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. No. Yes, yes. And that was a point I was trying to emphasize with the bullet points about open participation. So the recommendations from the working group follows sort of a concentric staffing model where there would be a proponent group that would establish a pre proposal that pre proposal would be reviewed. And then it's endorsed a workshop or something to inform and invite the broader community to participate. And then you would have the actual project take place. So did that answer the question. I think so. Okay, the question from my co chair what technology is required to re enter boreholes. Well, there are other people here can talk about that much more than I can. It depends on what you want to do in the borehole, I believe. So, in a case like Patrick was talking about, I think, if you want to recover from an instrument that's there, you may be able to do that with an ROV off of a conventional research vessel. If you want to go back into the borehole and continue to drill. And then you have to come with a drill ship. And you have to find the cone which may be buried by sediments that piled up as you were doing your drilling. It's doable. But then there's, there's no guarantee what the condition of the borehole will be. Will leaps right site reports and expedition project reports similar to those done by for I ODP. Yes, yeah, I'm sorry in the interest of time I wasn't able to talk about all of that. But the recommendation is that each leap. As part of its program management plan would identify what their product would be and then expected timeline. And that report would then be, we would hope archived together with other publications from the long history of scientific ocean drilling. That's really the way of seeing that the outcomes. Get folded into this broader fabric of scientific ocean drilling. Great. Okay, I'll read this question by Jim Wright though I think this this is a question to you Larry but also really more question to all of us perhaps. If this scenario comes true and a rise of this drilling vessels 15 to 25 years away, should we consider a setting aside course for X number of years, knowing that technology will improve for better analyses. NASA did this with the Apollo material. So, just a question. That's a really, really good question. I think it's one that needs to be addressed by the community overall and NS with NSF input given NSF's point in this. I want to use the microphone. So, a lot of this has been addressed in the last 20 years. I mean, originally, you could only sample half of the working half. And then, during the ocean drilling program was recognized in some places you needed to open up the entire working half. And then the in the Iodp I believe is the first Iodp the policy changed so that in some circumstances, the curators could agree that you could begin to sample the archive path, but a maximum of half of the archive path to your preserving, you know, a quarter of it in perpetuity. So, very good. Thank you for that input. There are more questions, but we're going to make sure that we stay on time so let's move on thank you very much Larry let's thank Larry. Okay, next ideas around benefits of overlapping cross disciplinary ocean and paleo ocean research priorities. Daniel, take it away. Thank you. Zoe are you back there. Okay, thank you very much. So I'm Daniel Sigmund. I am here to speak. I think I was asked to speak as someone who works both within the broader oceanographic community and with ocean drilling samples. And I want to thank Jesse farmer for helping me to get the thoughts and the slides together for this. So, the things I hope to quickly hit on the next couple of minutes are why we need the past to gain insight into the future fundamental question I'm a little bit orienting some of this towards the ocean studies board is as opposed to the people in this room but why we need the past to get insight into the future why studies of millions of year old material can provide insight into the near term future, why these are indeed relevant for the near term future. So I'm going to give you one to two examples probably very, very quickly. Then make the point that continuous paleoproxy development, which is due to activities and other aspects of the scientific and ocean science community development of these proxies by multiple disciplines and ensures new findings from continued ocean drilling. That is to say we do not need to come up with some great new innovation for ocean drilling that we already have innovation in the framework of the proxy development that's going on at sea and in labs today, such that really what the most important thing to do is to to maintain the availability of sediment materials and here I'm speaking specifically about paleoclimate and paleo oceanographic activities but we can broaden that out. And then finally I'll speak briefly about or I'll mention some changes and connections among paleoclimate marine geology and deep biosphere studies and ocean drilling. Okay. So actually, before I move from this slide, starting with that first question. When we're studying processes that matter for the on come for the on for the future for the near term future. We can study processes in the lab or at sea gain a process understanding a mechanistic understanding. We have models which can assimilate information and try to make predictions about the future. Keep in mind that those models are still have great technical limitations and are highly contingent on the tuning that is used to have them accurately reproduce modern conditions. And then we have using available data of change over time. And if we're then we that breaks down into two categories. Instrumental data and pay and pre instrumental data. And so here's just a beautiful example of data of a study of the last 2000 years here only thing but the last 2000 years from the pages to K group, where they looked over time at climate variability over the last 2000 years at the at the centennial scale and compare that to the instrumental data that's available. Now the point they were trying to make about this is really interesting. My, this is just one of many images I might show you, which make the point that what we have in the framework of instrumental data is just so small with regard to change, we have really really information about change in the from instrumental data and adding data year on year as climate change proceeds is no way forward. Okay, so pre instrumental data are absolutely critical. One of you may be saying this type of resolution would not be available in ODP core materials for millions of years ago, by and large that's true we're not able to get decadal resolution sometimes we are. But I'm going to speak to this issue of timescale and just a little bit. So, I sometimes hear new members of the ocean modeling community saying what has paleo climate done for me lately. I just want to remind everybody that many of the major things that we have worried about that are not actually already occurring are due to insights from paleo climate paleo graphic work. A key example is the discovery of Heinrich events, they're tying them to icebergs and to reductions in North Atlantic deep water formation in the North Atlantic, and their climate consequences. This was, you know, if you wanted to find a precursor to this it would have been stommels bifurcate you know to to stable states for an ocean circulation, but nobody was worried about any DW shut downs until this kind of information emerged from paleo climate. Okay, from paleo observations. There is another role that paleo climate data can take this is over the last 400,000 years the reconstruction of methane from ice cores from the bostock ice core. There's been extraordinarily beautiful work done more recently on methane. You know what this record shows is higher methane during interglacials lower methane during the glacial periods. These data have been really useful in ruling out suggestions that have been made for example, it's been proposed that methane large methane releases might occur under global warming from permafrost. We, while the paleo climate data don't rule out this possibility under global warming, they are a strong check against it in the sense that in previous interglacials which were warmer than today, we didn't see tremendous methane releases and so it really we really need to be asking for special conditions for permafrost methane release to be really important under global warming. Similarly, geologic carbon releases methane releases. And these as triggers for for for deglacial change they have been ruled out from the methane data so one way of thinking about this people often don't recognize the degree to which knowledge of the past is an enduring check on the hypotheses that one has knowing about the past is, even though that people don't notice allows them to rule out ideas before they start making their way into the broader community so ruling out cases of cats sleeping with dogs can't see that image well enough. Okay, so we're looking at a, you know, a next couple of centuries of a warmer world, and paleo climate is useful, but if you want to access previous warmer worlds. We, for the most part, with regard to some brief conditions during a few interglacials, we need to go back before a million years ago and that means ocean drilling. We can't access access this age of sediments without the ocean drilling program. The, the more distant past is is important for us not only in the context of it being having been warmer. But if we look at the climate signals, and the CO2 changes that are reconstructed for these past times and this. Relative to the last 800,000 years. The signals are larger. And so it's an easier system from which to derive climate sensitivities to CO2 or albedo. Just from that sense of the signal strength. But in addition when you're looking at secular changes such as they're happening over the last 60 million years. These provide simpler information on climate controls then studying glacial interglacial cycles glacial interglacial cycles are a wonderful system to study but they are complicated by extracting from them climate sensitive climate sensitivities to different factors is complicated by the importance of feedbacks of multiple interacting feedbacks in driving glacial cycles so these secular changes are some are make it make for a simpler framework. And now, when working on millions of years one tends to study millions of years. It's been well shown at this point that rapid processes are recorded in deep time this is one of the, this is the most famous example I would say from the Paley CNC and thermal maximum, an extraordinary event in Earth history that is our only real check on our basic intuition about how CO2 would be absorbed basically giving us some ground to stand on when we think about the coming future. And of course the timescale of the event recorded here is on the timescale of thousands of years and features briefer more brief pardon me, then even the dissolution event in the deep sea has been reconstructed from PETM materials. Okay, now I'm going to give you two little vignettes into the connections that one that can derive among the different areas of ocean science with Paley climate studies. The first I'm going to talk to you about is iron in the ocean. Over the course of the late 80s, 90s, late 80s, 1990s, our understanding of ocean biology ocean chemistry was revolutionized by the recognition that large regions of the ocean specifically the nutrient rich regions such as the southern ocean down here are limited by iron. This was done by biological and chemical oceanographic work, eventually leading to direct additions of iron to the ocean leading to testing of the idea that phytoplankton would be fertilized with iron inputs. But it was a critical question as to what would happen on the large scale with large scale, naturally driven iron inputs and specifically John Marshall, who, John Marshall pardon me, John Martin who sat behind much of this revolution and iron, knew that during the ice ages iron supplies to the, to the ocean and atmosphere were from dust were greater. And he proposed that the lower CO2 concentrations of ice age was due to those dust inputs fertilization of phytoplankton put forward, what is often known as the iron hypothesis for glacial or glacial cycles. Okay. Now, I've, I'm not sure how exactly I'm doing on time here. But to take you through some data from an ODP core. This ODP site 1090. This is the dust flux reconstructed for the last glacial maximum. The dust flux at this core is shown in black below with higher dust fluxes during the ice ages heat the pre the last I say cheer the previous I say cheer. It had been observed previously that productivity was higher during those times of high dust flux, which might be due to iron fertilization or might alternatively be due to frontal migration of in the ocean. But then measurements of the nitrogen isotopic composition within for a minute for a shells a new method that developed over the course of the 2000s. Provided confirmation that in fact these are changes in nutrient concentration the surface more nutrient drawdown associated with a higher dust fluxes when productivity was high. It's very hard to explain these data without iron fertilization and so it was the geologic record that provided confirmation this process on the large scale. Now this links into many other questions both backward in time and forward in time in terms of backward in time if you look over the last four million years for a billion years, pardon me. We evolved from a low oxygen system to a high oxygen system. In this low oxygen world there would have been much higher iron availability, and that means that a lot of the fundamental enzymes in phytoplankton, all organisms evolved at that time. And so when you when you think about this from this perspective, life has been hooked has been suffered from its own inventions with oxygenic photosynthesis driving that rise in oxygen, that leading to a scarcity and iron when there used to be a lot. And that leading to things like iron limitation in the modern ocean. And from that perspective, the origins of life and atmospheric oxygen billions of years ago has influenced atmospheric CO2 climate and life now is including its variations. So this has connections across scales. So this work on iron fertilization is also a point of comparison for proposals of purposeful iron fertilization you can compare the, the, the observations of iron input nutrient drawdown and CO2 apparent CO2 drawdown with people's discussions of purposeful iron I want to stop here for a second and say the Southern Ocean where this work focused is a really critical region for global, for how climate affects the ocean and how the ocean takes up carbon into the future. And so it'll be this is a to me a huge area of priority for future sediment recovery. And we have very little material from the ocean drilling program from the Southern Ocean. So I am shocked that there would be a gap that we've been talking about an ocean drilling that would. Yeah, you can get the point there. Okay. One other example, I want to give you here is on oxygen deficient zone so it's in programmed into a lot of people's minds that oxygen is less available under warmer conditions. And that has been extended to the oxygen deficient zone so people have presumed that oxygen deficient zones would glow what grow under global warming. And indeed there's been data. There have been a number of studies high profile studies that have observed a decline in ocean and rise in these oxygen deficient zones over the course of the last century and assume and presume that this was due to global warming. And that was picked up quite frequently in the, the, the public press. But when we look back millions of years ago. The story seems to be somewhat different than that shown here is the last 60 million years. The time proceeding in this direction climate data up here here again form an effort about nitrogen isotope measurements, the greener from the Pacific it cores near oxygen deficient zones, their decline in n 15 and 14 ratio during these two warm periods of the past. So at least using climate optimum the mid-myosin climate optimum, indicate that this suboxic process decreased under warm climates of the oxygen fission zone shrunk during these time intervals in contrast to these expectations. And indeed, ocean models are now, I would say coming around to this notion that this is actually how the system will respond. But you may say, oops, pardon me. You may say, look, these are million year time scale changes, what do these have to do with what's going to happen in the next couple of decades or centuries. I would have two things I would say about that one is if you see that little data point right there. That's from what's known as MI to 1000 years time scale glaciation. So these changes are not inherently million year time scales. The other way to put this is among the most likely mechanisms for this reduction in the oxygen deficient zones under warming is a weakening of the trade winds. And if that's the correct explanation for these changes, this can happen on a time scale of decades of years. And so just because a change occurs over millions of years does not mean that that change, the response time of that change is a long is long. Right. A lot of the things we can learn from the million year time scale will translate directly to the near future. Okay. Sorry, I just spit on the microphone. I just worked up. So, this is my and Jesse farmers effort to sort of make a tabulation we did it over the weekend of tools. So these are the perfect tools to look at different environmental parameters in the past. And the development of these tools is largely come from chemical oceanographers who are also pale oceanographers sometimes just chemical oceanographers but also people who have marine biology in biological and biological oceanography in marine molecular biology. So there are a lot of new tools available due to these other areas of science and ocean science. And then we look at any one category so this is for temperature this is for dissolved oxygen. We have different proxies some of which were established early on we've been getting better at using them others are only if only come along more recently so this is iodp 2003. Survey of ocean sciences 2015 and the future survey, new tools are coming online all the time and so that again I just want to emphasize that point I made at the beginning, which is that ongoing proxy development, which does not rely directly on ocean drilling is less providing new tools all the time that will mean that we can do more with sediments that are recovered. And in this coming set of decades of global warming. It is critical in my view that we have the set of the sediments available to apply this ever advancing toolbox to understanding what the future has to bring. So I have a few comments that are not very. Well, I'm going to stop here. There's something to be said about the growing symbiosis among paleo climate marine geology and jive is in deep biosphere, but I see that I'm already over time, so I'm going to stop. Thank you Daniel that was a whirlwind tour of some fantastic examples. Thank you very much for assembling that really really great. I actually don't have any questions right now it seems like everybody sort of contemplating all the good info that you've given us. Well that's a good so. So maybe you can take a few more minutes to talk about this. This last thought. Okay, so there's always been a strong connection between paleo climate and marine geology and geophysics. In the sense that, well, there it goes both directions but the what I'm often thinking about in this context is marine geological and geophysical processes determine ocean basin geometry continental locations. And the fluxes ocean gateways, the fluxes of chemicals between the ocean and the marine lithosphere, can't mountain building and weathering. It's always been a very natural connection within ODP to connect the marine geology to paleo climate. The deep biosphere though as more and more work proceeds in this area, those connections are going to strengthen and that's because the sedimentary materials are often a critical energy source for these deep microbes. The pore waters, as well as the set is a solid material speak to our critical for that deep biosphere, but then the deep biosphere is also going to affect poor water composition and help us to understand the sedimentary conditions that are preserving our geologic proxies. And so you can see this proceeding as we look through this last set of I ODP expeditions, where there have been more and more connections between the deep biosphere and the ongoing marine geological but also paleo paleo climate work on those materials. Okay, thanks. Great. Thank you. So I will ask a question if you if you're okay standing up there for a couple more minutes. You know, you're really good at sort of connecting the work that I ODP is doing with, you know, all kinds of different arenas. The one thing I've been more thinking about more lately has been critical minerals, you know, and how important it is if we're really going to go to a, you know, electrifier economy. There's no connection there. Is that something you've thought about. Right. I, I'd like other people to respond to that more I mean we've got huge areas of the ocean where the that are the repositories for these critical minerals and these are often the least explored environments from the perspective of paleo climate just given their very low sedimentation we do know that there is paleo climate information in nodules right and so there should be some deep thinking about trying to connect people's interesting interest in recovering those nodules with the histories that are preserved within them. And there may be, you know, with this with especially the rise of a cation trace metal isotope measurements. We may be able to get a lot more paleo climate information from those kind of metal rich deposits than we used to. Thank you. Okay, more questions coming in. You've utilized many existing sedimentary archives for your latest work utilizing nitrogen and isotopes. Do you see a need for obtaining additional archives to fill key gaps in space and time. Oh gosh, this. Next I mean so the, you know, a lot of the, we have projects ongoing right now where there are discussions about who has the last court pit of course fraction from these key cores and the equatorial Pacific, for example, that have, you know, been used to study the fine structures a function of climate. We're already running out of these best known sites. The, the, the southern ocean it's very hard place to sample if I were to ask for any major innovation in deep sea drilling and ocean drilling, it would be to more easily access polar regions that if I had one thing on my list because we have there been a number of very productive ODP sites in the southern ocean, for example, but they are in number very few and I'm sure they're extraordinarily depleted. And, you know, we have. Okay, and, and so they're all these there are these. One answer is we're already running out of material in places that we know well, right. We have not done the thinking I should do about a dish beyond that that point about the southern ocean specifically cores from closer to the Antarctic continent. I haven't thought deeply enough about that. Okay, one more, one more last question. What are the most important outstanding ocean climate system questions that can be addressed by scientific ocean drilling and paleo climate records. I mentioned improved reconstruction of high latitude change, which are our questionnaire completely agrees with, but what else. Well, let me do you know the reason that the high latitudes matter so much is these are the gateways to the interior right and so one of the critical questions is how will heat and anthropogenic CO2 flow into the ocean. On what time scale and with what complexities under the in the coming decades and centuries. And I think that they're, you know, but most of the surface ocean is the, the tropical ocean right and these places are extraordinary and energetic importance. And, you know, I'm, these are these are questions that people have already tried to get a lot out of ocean drilling about like changes in the structure of tropical thermoclines not only in the Pacific but also in the Atlantic and the Indian. Can I have like a week to think about that question. You can have even more than that. Let's thank Daniel. Thank you very much. All right, and without a break or further ado, it is time to transition over to our, our lightning panel and the way we're going to do that. I'm going to invite the first five folks who are on our list. So Massako, Chijun, Adrian, Chris and Allison up front to be seated in that order. And then Zoe I'm going to ask you to pull up the slides for this one. Okay, while you all are doing that so I'm going to keep time with my iPhone here. Very fancy tool. And so if you, if you see me standing up. If you see me standing up that means you're within 15 seconds. You see me walk towards you it's really getting close. You don't want to be tackled by a five foot one tuba that's for sure. But thank you, everyone. We've, we've told our panelists that they have two and a half minutes to tell us about future science perspectives on scientific ocean drilling. And I'm really looking forward to this one. And so without further ado, I think we can kick it off with Massako. Either way, yeah, sit here and talk is fine. Mike, okay. All right, I really appreciate Daniel's talk that talked about the connection. So, as a marine geophysicist, I do care about oceanic crust. So oceanic crust covers 70% of our surface and it lies beneath all the oceanographic phenomena. And therefore, discoveries on anything about its origin, nature, behavior, enable us to address a critical science question like, what's the characters of some civil environment, and how does it affect the global element cycle and deep by deep biosphere. I think we have been making progress in addressing this very question from with to reach to subduction zones. It is very recent advances in our understanding of, for example, how a magnetically lower crust and upper mantle is brought up to the seafloor and facilitating link among biogeochemical processes with them. The observations have been made possible by state of art multi scale multi dimensional infrastructure currently available in the US oceanography, with which we have been able to collect interdisciplinary data necessary to evaluate seafloor and shallow processes and also to image deep structures in oceanic crust and then even mantle. And indeed, in these efforts intact continuous hard rock cores obtained from deep oceanic crust through scientific drilling are the only ground truth to geophysical data and deep crust imagery in validating our conceptions and models in geodynamics. Among many many deep crustal system of studies, as an example, I would like to here pose a currently unanswered very fundamental question. How does it start and then continue to be operated? Do we know? I don't think so. A connector between passing and present ocean world exists within the oldest oceanic crust in the western Pacific, where today's play tectonic cycle started mid ocean reaches and only combined technology of deep sea margins, basing wide geophysics and ocean drilling can address this most fundamental question that define the planet Earth. It requires to obtain intact core samples and establish observatory within a kilometer or so of the ocean crust at six steps. These numbers, one kilometer and six kilometers should be a key metric of future ocean drilling and other oceanographic infrastructure in the US. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you. My name is Shijun. I'm a paleoclimatologist. I study past changes in the Atlantic Meridiano overturning circulation, or AMOC. As we all know, the AMOC plays a very important role in today's global climate. However, the IPCC report says that the AMOC will very likely decline over the 21st century, although they don't think that there will be an abrupt collapse before 2100, which is good. Just a paper published last week argues that a collapse of the AMOC may occur around the mid century, and that certainly has caused some quite some major discussion among scientific community. But really, whether it's 30 years or 100 years or even the day after tomorrow, chances are it will likely happen. And now the question is, how would the global climate respond to a collapsed AMOC? We know that AMOC has collapsed in the past, as shown by this red curve in the upper left corner. On the right, I'm showing the climate model results that's showing that these past intervals of collapse AMOC were associated with global scale abrupt changes in both temperature and precipitation. Now, scientific ocean drilling allows us to reconstruct how climate actually changed during those intervals, and that can help us to evaluate the performance of our climate models, and that can help us to provide useful implications for the future. But there are also many other things going on at the same time in those intervals that may affect the climate, in addition to a collapsed AMOC, such as changes in solar insulation, CO2 concentrations, sea level, as well as the retreat of ice sheets from different parts of the world into different parts of the ocean. So we really need more high quality paleo climate reconstructions to help us better characterize the complex climate dynamics during those intervals to better inform the future. My research echoes this priority question identified in the last decadal survey regarding the link between oceanic processes and climate. I think it's still a very important question for the next decade, especially given how pressing our climate issues are right now. And that's all for me. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, Adrienne's next and those of you who are on Slido, I'm hoping to have a few minutes of time for maybe a question or two to these five. So do feel free to put questions into Slido with that. Go ahead. So for the first time this year, the IPCC report actually had a section about Western boundary currents. And in it, they state that the multi multi decadal variability of the strength and position of these currents. And short records from direct observations can obscure the detection of any long term trends. So subtropical Western boundary and currents are incredibly important to us today. They transport heat moisture and gases from the equator regions to high latitudes. There are places of high biodiversity and high productivity in the world oceans. They are past that are followed by hurricanes typhoons and other strong storms because they provide the heat and moisture for these storms. And they have the power to impact local and regional climate and weather dynamics. So it's really important now how to continue exploring how they will continue to respond to climate change today and in the coming future. And what will their impact be on climate and biodiversity. So we need to reconstruct these Western boundary currents using the deep sea sediment and fossil record. My lab group and I work. Oh, well, let me back up. This is a geologic timescale, just the past 66 million years at the bottom till today at the top. And my lab group and I work. Within one of these analogous warm periods called the mid pi ascensian warm period, which was about 3.3 to 3 million years ago. What we do is use sediments from site 1207. This was drilled in 2001. Along the boundary of the crucial current and extension, the major Western boundary current in the Northwest Pacific Ocean. This is a sediment core from that site. So at the top you can see that red box. This is a limit of a piston core, which is about 90 feet. So, and when the blue box is the depth of the analog analogous warm period that we study. So this is beyond the depth of the piston core can reach. Observational data today has indicated that the crucial current has warned by about 1 to 2 degrees over the last century. But using geochemical data from these sediments my lab group and I have established that the crucial current extension warned by about 8 degrees Celsius across this analogous warm period and that's analogous to today's warming. We suspect that the current could warm another 6 to 7 degrees Celsius within the next few decades, leading to 8 degrees total Celsius total of warming from pre industrial times. So you've all seen this map earlier today is scientific drilling after 2024, and I've outlined the Western boundary current regions in the red boxes. So all that blacked out area is where we will not be able to obtain sediment records under these Western boundary currents across these analogous warm periods. We simply cannot do it without drilling. So we really need rise list drilling to keep getting at these sedimentary archives, especially those that cross analogous warm periods to continue reconstructing these Western boundary currents and how they will impact society in the coming decades. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Next up is Chris. All right, thank you. My name is Chris Lowry. I'm a research associate at the University of Texas Institute for geophysics. I'm a micro paleontologist. My research is focused on kind of two broad questions. How did ancient marine organisms respond to changes in their environment? And what can those past changes tell us about how modern organisms respond to ongoing changes in their environment. This directly contributes to several of the priorities defined by the last decadal survey, including what is the role of biodiversity and the resilience of marine ecosystems and how it will be affected by natural anthropogenic changes. And how different will marine food webs be by mid century and in 100 years. So we think about marine ecosystems and marine food webs. We tend to think about ecologically and economically important things like tuna, billfish, squid, krill. Unfortunately, there's not good fossil records of those things. But fortunately, the biodiversity of Plantic for Manifra in the modern ocean is highly correlated with that of tuna billfish krill, squid and other important groups. So we can use the record of micro fossils as a proxy for these other groups that we care about. We have an excellent record of the global diversity of marine plankton. This is a record that goes back here to the Triassic. And this is the response of calcareous nano fossils in Plantic for Manifra to a bunch of different climate events through Earth history. These climate events all have different characteristics. Some of them are warming. Some of them have ocean acidification or deoxygenation or changes in the stratification or whatever. And we can we can compare those events to each other and understand what causes what kind of changes cause what groups to go extinct, or to change their range, or what have you. So we have a great record of global diversity. This is like, you know, this, this plot on the left is like averaged across the entire Earth, and it's just, you know, extinction, like the number of species go up or down. That's great. But there's a lot of ecological changes that happen below the level of extinction that are still really important to understand. And so we can start to better to look at this, this box on the right looks at the, basically measure functional diversity in million year time bins, but also split out by latitude. So average across five degree latitudinal bends through Earth history back to 66 million years ago. We've got a great record of the knee gene, but as you start to get further back in time into some of these analog or partial analog warm periods of the past. We have less good coverage of these deeper time intervals and you know, like, for example, here in the in the early paleo gene we have no records from the tropics, we're almost no records from the tropics and it's still an open question on whether the tropics are tropics were actually habitable during these past warm climates. And to fill those gaps we need more drilling we need to get more records to build this data set out. And those new records to help us answer a lot of important and emerging questions like where the tropics habitable. What are the mechanisms or rates of change that cause extinction versus just rain shifts and related to that are their tipping points and biodiversity. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Alison is the last of the set of speakers and again if you have questions for them do put them in Slido. And if you wish, if it's a question specifically to one of the speakers do put their name down otherwise it's just a general question. Thanks. So I'm a marine biogeochemist and my work really looks at the links between climate change and ocean chemistry. So for my group that really boils down to two questions one is how will climate change impact the ocean chemistry and how will those changes act as impacts on the global climate system. So that involves looking at things like how the carbon cycle links to other cycles like oxygen and nutrient cycles and alkalinity. And there are many ways that my group can ask these questions using either modern observations, or the recent paleo oceanographic record which we can obtain through gravity and piston cores. So when we get to some of what are the most urgent questions for our community, those questions tend not to be about what the ocean and climate will look like now. Those questions are about what the oceans will look like in 100 years when we know that they're likely to be much warmer. So as you've already heard, one of our best tools for asking questions and studying these processes and feedbacks of warmer is to go back further in geologic history, which requires ocean drilling to obtain those records. The other thing that I want to note that my group does is that we study the geochemistry of the sub seafloor environment. We do that to try to understand how deep process or processes deep within sediments can drive changes in global biogeochemical cycles. So what we do this is by extracting core or interstitial waters from marine sediments, but I just want to highlight that this is something we have to do as those materials are collected so as we develop new questions we can't go to a core repository and pull waters out of those cores, we have to go and collect more material. So just even an example of what this work can look like here's an example from expedition 392. So in early 2022. We came out to the Agulis plateau. We collected this unexpected but beautiful 100 meter section that showed local enhanced basalt weathering into the ocean. And a record like this gives us an opportunity not just to look at what the ocean looked like looked at like in the past, but also to start to interrogate some of the impacts of proposed climate mitigation techniques things like ocean enhancement, which can involve things like enhanced basalt weathering to the oceans. So here we're looking at questions that are not only relevant to us as an ocean sciences community, but also to us as a society as we start to think about some of our potential mechanisms for climate mitigation. Oh, excellent. Perfect. Perfect. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you for these perspectives I really appreciate that mean it is amazing how much you can cram into two and a half minutes well done. Yeah. And I do have a few questions. So let's see. There's a comment here that talks about how it's important to point out that many scientists if not most in the ocean drilling community also work in the water column they're not disconnect groups and that's really important I think less of a question more of a comment. Okay, as early career scientists, is there anything specific to scientific ocean drilling that you feel has shaped your success thus far. All right, let's go with Chris in the now. Yeah. Okay, so one of like low key the best part about scientific ocean drilling is that to get on the ship and to be a part of these expeditions. It's a very low barrier to entry right there's no you don't have to write a proposal, you don't have to be the PI or the PI student or something like that. When they staff the ship they'd really try hard to balance career stages so it's not just people that have been doing it their whole careers. It's also postdocs it's also graduate students it's also you know people that maybe don't have an opportunity or wouldn't have had an opportunity to sale if it was you had to write a proposal yourself. For example, I first went to see on expedition 364 which drilled the chicks live impact crater. I had never studied the paleo scene before that cruise. I had expertise in form and if I but I'd never actually study the paleo scene the other micro paleontologists on that cruise was young Schmidt who helped describe or discover the asteroid impact hypothesis for the cruise mass extinction so it there's a there's like a big shift in an expertise there, but that was a really, really positive thing for me because it's a really good like jumpstart to your career that you get access to new samples. It's all high quality, high quality science because it's all vetted and it's a lot of infrastructure that goes into like getting out there to getting the samples, you get all this material that you would not have access to otherwise and that's extremely valuable as an early career point. Thank you Chris Alley. Yeah, so I think my, my point is similar, but I just want to highlight kind of, as Chris has said for, for those of you who maybe haven't thought a lot about our staffing procedures that they really are unique. In addition to my opportunity to sail on 392, I actually have two graduate students who either have sailed or will sail in the next year. Those students were given the opportunity to apply for a project independent of me and to go on a ship and to kind of get much more equal footing with their peers than I think exists in many situations. I also just want to highlight that as you look at the affiliations of scientists who've been speaking, I think it's worth just reminding kind of the quality of these experiences that aren't focused on a handful of elite universities but are really being educated. I'm in the Midwest. I'm at a relatively small university by comparison and so I think that that's also a key to keep in mind is just the extent to which I ODP provides opportunities, really high quality opportunities kind of across the country. This is great points. Thank you. I also want to underscore everything that Chris and Ali have both said because those are my similar experiences as well as well. I'm also at a smaller R1 in New York State. I also have grad students that are sailing and involved with research and, you know, but as a first generation academic and my family didn't come, we didn't come from a lot of money. Being on an I ODP expedition really allowed me access to other mentors and people that really would like help define my career. And that was also really important. So there was this paper that came out. I think just last week, Rebecca Barnes is a co-author on it. She's a friend and colleague and I met on Twitter. But it talks about these sticky networks and how like folks that are mentored and have a big group of mentors and advisors actually stay within academia. And that's kind of been true for me. And I think it can be true. It's probably true for a lot of other folks out there. But I think there's this really good opportunity for students that come from, you know, non-traditional paths or may have historically excluded identities and STEM to really be brought into this community and embraced. And of course, we always have room to improve on that front as well. Wow, that's awesome. Jason Sylvan asked the question. I'm so glad he asked the question. These are some amazing insights. Anything from Masako and Shijun? Okay, I think I completely agree with what, you know, three of them and suggestively presented so far. So anything I can add. As a, let's say, marine geophysicist who mainly works with basin-wide seismic magnetic gravity, all these signals. If I did not sail on these IODP drilling cruises that core the basement material, I probably, it took me or took the community for a long time or never to understand what's the source of what we are geophysically really imaging. That's why I emphasize that this is the only way to ground truth deep crustal imagery. And then as a student, as postdoc early carrier, I have been so humbled about, wow, we did not know type of discoveries during the drilling. So, thank you. Yeah, um, yeah, unlike the other four speakers, I have never been on an IODP cruise ship before. But I totally agree with what they have said. I think it is an amazing experience if I had joined those ships. And I'm jealous. So I think, you know, if, if, no, we will have a, we will have another ship in the future and that will allow me or, you know, the future generations to get a similar experience to advance their research and build their connections. And also, although I haven't been on a cruise ship before, but those existing data that's generated from those past expeditions are really helpful for my research in terms of telling us the climate for things and responses in the past. And sort of like, I stand on the shoulders of giants, you know, and these are incredibly helpful for my research so far. Excellent. Thank you all. Let's thank our panelists one more time. And I want to invite to the front, the remaining four, Jason, Jessica, Brandy and Patrick. Maybe we can have it. There you go. Thank you. And Leanne, let's not clear the questions. Is that okay? Don't clear the questions just yet. Yeah. Oh, too late. I like that. All right. Thank you all, Jason, Jessica, Brandy, Patrick in that order. So I guess, Jason, we start with you. Push the button. And it's, there we go. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Complete space. My name is Jason Sylvan. I'm an associate professor in department of oceanography at Texas A&M University, where my lab studies at the microbial ecology of volcanic rocks that are created at mid ocean base and then reside below sediments in all the parts of the ocean. The oceanography community in general should care about this work because at any one time about 2% of the volume of seawater is moving through this volcanic aquifer, which means that in general the entire volume of the ocean cycles through basements roughly every 200,000 years. And while moving through basements, seawaters altered by microorganisms and water rock reactions, having implications for ocean chemistry that connect this deep biosphere to the broader ocean. Next. Where do I press? Oh, I press next. It's me. My work addresses the 2015 decadal survey of ocean sciences objective about geophysical chemical and biological character of the subsea floor environments and how it affects global cycles and understanding of origins and evolution of life. In my lab, we address a few different questions, but among them are things like how many micro microbes are there in this particular environment. How many micro microbes and if we can isolate new species in the lab to work with. So I put a few examples here on the left, we see a plot of number of cells in volcanic seafloor on x axis versus depth on the y axis going from seafloor down to 792 meters below seafloor. And our data set is kind of unprecedented in terms of its length and allowed us to address questions about the distribution of abundance and kind of where they are cells below the seafloor that are really exciting. We're on that same site. In the middle, the different colors represent different groups of microorganisms and this goes actually from the surface on the left to deep 750 meters on the right. It shows that those different colors are there's a lot of it looks like almost noise and that shows us that the groups of microorganisms are heterogeneously distributed and we did some further work looking into how this relates to the properties of the course themselves. And on the right, we have an image of a bacteria that I isolated from 392 meters below seafloor. And to my knowledge this was the first kind of described new species of bacteria from specifically from sub seafloor basement and growing these organisms in the field allows us to address hypotheses that we can address in the field. So I'll finish up by saying that all of this types of work requires new scientific ocean drilling so I've sailed on three expeditions and been associated with the fourth closely. And on the map on the right shows places that IDP has sampled the larger dots or where microbiology was a focus and you can see that's a minority of all the total and so this is a young field, and to avoid contamination and also do the types of experiments that let us address these we need fresh core and scientific ocean drillings. Excellent. Thank you, Jason. Let's see who's next. Jessica. I'm waiting for my slides. Oh, oh, okay, cool. Yeah, I'm just going to be a soon to be associate professor at Texas C&M Galveston. So, my research focuses on understanding the role and impact and importance of virus host interactions in different aquatic environments and that includes the water column, but also the sediment. So when we think about viruses, some of most of them will infect the cell replicate, and that ends up in bursting the cell, releasing the nutrients, which will have a huge impact on the geochemical cycles. Some of them can integrate inside the genome of their host, they will be dormant until they get out and they are a little sloppy so they often are involved in gene transfer and adaptation of their host. And what we know about viruses and sediment, we know that they're very abundant 10 to 10, 10 to 100 times more abundant than their micro bill host. We know that they're more abundant when there's more total organic carbon, and they are extremely diverse, and they are active at depth up to 300 but I put little stars here and there's only three papers that use iodp everything with surface cores so we don't know much about viruses at depth, and we don't know anything about viruses in basement. So there's a lot of questions we know that they are probably very important in the geochemical cycles, given their importance in the water column. But what is the infection rate we don't know, and that will tell us how the impact the geochemical cycles, and by knowing the dynamics between viruses and their host we can learn about adaptation but we have so many more questions to answer. Last summer I participated in Expedition 393 and the South Atlantic transit and I'm trying to attempt to answer some of these questions like what is the infection rate. What is the preferred lifestyles, do they more, do they lyse more or do they are, they are more dormant. Who are they infecting we don't even know because we don't know the host for these viruses, and how are they involved in the adaptation of their host. So, but this is the sort of questions that we need to think about before we get the course so we need fresh cores to determine any types of activity rates and that's not just through with viruses it's through with every microbes. We also need deep course because we need to be able to access the complete geochemical gradients if we want to understand how microbes are like players in the geochemical cycles. But we also need a range of course from different locations and environments, because we, the field of microbiology and biology and the subsurface is still very young so we need to further understand their importance in the elemental cycles and the evolution of life. Thank you. Thank you Jessica brandy's next. My research focuses broadly on the survivability of microbes in the subsurface, and I divide this into three themes that can be thought of like a game show survivor. And I highlight papers from from my lab for each of these. The first is adaptation, which is reflected and as Jessica said, in RNA expression. So briefly RNA that, you know, which I specialize in tells us that the microbe is active it's changing its environment that RNA degrades quickly over time. Very quickly talking, you know, hours and even days and even with storage it degrades so that's not something that we could get from even archive samples. The second is dormancy and this is seen through spores. This is spores that we isolated from South Pacific gyre sediments. This is fungi and one that we characterized and fungi like viruses is very new finding it's still in its infancy. It's responsible for the breakdown of recalcitrant carbon in the subsurface. And the third mechanism for survival is, you know, basically killing its neighbor through natural products or through antimicrobial production. And my lab has shown that using full length genes from genomes, we can predict the antimicrobial product, the actual natural product that can be produced. And now this is going back to leaps. This is using big data analytics for discovery, but it, but we can't actually derive the natural product, unless we use fresh samples. And that is on the horizon. So, if viruses and fungi are, you know, in its infancy and research, then this is in its fetal stage. And so we're just now figuring out what is possible with antimicrobials. And so, you know, I need to want to also reiterate that this is an interdisciplinary program and microbiologists, you know, we're, you know, only invited to the party relatively short time ago, you know, and compared to, you know, all the other disciplines. And, you know, so we need that transfer disciplinary science. Otherwise, you know, our concern is that without an organizing body or without a framework, that the science will naturally silo into its sub disciplines. And I repeat brings those, you know, you know, encourage those those to come to the table. So microbiologists and, you know, geologists are actually creating the whole, you know, new field of something like geo microbiology, which didn't exist 50 years ago at all. And then I want to kick it over to Patrick and by saying that, you know, cork observatories, you know, these may be our last window to the subsurface, you know, biologically speaking, if that scientific drilling doors closed. Great. Thank you, Brandy Patrick. Thanks. Great. Thanks. So forgive me, but I want to give another highlight of the power of borehole observatories. Particularly one we installed after the magnitude nine to Hoku earthquake of Japan during that earthquake, the shallow portion of the fault slipped 50 to 60 meters all the way to the sea floor, essentially the sea floor at the trench jumped 50 meters to the east. It was a much bigger earthquake and much bigger tsunami than anyone predicted. Why was that was the fault there really strong and it built up a lot of elastic energy, or was it really weak and essentially just kind of hydroplanned and went along with the ride. Essentially we want to know what the dynamic friction is a critical part of earthquake physics but this is something that seismology can't tell us. The only thing that we can do it is measuring the frictional heat generated, just as you rub your hands together, the heat generated is related to how much displacement there is, and the average shear resistance. So what if we drill into the fault and try to measure the temperature. The expedition and community of scientific ocean drilling was such that it enabled us to have a rapid response drilling expedition 343 J fast that set sail just a year after the earthquake, and we drilled across the fault we sampled it, and we installed a temperature for a seven kilometers water depth, another 850 meters below the sea floor. Essentially, not we showed straws and measuring pressure, this is just essentially a rope with a lot of super high resolution temperature sensors can measure to an accuracy of 1000th of a degree Celsius, hanging in the well, and here, and came back nine months later. And this is what we've got we're looking at the residual or anomalous temperature when you remove background geotherm as a function of depth and time at the beginning to disturb by the drilling itself but then it equilibrates with the formation and down at the bottom at 820 around the plate boundary fault we see this anomalous temperature about point three degrees that we interpret to be the frictional heat signature of the earthquake. When we back out what the friction was, we get a really low friction essentially it had no breaks going on here. We also learn a lot of things about hydrology which is really important to a lot of things. You can see another single here of where it says advection fluid moving through there, and then in aftershocks starts flowing through other things. We can map where fluids are coming out dynamic pulses how hydrology, how fault zones and hydrology are linked together and respond to aftershocks in the subsurface really important to understand how fluids trigger earthquakes or Genesis and microbiology saw you transport. Thanks. Great. Thank you Patrick let's thank our speakers. All right I do have a bunch of questions I know we're not going to get to all of them but I'll ask you a few of them. Microbes and viruses like I'm sensing from you all you're like well wait we just joined the party. Wait, how can the party and this is not fair right we just. And you know also from the previous talks to me this is a program that's really hitting its stride right that is very obvious. Okay, so one question here talks about sort of the importance of new cores versus ability to use existing cores and. So four of you I'm looking for like a number like 5050 9010 needs to be new 100%. What do you all are thinking let's start with Patrick and work our way backwards. The question was how much do we need old core versus new core. Yeah, in your research so far or in the near future as you envision it what percentage do you think we will require new cores versus can be done with. I don't know what people want to hear but I think that it's 95% new and 5% old essentially old stuff is good for ancillary science to essentially figure some things about rock properties or some other things to fill in kind of background things but the new and cutting edge sciences is out there and for better or worse we've milked those cores we've milked a lot of the stuff that that we've acquired so far to get the science that we put out there already. I just want to reiterate that that I would agree with that number. The, you know, 5% that is, you know, you know, those archived cores, you can just get the basic DNA of who is, you know, just who is there. Those are first order questions that we'd like to move well beyond. That's the deeper questions, not only just rates but, you know, what are these other, you know, domains of life they're in there, or entities, and then also, you know, what's, what's active, what is, what are they actually doing. I'm seeing some nodding. Jason, did oh yeah. Yeah, well and I would add to that we've seen in a few of the presentations photographs from the repositories where you see kind of meters high rows of cores. But the cores that can be used for microbiology in particular resist in like a few freezers. Not a lot of material. So even though there's a few questions that can be addressed and should with those repository for microbiology for our discipline in particular. Yeah, it's not a lot. Yep. And the size of the samples in the freezer is, you're lucky if you get a 10 centimeter whole round but it's usually less or even a plug, which if like the most of these samples are low biomass there's not a lot of microbes in there so you don't get a lot of even DNA to ask more meaningful question then who is there with simple 16 s amplification points. Thank you. Here's another question about and is some of you touched on this but let's make it a little bit more explicit. The importance of the trans disciplinary nature of I ODP you're nodding give us some examples and thoughts some anecdotes. I'm not sure I see it's sorry. It's just. While he's. Sorry. You got so excited you chose your own. So the one of the great things about the going on I ODP expedition list that you get to interact with geologists sedimentologists. I'm a marine microbiologist so I knew absolutely nothing about rocks on slide. I went on the ship. And now I can, you can fully integrate your data within a much larger frame of other data that would otherwise not be available because I didn't even know what that these data existed before. So just being able to have that access to the other data, but also meeting the people on board is you build a network of people and it's such an inclusive community that you go on the ship and there's no more seniority versus early career everybody is doing there to achieve the objectives of the of the expedition. Yeah, thank you. This is here is a million dollar question. If you could lead a future I ODP. What would you do differently to ensure it's sustainability and progress. This is a million dollar question and it's okay to say I don't know. Yeah, I mean I don't know I like to kind of respond to questions like that and saying it's not this or that and so I think that there are more creative solutions that involve larger government than just puts in this room. That's, I guess that said I mean I think having a program that is sustainable is important so if that means potentially guaranteeing continuity but with less field work. You know, in particular for some period of time, as we think about what the future will look like. I think that that would be an acceptable path forward. That's a good point. Patrick. I was going to say, I think one of the things that for us to think about is that we don't want to have to reinvent this is that the beauty of ocean drilling is that over 50 plus years, whoever. It works and it's a system that has all this interdisciplinary stuff. If you want to do something like an ICDP proposal or I'm working on a DOE supported during project. You don't get this interdisciplinary stuff. You don't get all this organizational stuff. And so you're trying to event this stuff. And so it's kind of evolved to something that works and we're really afraid that that's going to be lost. Yeah, very good points. All right you all really insightful I'm so glad you're here and gave us your time let's thank our panel one more time. Yep, so there are just four of us. And so we had probably. I can hear it. I mean I can hear. You can hear me right. Okay. So anyway, we had obviously a number of what we would consider a high priority. We had a number of focuses. Ultimately we settled on these three of the first being polar climate ice sheet instability and sea level changes. And so this is about reducing uncertainties in ice sheet and geophysical models, which are being used predict rates of magnitude of sea level rise. There are clearly a number of periods in the past. Some fairly recent, the last interlacial stage 11. Maybe the early fly as seen in the deeper time, possibly the you seen a legacy transition that serve as good case studies for testing these models and so some of this would require additional deep sea drilling some of it wouldn't be maybe existing course and so forth, we didn't get into the details of that. The second priority, you know, broadly speaking is about changes in ocean mixing slash stratification, and how that influences nutrient and carbon cycling kind of thing from in terms of the response of the ocean at this ocean in terms of acting in feedback mode. You have warming, potentially increased stratification and how that impacts productivity and the uptake of carbon so air sea exchange of carbon. This has some relevance also to thinking about ocean carbon sequestration and carbon sequestration has to be done, ultimately it's going to be implemented in the context of models that we trust and basically a unstable or shifting system. And then third priority, the general topic of large earthquakes and tsunamis, basically monitoring current seismogenic zones, being able to improve predictions, specifically of large earthquakes, where they would occur and maybe closing the window on prediction of timing. Any clarifying questions for Jim. We did have other priorities. I can list some of those but that's patient hydrologic cycle, the class here so. But, and picking points, but we had to pick three. And then that question of urgency, we would consider all these to be urgent priorities. We might wait 10 years to continue working on these problems need to as soon as possible get back to addressing these issues. Okay. Okay, next slide. Okay, that that was our group and I'm already seeing overlap and that's delightful. So the first science priority focuses on the theme of paleo oceanography and paleo climatology. There are two sub categories. The second one is, is I think the first priority from the previous group looking at sensitivity and dynamics of land ice and sea level change. The first one relates to one of the themes that I heard from the first group as well. It's not really phrased, but definitely related thinking about how ocean circulation responds to rapid climate change and then the consequences for ocean environments and marine ecosystems and in particular co2 changes co2 uptake. Parallels are second. And this is not in a priority order, but an additional priority in our top three list is bringing in one of the things that was not in the first list. So thinking about geo microbiology and we were thinking about the the company, the framing of this in with an urgency sense. So, thinking about sub seafloor life. As an unknown natural resource. So that that might be a valuable way to connect it to societal relevant issues with future technology and mining considerations and what the, what what would the impacts be on this and what there's so much that we don't know the unknown unknowns. So origins of life and adaptation microbial system interactions contributions to geo chemical cycles. And our third priority, we have to, we really want to just defer to the other groups we did not have any geo hazard specialists in our group but we, even though that was no. No one in our group was that their primary field we did recognize how valuable and important that is. So just putting putting it up there to tag it. But we also had lots of discussions about what we're calling a special mention so the rock sediment water interactions with implications for deep carbon cycling and and one of the ways that that ties into urgency was was the connections to carbon interaction. Thank you. And how many people were in your group. One, two, three, four, seven, eight, depending upon the time of the room. Is there any clarifying questions for Kristen. Okay, next slide. Room 118. That was Rick. Yeah, folks can also feel free to put questions in the slide. Oh, though, Leanne I think we have to clear the ones from last time. Yeah, for you folks in zoom this is Rick Murray reporting after our group. There are seven people in our group. And you'll immediately notice that we've listed for not three. So we deal with uncertainty. So three really is three plus or minus one. But I also noticed that everybody else had A's and B's. So I think we're among friends here. So again overlap with the other groups, which is good. We tried to use language that would speak to a sense of urgency and action. So first one and discovering novel subsea for ecosystems and quantifying their integral role in global chemical cycling. So recognizing that there's been a lot of excellent work so far, but that there's still a lot of new discoveries to be made, and how to link these new discoveries throughout the temporal and size and cycling spectrum. The second one. We're discussing the vulnerability of ice sheets. So again speaking to urgency and the feedbacks on climate ocean cryosphere and ecosystem. Using the word feedbacks to really emphasize the bidirectionality, if you will, of the, the first part of that ice sheets and the second part climate ocean ecosystems so cause and effect in both directions and vulnerability. So we're talking to, this is an urgent need of societal relevance. Now, well actually 10 years ago and 10 years from now and certainly now. Third one prediction and mitigation of climate and geologic hazards throughout the, throughout the spectrum. And then you end up with, you know, methane stability, but then you also end up with, you know, geologic hazards that are just pure geological hazards like things blowing up and lots of people die. And then the fourth one of resource and energy systems couldn't figure out exactly how to get ecosystems in here. Ocean drilling is a key to probe their dynamics and behavior. A lot of the stickies in here this had six different stickies from our group of seven had to deal with hydrologic cycling. Continental margins and matters like that, but trying to frame it as a larger issue than quote, unquote, just water and energy movement. Looking at it as a potential resource and impact as those resources are identified and exploited. One thing that does not show on this group of three plus or minus one is we did have a discussion about the fundamental role of deep probing of salt and mantle. And we wanted to get that into a narrative it didn't fit into any of these but it was so fundamental. We thought it's certainly worth mention at some point but we didn't know how to put it into here. No, no questions have popped up yet on the screen, but yeah, just to clarify resources that that include the say essential elements needed for electrification that type of thing. Yes. Yes. Okay. Any other clarifying questions for Rick. It's been a common carbon dioxide removal be part of that discussion. Yes. Yes, certainly carbon dioxide. All aspects there particularly if it's buried, but not only if it's very. Okay, room 118. So, Alison. Yeah. Okay. So, going last means that we also had a lot of overlap from what's already been discussed. We actually had a really large breakout group. So I don't know if I should feel popular like everyone came to mind. But we had about 12 people in our room. So it was a really great discussion. We had three high priority areas, ground truthing, future climate change, geo hazards and habitability and adaptability of life at the surface and subsurface. And we do have some sub topics and while these are not exhaustive, we noted that some of these sub topics are needed to create a holistic understanding of the earth system and many of them are interconnected. And we did not include them all off, but for example, studying the ice sheet would lead to circulation and they're very interconnected in the Venn diagram. So that was the reasoning behind some of our sub topics. We also wanted to point out and discuss that many of these topics require temporally resolved set temporally resolved sediment records that can only be accessed by ocean drilling, especially those deeper than 40 meters. 2A and 3C would require the use of subsea floor observatories to collect the data needed and 3C requires hard rock drilling to get the needed knowledge. And for most of these cases, piston cores are too shallow to gather the data. We also talked about urgent and specific areas where we would want new drilling to occur, specifically new transects that are needed for the cores. And one thing that came up was perhaps doing transects in a systematic way. So for example, going from shallow to deep waters or across frontal systems and latitudes and going across the spreading center from the access point being the origin of life. So that was our discussion. Yeah, there are clarifying questions for Allison. I'll see any on the screen. Okay, so we've been just go to the virtual groups. Okay. So we're going to go to the virtual groups and the first is room room one I think a Jeep that's the report out for them. I hope you did a lot of work there a Jeep. I'll organize that in the second. Here's the mic. Here's the mic. There's an enormous amount of overlap because we wanted to make Jim's life a lot easier. So you'll notice that there's actually not that much different here the first one is basically to understand a combination of long term evolution of climate, as well as abrupt extreme events. And this basically then falls into a whole bunch of subcategories such as. Okay. Such as ocean circulation and how extreme events. Change. How extreme events can be distinguished from long term climate change, basically trying to resolve the two. The second topic was to do with high latitude regions being still under sample but very important for understanding past evolution of climate ice system. And this basically goes back to changes in ocean current and changes in ice ocean interactions. In past warm climate intervals and establishing rates of past ice retreats at both poles. The third one had to do with earthquake behavior predictability, which is to do with coding at active margins monitoring slip stress and recurrence rates with observatories and geophysical surveys, downhole logging. So basically three high priorities. Following the example someone else put there the special mention in this is that the, then this is basically the framework or how to do this is that we have to need we need high fidelity, high resolution records that can be used to ground climate models. And one idea was that these need to be drilled in transects and grids in close proximity to be able to provide that kind of information. Questions for a jeep. Okay. Virtual room to because Marsha. Yeah, so we decided to go with the pros method instead of the bullet method here. So, some of these are overlap, but I think we have one that's a little bit new. So the 1st 1 is to look at the ocean atmospheric interactions for climate change. A twist on this is to really focus on the polar regions with the ice retreat in the Arctic and maybe opportunity for new ice hardened drilling ship. Also, when we talked about this, the resolution and of the course was really important. The next 1 is a little bit new. So, execute a full study of legacy course inform future drilling location and preservation techniques. And maybe use new methods of data analytics like machine learning to leverage the big data opportunities in those cores. And then use those results to inform the public and potential sponsors outside of NSF of the power of ocean drilling. And to discover impactful sign communication techniques to tie science to societal priorities. So that could be a something to look at all in itself. How do you inform the public of the greatness. And that NASA does a really good job of this. So maybe we can do a good job of it for the ocean too. And then the last 1 was people have already talked about carbon, but to understand the natural carbon sequestration. So what's going on? How much carbon is in the ocean and historically how long is it how ocean stored carbon. And also potential methods for increasing carbon capture in the ocean by examining the natural carbon cycle historically. And also maybe designing new experiments where you try to capture carbon and understand how that happens. Okay, there are questions for Marsha. If not, then we'll go on to virtual room 3, which is Brad. Yeah. So our group had two people. Plus me, but I don't. But there were two that were trying to get in, I guess, and in fact, the themes that we're hearing are in this slide, some extent. In no particular order, but the priority one was deep time records of both the quote boring back background, which is a term I'd not heard before. And higher resolution biotic and climate records. Basically that's the events that we've seen in some of the slide decks today, for example, Danny segment. It's one example, you know, those are exciting, but also in the context of the background signals is important. So the second point here is just mentioned by Marsha. In fact, I was waiting for someone not to say this but greater engagement. Here we are in a virtual world. We're going to engage more of the next decade with a scientist that are actually on shore in real time and with the public, they know a program right now. Okay, and this is over in the illusions right now. For obvious reasons, but it is a publicly funded agency and so engagement with those public in scientific and in the sort of cool stuff if you like is important is important the priority feel. Another is that the geologic record, we've seen examples of this is a guide for understanding processes and related geo hazards I would bold geo hazards was the key point of this priority three across all fields of the earth system. Any questions for Brad. Okay, virtual room for which Leila. Thank you. So for virtual room for use the compulsory statement that we came up with a lot of ideas that have been already presented in the room, including boring science. So that's kind of fun to see that pop up in two places. Our group had four people in it so this trend we're seeing in converging ideas is independent of sampling depth. I'll just joke. So, for our priorities. We, we identified identifying catalysts as drivers are identifying catalyst drivers and indicators for future change was our one of our priorities. A and B these are just examples to give context to the idea. Looking at geohazard phenomena originating in the solid earth and discovery of new or future climatic states through boundary condition tests and models for scientific priority to. This was a pretty long discussion about coverage and the type of coverage that would let us have new discoveries or the genesis of new fields of inquiry and the reassessment of paradigms we've been holding on to with the idea of we don't know what we don't know. So the examples here are both spatial and temporal gaps, opportunistic sampling between transits as a as an actual priority, but also diversifying what places are sampled, including those boring places so we can have truly reference materials. And then the last one was enhancing the value of existing data from existing sites with samples that are relevant to modern inquiry, including, you know, modern techniques high resolution analysis and biological analysis that can't be done from some legacy cores. Questions. I'm on three. Does that. So, so is that working with existing cores or are you talking about new cores or. Yes, yes to both so yes to both. Okay, virtual room five. All right, we had a small but mighty group I want to thank Emily Luan, Hiroko Sharon drew and Greg for being in the group. The busyness of the slide just demonstrates my lousiness in synthesizing all the ideas, but we discussed to cross cutting teams that were relevant to all the three major, like teams that we discussed these themes, cross cutting we need to integrate expertise across disciplines to support individual national and international aspirations, such as those represented by the sustainable development goals and integrate education and outreach into scientific and research priorities to mitigate ocean blindness and inspire people from diverse backgrounds. With respect to science priority one just reemphasizing something that's been said about geo hazards already. So building resilience how can we improve predictability of natural hazards and build resilience to unforeseeable events that have major impacts. At what point will there be tipping points in ocean circulation, and what are the corresponding projected impacts both locally as well as globally. In the habitable worlds, we discussed, how can we effectively integrate our understanding of microbial activity to geological processes. What are the limitations to life and adaptations to extreme environments, and what happens when there is massive habitat loss in the oceans. Under, we discussed technological solutions and ocean governance in particular that probably has not come up. Deep sea mining has come up so we discussed the potential impacts of deep sea mining. We also discussed, what will be the impact of technological solutions on environmental fixes such as marine carbon dioxide removal, what existing technologies should be scaled up. How can we use oceans for energy production and way that it leverages the natural systems and human communities that depend on them. Okay, what are some most effective governance structures for promoting the health resilience and sustainability of our oceans beyond easy. And in what ways do different governance systems responder and adapt to change. I welcome input by any of our group members. Emily Luan Hiroko Sharon, anything to add. I have a question on three. You know, certainly, it's, I don't quite see the link to ocean drilling there will. Well, maybe a couple of them, but it seems like they're very important but I don't. We were discussing, I think some large science priorities we weren't hung up only on the ocean program. Was there was there another question, could I see a hand. Okay, we go on I guess to virtual room six. That's Mark. Yeah, thanks. So we started off, we had a little bit of a philosophical discussion at the beginning about how specific we would want our priorities to be depending on the time scale over which they were going to be achieved but we kind of focused down on to trying to find three. And we didn't really put them in any order which is why I had the one AI labeling here, but the three that we came up with are similar to what we've seen before so under what conditions of polar ice sheets retreated or even collapsed in the past. And how can polar records constrain future sea level. How to changes and ocean conditions warmer temperatures. Lower pH influence ocean ecosystems this one really highlighted I think this summer with, you know, examples like the 100 degree temperatures off of Florida and so we thought this would be one that might catch the, the eye of the public in a way that would be very easy to communicate. And then what is the role of the deep biosphere and regulating biogeochemical cycles and providing information on evolution and extinction. And then I'll just say that we had a couple of other kind of close contenders which echo some of the things other people have said including thinking about the role of the oceans and storing carbon and looking at carbon fluxes, and then also geohazards. Virtual room seven, the other Brad Brad along the other breath. Thanks Jim. So we were a group of six or seven and we had a good discussion and covered a bunch of things we tended to focus on kind of the paleo perspective but then Katrina brought us back to kind of at least draw some attention on to to hazard so that's why you'll see the third topic there. Things we didn't I'm not presenting here we talked a lot about or considered kind of interacting time scales and differing kinds of roles of microbial kind of organisms within the system. Some of that's hidden inside these questions but the first is really trying to link various aspects of freshwater cryosphere. So the tipping points related to the deep circulation and Western boundary currents. So if you're in the Atlantic this could be an amok but if you're, you know, in the Southern Ocean, it could be, you know, formation of Antarctic bottom water there could be lots of different kind of connections there but it was the, the link between drivers through kind of the nonlinear tipping points and then response. And it is, we talked about carbon in several different ways both in an ecosystem and an organizational sense but then kind of drew it to this, this question about phrased as what might the unintended consequences of large scale ocean carbon would be thinking of carbon sequestration in its most general form including, you know, alkalinity enhancement including, you know, artificial upwelling including, you know, you know, seaweed cultivation whatever you think of is in carbon sequestration and then needing to link that to understanding how ocean carbon cycle will respond to warming thinking of the kind of intro for me at least and for us I think interesting Danny's talk about the shifting perspective on oxygen which I'm still absorbing and we come to terms with yet the idea that the paleo record may say something different than we're thinking of in the presence space for climate change. And finally the very specific hazards discussion around a particular kind of earthquake issue from the the slip to these slow slip events which are kind of very drawn out tsunami genetic earthquakes in regions like Cascadia New Zealand Japan, and there's all sports sorts of aspects of that in terms of drilling through to understand how these systems function, but also actually adding or including early warning capacity to to that kind of exploration. So, I think I'll stop there. Thanks. Virtual room eight, which is Jason. Oh, it was Jason. Everything that we have here has actually been covered a few times but we were talking about reconstructing the geologic record for the ground truthing models basically to for better models to test the models and to be able to better predict future climate change. And then we talked about ground truthing again with in terms of engineered and nature based climate solutions. So understanding the oceans role in carbon dioxide uptake through biogeochemical cycles through sediment uptake and sequestration in the crust. And then we talked about monitoring the state and properties of the seismogenic zone pertaining to geohazard mitigation. Well, I think the, just in terms of taking a look at what all the groups reported on it seems that there were at least two general themes and each group went a little bit. Oh, two more. No, they're down at the bottom. Okay. Alright, virtual room nine I guess I didn't see it on. That's why I had virtual room nine. This is Leanne. We've said everything that everyone else has already said the beauty of being at the end. I think we did try to go about it a little bit more broader aspects aspects so that they're a bit more encompassing of everything what people have been saying but yeah, climate change geohazards and deep biosphere and subsequent. Alright, I'm, I'm virtual room 10 and very similar themes again, focus on paleo climate and the importance of analog for present day changes, geohazards, both as measurements of the current state and behavior but also as a long term record of past events. And then biogeochemical cycle so but not just thinking about the deep biosphere but also thinking about hydrothermal input and how it directly influences geochemical as well as biogeochemical cycles or the ocean chemistry and and ultimately potentially the atmosphere. And we also discussed was the importance of tools and techniques that may come more into tomorrow but, but recognizing that these are evolving rapidly and critical to all of these there was particularly some discussion of the value of applying E DNA, more broadly. The importance of AI and and machine learning in analysis in particular, and then continuing to develop novel and simple downhole tools and measurements. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, so I guess we could try to. Talk about how to how to put these together and it seems like there's two, as I mentioned that crossed all of them which in some way climate change and particularly with respect to ice sheets and in effect on circulation whether it's in the Antarctic or Atlantic. That seem to be common in some way and all of the groups. And then the other is geohazards, particularly with earthquakes and perhaps involving sensors and board holes. It's also interesting to see that there's other NSF funded groups that are thinking about this including the was the best subduction zone for the SC4D group is talking about this and I think it's some way the seafloor part of the Ocean Observatory Initiative off Cascadia I think was also involved in some way with us. So those are two. And then there was things like there was a wide variety of things that were that people that popped up in the third, some of them are related, some of them are not. There was a lot on seem like several of them had to do with the carbon steps capture carbon, different aspects of the carbon cycle and impacts of warming on the carbon on carbon mass removal. Some that had something about tipping points, but those could be tied back in I think to the climate climate theme. Let's see there was, there was the one that was very different the technological solutions and governance was one. A couple of them are more than two really talked about the need for greater public engagement, trying to get the message across better resources was another theme that popped up. And then different aspects of a subsurface biosphere that showed up quite a bit and ocean ecosystems in general and how they're changed and affected but that perhaps could be tied in back to the climate change theme. So, I think two of them really jump out and that are pretty easy I think to and to write something that will cover what most of the people. Most of the groups said about them. And then the third one is a bit bit more dispersed least least way I saw it but perhaps someone else might have better. Subsea for life. No, I, yeah. Okay, now that showed up a lot you're right. And I didn't mention some deep sea deep deeply very biased to me will see for life but yeah, no that showed up a lot so maybe that's third one. But there was, you know, a number of others that also popped up. And I wanted to point out that the subsea for life and it also engages another hard rock community, which was a good thing to be inclusive. Yeah, since I think hard rock is underrepresented at this meeting I think oh maybe in hazards it's there but I don't know. I don't know people may have other ideas but other comments are people happy with the idea that a group could take the first two themes easily and deal and write something that would appeal to most, not all on hazards and and climate change, and then a third one. Well, subsurface life could be one, and could be one or, or, you know, there were some other candidates as well we got to narrow it down a bit, but things like two would be pretty easy to write in a way that most, most of the people in the room would be and online would be happy to support I believe, but if you disagree that you might disagree. First, I'm going to go back to this thing about underselling subsea floor life because all day today we've been hearing about the importance of ocean drilling like it's something we can't do without being able to drill either into the crust or into the deep sediment, and also with poor fluid work and so if the task as I understood it was what important questions do we have remaining or for the future that require ocean drilling. I think life has to be one of the top three but I think somebody who actually studies subsea floor life might want to speak instead of me. See what a surprise. This is Steve don't you are I one of the things I do is study subsea floor life, and there was some confusion in our group about the phrasing of what was the word. So we were, we were thinking about what is, you know what is important what is what is a priority but also what is urgent and and so the thinking about the term urgent, because we know that has such ties to action quickly. We wrestled with that and I'll turn it back to Steve in just a second but we, I think that was why. So for room 114 we really tried to think about. We had the phrase seek subsea floor life as an unknown natural resource so trying to trying to find a crafty way to connect to urgent, but that that's a bit of a screen. Right, and the reason I bring that up is I think that the use of that word urgent may have confused conversation in our group and it did in our group and it may have in other groups. You know, as Becky said, the only way we can study subsea floor life through its full range is through scientific ocean drilling. And, you know, it's the largest unknown, relatively unknown biome on the planet. We heard a lot about it from other scientists today. I, you know, I don't know that for the current directive NSF, it's urgent to understand the largest unknown biome on the planet. But, you know, if you set aside that issue of political urgency. I think it's a really big target for IOD for scientific ocean drilling. There's something that came up in your group about how it affects ocean chemistry and how it would be a water circulating through the rocks basically effective chemistry chemistry changing by surface life ends up affecting overall chemistry to the ocean to. You know, we know in sediment that it's a primary that the life as a primary driver of chemical exchange between the ocean and the subsurface in the basement it's a more open question. Right, there's a lot of redox activity in the basement microbes are almost certainly hitchhiking on it. The only question is to what extent do they drive it. In our group we actually also rolled in ecosystem response into habitability and life questions is our third bullet so we did we kind of sliced it slightly differently I noticed other groups sliced it with the budget chemical cycle side. So I feel like that is the third one but the nuance of how you write that is important. Something I'd like to add is one of the strengths that I've seen of scientific ocean drilling is how it approaches complex problems through a systems framework. You know, here we're, we're necessarily in this work process trying to identify distinct science priorities, but the reality is, these challenges, all of the all of the earth system challenges are very interconnected. I think part of our challenge moving forward is to to be able to identify, you know, key areas but also to really communicate well the interconnected nature of, of probably many priorities you know each of these there are sub areas and they connect to each and for the deep biosphere. Yeah, this to me I that is not my field that that is to me this is one of the top three priorities and it is part of an interconnected system. So it's also not my field and I agree that just the fact that it's the largest biosphere on earth, the largest on study biosphere on earth deserves to make it a priority. If we are concerned about prioritizing things and giving the inter, given the interconnected nature of all these different systems, something else has come up a lot was carbon sequestration and understanding hydrothermal cycling and cycling in general the oceans and the role the biosphere and mediating that if we don't even have a good handle what the sub seafloor biosphere is we don't understand how it can modulate carbon sequestration and so maybe combining those two things into a third urgent priority is the way to go. Okay, I just want to like add on to this because like Chris said this is a huge I agree like microbiology is not my field as a micro paleontologist it is incredibly important because it can also inform our plankton that we study. We just got over a major pandemic. I'll take that back we're not over it yet. Even though the CDC says we're out of a pandemic, still in a pandemic right. I've heard about viruses that my colleagues are studying in the sub seafloor. There are other types of things. There's some biomedical innovation that could come from that as well. And I think that's incredibly important and I would rank that as urgent, because that has medical implications or biomedical implications. And that again thinking back to the panel that we had earlier that links in with tips mission right and the NSF tip mission about innovation training early career researchers and getting them involved with this research. So, I agree. There's a lot of other reasons why bio G for sorry to microbiome is incredibly important in this day and age. One, two, three. Yeah, so just to follow up I think on what Chris had said and others have said I will add to the, the bevy of voices that is not a microbiologist. But one of the things that concerns me a little bit is if we have a list of things that are urgent priorities that are geo hazards, climate change, and the biosphere we might as well dust off the 2013 science plan and hand it back to NSF. So I think there is an aspect of this that is important to think about highlighting the urgent components of this or the urgent elements. And so it may be that the framing of this and the way that Chris articulated it maybe it's about carbon cycling or incantation CO2 secretion or resources or some other pieces but it still allows us to go after the deep biosphere is a way to frame this and maybe I'm preaching to the choir, but it hasn't been said so I thought I'd say it. I'm following on to that, and also trying to bring in a little bit of the hard rock perspective. I guess one of the ways that we phrase the sub seafloor stuff was the sub seafloor ecosystem being an integral part of the system and I do think that's a new framing. From the hard rock side, I think it's going to be really important as we go about this assessment of sub seafloor life and exchanges hydrologic exchanges to be doing a good job of characterizing what the formation is, or it's not. And sometimes that's fracturing and deformation sometimes it's the composition, but I think we're not going to get at the whole picture unless it's an integrated exchange approach where the sub seafloor biosphere is integral. Okay, so my, my comment is perhaps a good follow up to what you just heard. In our group the word urgent certainly steered our conversation, and I was pleased to see that some of the groups made reference just to the to the board quote boring science. I worry that we're forgetting that basic research is still really important that basic research is what allows applied research to to happen. So our fourth priority that didn't make it onto the big three was the solid earth, and I have concerns that that community has not been, has not been very vocal today, and maybe they have been on the chat and I didn't see it. But that is something that can only be accomplished through scientific ocean drilling right there's no other tool that can drill into the crust. There's no other tool that can get back as as you've heard right so deep in time, and to study the whole cycle of plate tectonics. Well yeah I can't see that but it. Okay, sure Anthony, if you're online go ahead. Anthony coppers are you online. So yeah, are you muted. He's looking for headphones or something. Well, in the meantime, if it's a problem is it a problem if you come back with these three themes, and they've been given before. But if you highlight the urgent aspects of it as someone mentioned does that help with that issue. Subsea for life climate change and geological hazards has been in IOBP science plans in the past. There's still a lot to look at how to say what if you highlight the urgency part of that so it's that. Yeah, in other words, can we get around it, get around the problems or the perceived problems of saying things that have been in science plans in the past if you highlight the urgent parts of it, or is it not something to worry about so we'll go with Steve and then then you and then over here. Yeah, I want to respond to the point that these have been part of the past science plans. I think with subsea for life we've made a really good started understanding what's down there. And, you know, that's mostly come to fruition actually in the last couple of years, but there's a huge difference between knowing what is somewhere and knowing how it operates and what it does and how it evolves. And, you know, I think we could make the same argument for paleo climate it's been part of scientific ocean drilling since before there was a DSDP. Right. And, but it's still a primary driver and there's still very, very important things to learn. I was just going to ask, I would love to hear from our NSF folks about this as well, and their opinions. If you don't feel obligated you don't have to answer anything. Okay. Thanks speak. Thanks Danny. The question was open ended enough that either I can answer it however I like, or you could refine it a little bit so I can try and answer a specific aspect. The concern is, as if there was, and I, is it a concern is if geological hazards, climate change and substance and deeply buried biosphere of the subsurface life were in highlighted in prior I ODP science plans. Is that really something to worry about since, since clearly the emphasis on all three is going to be different now than it was 10 years ago. No, I mean that's that by itself isn't problematic and that, and I wouldn't, I certainly wouldn't put it that way. Maybe because it's late in the day and my filter is, is worn a little, I'll, I'll expand only slightly on the urgent matter that Jim what you're pointing to is sort of refinement. I think that's a little of the topics, or let me put it slightly different. I am choosing to hear you say that you're refining the message, a little bit. So, maybe, maybe more than a little bit, but maybe not refining maybe told different aspect of it. Yeah, I was being, I was being broad but but yeah so we're, I think we're talking about the same thing is, is where I'm getting at. You know, one of the words that comes up that is, I do understand how the word urgent is, is challenging. I won't say that it's problematic necessarily but it's certainly challenging in the way that we think about, we think about the science. When I, when you, when you think about the message so somebody's asked me, I've been asked, I've been in my current job for one year and two weeks. And I have been asked multiple times and multiple venues, what do I do, I am a messenger. That is what my job is. I have two former division directors in this room. They will be willing to bet they tell you the same thing that that is our job. So, on the list of people I talked to are people that don't understand our priorities the way we do. So, part of the decadal survey is to help us message the priorities to groups that quite honestly don't, don't need to understand what we do, but want to understand what they do. And so the, the sort of shortcut is I talk to Hill staffers all the time. You know, I, I talked to more people for as many people I talked to in the scientific community. I talked to people not in the scientific community. And so those messages, your messages. Think about your messages helping me help you. That's so when we, when I talk about urgency, it has to be urgent to more than everybody in this room. And that's what I mean by that. And Jim, what you've done is presented an option for refined. We're talking about the same thing, but refinement of a message in a way that it's easier for me to articulate. I don't mean to make it all about me, but for better for worse, I'm your messenger. So, that is what I'll stop talking now. But, but that's what I need. And the reason we're here listening is we're listening for the messages. So, the short answer is, you got it, Jim. Yeah, I have, but it was Becky has been trying to say something. And then after that, Anthony says he's ready. His, his Bluetooth. Yeah, go ahead, Anthony. Yeah, sorry about that and I might have missed part of the discussion, but actually, I wanted to go back to what Kristen and Damien started to say right I had the same impression right when we look at the priorities that are being brought forward to almost look like the science questions of the style of the, you know, the current or the treatment or even the science plans before that. And I think the one thing that really stands out to me is that this community has been going through a whole evolution over the decades and how we're doing scientific ocean drilling. And with the science framework we're standing at this new spot in that in the timeline where we actually starting to connect way more disciplines that comes truly transitionary. And we start looking at your system from an interconnected point of view. And by now having that urgent thing in there and everybody say oh we have to do something now. You know, we all are falling back to our old habits and start to look go after single questions. So I wanted to, you know, second what Damien and Kristen said that's a bit worrying I think we should keep that in mind that maybe we should look behind beyond that and see if we can keep some of that interconnected thinking in our in our, you know, prioritization here. Do you still want to say something. No, other other comments on this or questions. Yes. I have a note I guess there's urgent as in needs to be addressed now and there's poised for really immediate advance. And I think maybe having the second in mind might help us a little bit here. In terms of timescale or urgent in terms of timescale and then there's urgent in terms of like potential for like novel and revolutionary and transformative science and I think that's where if we drop the biosphere we might really lose out. So yeah, just any last comments. May I. Yeah, so I said this to the committee and I shared this with our group to I think I, and this is from from a book I read, but it's about the difference between urgent and vital as urgent is almost always driven by a deadline. And vital is something that we cannot live without our planet can't live without we can't live without it's essential. And I think of this committee's work as focusing on those essential vital questions, not urgent ones that are driven by a year long priority to year long priority, but something that is absolutely essential to the well being of humans and plan and our planet quite honestly. I really like the vital and urgent distinctions as well as how urgent can can be viewed in multiple ways, as was also added. I do think urgency has a place in communicating to the broader world about the value of scientific ocean drilling. You know, as Jim was describing that that's something that people can resonate that resonates with them. But the other way that I think urgency plays a role in what we're thinking and I guess my mind is starting to go to tomorrow is the J. the J. R. is is is not going to be here anymore and what has to be prioritized early. But you know what are the the most urgent things to try to get done with whatever the infrastructure is in the next five years or 10 years versus what is still so incredibly important but it could be, if it has to be put into a different place in the queue for longer term that this ties to infrastructure, you know what is most urgent right right right right now, even if it's vital for also long term so I do see there's a time frame for action. Thank you. I think Andrea has her hand up. Yeah, thanks Jim. I just thought I'd add something that we talked about in our breakout group that really ties into this concern of like are we repeating things from before but also this urgency conversation. We can make arguments about you know how studying climate in this way where we can get long term and abrupt events and so forth, can help us to answer some, you know, pressing questions what makes these things urgent is maybe seeing the immediate relevance to us as humans right so how can we use these records to talk about like ocean health right like heat waves and how that affects things and like we have these great records. And we can take that and focus it on these kind of modern problems that we're living through and get worse in the future so that ocean health thing is one thing or you know the hot topic right now. I think what was really intended was you know how do extremes change in the context of a longer term changing climate right looking at these extreme events in the context of these climate changes. That's something that everyone's talking about today. We have these records and and we have the capacity to develop more of them to answer these pressing questions so that maybe helps to put a new spin on. I don't know if he's the right word but making it more immediately relevant to these emerging issues. Becky, then we'll go to tuba. Just really quickly. I'm going to put on my hat as the chair of the US advisory committee to for scientific ocean drilling. The broader community needs to also sit down and have a discussion and about their science priorities about the US science priorities and this is something that NSF has asked us to do and something that us up with the help of us is the US science support program so it is the NSF funded office that supports the scientists who participate in scientific ocean drilling sorry to use jargon. But has is so use up will have a workshop for the broader community. And I think, you know, we can define priorities here but the like details in those priorities and what we can do in how we frame it can be fleshed out in a really comprehensive way in a different setting I just I feel like this room is too small to do it here. And I don't mean the size. Can I can I just step in real quick, because I come from a place that's earthquake prone. It's not a question of if it's a question of when. And my thought is that when I showed those pictures of all of those proposals. And I think that when we come in for Cascadia, that is one place where we can apply the things that we've learned from Japan and from Hikarangi to Cascadia now to save lives US lives potentially in Cascadia and I don't know the specifics about all of those proposals. But there's a lot of stuff that they're proposing that could be useful to, you know, essentially could save lives. And I was just going to point that out to me. Well, there's no drilling that's going to help me in Southern California, but there's drilling that can help people in Washington and Oregon states. Sure. Wow. Okay, so long day, my head is full. My brain is hurting, but my heart is full too. This is just a really incredibly dedicated passionate group of folks both in the room and online and I really appreciate just how much I was able to learn. And part of the most fun part of these national academies is that we get to learn, right, and that's great. I will tell you a few things that I heard today that maybe we're a little bit surprising to me, as you know maybe somebody who was not part of an integral part of this community. But one, I feel like I heard a pretty strong sense, even though we never really said it explicitly that the scientific ocean drilling community is sort of feeling like they're not being valued in the way that they should be valued, or the work isn't being valued in the way it should be valued and correct me if this is completely off the mark but part of me thinks, you know, does that have something to do with. Maybe we haven't made the case in the right way. Right, because, and here's where that's coming from. Many of you are educators so you teach in the classroom and. So what I teach in the classroom I explain something, and a student looks at me totally bewildered has no idea what I'm talking about. If I explain that thing the same exact way again, it usually does not help. And so the over the many years of teaching in the classroom I have developed three ways of explaining almost everything. Right, if the one way didn't work, then I'll do it through a different way than I'll, because you know, people are motivated by different things right so that brings me back to a comment earlier about, you know, are we just going to restate the priorities that some other report had already stated. To me maybe it's less about whether or not we're going to restate the priorities and it's more about how we're going to justify those priorities. Right, because I really don't doubt that those previous reports did not really nail the issue they probably did. If it didn't resonate then that means we did not articulate, you know, because everyone makes sense to themselves. Right, this is one piece of advice that I was given that I have, I use almost every day. Everyone makes sense to themselves so if there are decision makers who are not necessarily going in the directions that we wish that they would. They make sense to themselves so what is it that's driving them and how can we speak to whatever that motivator is right. That also Jim what you just said I really appreciated that you said that that you are a messenger or communicator, and that really what we should do is to help you help us and one way that we can do that is to frame the arguments and justifications for whatever it is that we feel in our work is the right priority, and we really have to articulate that. And maybe one way to do that is and Daniel Daniel you did such a good job today articulating, you know ways in which this work has impact real boots on the ground impact that that influence you know impacts human life and then you know we just heard about earthquakes and tsunamis and Pacific Northwest I feel all of that in my gut too. That's one thought. The other thought I have is we talked a lot about the jr today. And a little bit of that is in here I'm learning to I am learning what capabilities the jr had has. So, I think one thing that I would love to do in our report is to be very transparent and open about if we are not supporting the jr exactly what is it that we're leaving on the table. Right. I would like to have a very clear view of that I personally don't yet. Many of you might, but I would like to be able to communicate that and. So in this context, so in my mind right I mean prioritization science priorities it's really all about we have a whole bunch of cards at the bottom of the hill and I've used this analogy a lot at OSU so those of you who are from OSU have heard me talk about this before but. So, we've got 3020 cards at the bottom of the hill and they all need to get up the hill they're all really important. Right. We don't have enough muscle power we can't get them all up the hill in these 10 years. Right, this is a decadal study. So I challenge us to figure out which carts we are going to be taking up the hill. But that also means that we're very cognizant about which carts were leaving behind. In that context the jr you know if we're not supporting the jr we should be very aware and cognizant about what carts were leaving behind because of that decision. It should be a conscious thing right we should all be aware. So that's another thing that I really would love to at the end of the day tomorrow once we talk about new possibilities and potential new technologies. You know what can we sort of figure out how to cover and what is left uncovered. And, you know, you saw maps and maybe that's one way to communicate that but I feel like there's, there's, there's nuances there that I have not yet absorbed enough. So those are my thoughts I feel like we had a lot of raw conversations today but we also had a lot of creative conversations right and I love. I don't know I've been doing this for years but why am I always surprised when breakout groups come back and there's total overlap and synergy and to me that that that makes me happy every time and that there's certainly a lot of that here today and so that's great to see. So as far as the rest of the day and tomorrow is concerned it's been a really long day right but I think we get to have some food and interact with each other a little bit, but then after that I think right around 630 we're going to ask the committee to say goodbye to all of our friends and colleagues here and convene as a committee, and I know you all are tired and that's going to be really hard to do. But we still will ask you to do so just so we can, we can debrief in a closed session, and sort of get our bearings as to what we want tomorrow to look like because again, this is a lot of time invested by a lot of very busy people so we want to make sure that we use everyone's time as effectively as possible. And then finally I want to close by thanking those of you who are online. There's still 79 of you, your dedication is just really remarkable. It just goes to show how much, how important this is for the careers and livelihoods and passions of so many of you. And we hope that you will be able to join us again tomorrow.