Go Back to the Lake Drilling Home Page
go to LDEO Home Page

For more information or answers to questions about this meeting contact Paul E. Olsen at polsen@ldeo.columbia.edu or phone: 914-365-8491; fax: 914-365-2312


DRAFT REPORT ON THE ICDP SPONSORED WORKSHOP, "UNDERSTANDING LACUSTRINE ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY THROUGH CONTINENTAL DRILLING"

Paul E. Olsen - Chair (polsen@ldeo.columbia.edu)
Kevin Burke - Co-Chair (kburke@uh.edu)

INTRODUCTION

The Science Advisory Group (SAG) of the International Continental Drilling Program (ICDP) met at Potsdam on 17-19 of July, 1996. Based on the relatively large number of preproposals submitted for review, SAG recommended to the Executive Committee of ICDP that ICDP sponsor a workshop on Lake drilling to better facilitate use of ICDP by that community. The workshop, entitled, "Understanding Lacustrine Environmental History Through Continental Drilling" was held at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University on December 9-11, 1996, in advance of the January 15 ICDP deadline for proposals and preproposals. At least one PI from each of the preproposals attended as well as representatives from ICDP, NSF, USGS, PAGES and a number of specialists in techniques that might be valuable to lake drilling projects. The workshop was co-chaired by Paul E. Olsen and Kevin Burke.

The first day of the workshop consisted of and introduction to ICDP and reasons for having the workshop, followed by a series of short talks on lake drilling-related topics. The meeting participants then organized into three working groups to develop recommendations fro ICDP. These working groups were: 1) Science recommendation that should be addressed by ICDP, Francoise Gasse - discussion leader, Andy Cohen - rappateur; 2) ICDP- lake drilling, operations support, Tom Johnson - discussion leader, Kerry Kelts - rappateur; and 3) linkages and facilitation, Steve Coleman- discussion leader, Kevin Burke - rappateur.

On the second day of the meeting the three working groups continued to deliberate. In the afternoon the results of those deliberations were presented in plenary session for criticism by all of the participants. This continued on Wednesday morning and culminated in a draft report that was circulated to the participants and placed on the internet for review by the meeting participants. The report summarizes the recommendations of that workshop follows.


SCIENCE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY ICDP

Discussion Leader, Francoise Gasse (gasse@geol.u-psud.fr)
Rapporteur, Andrew Cohen (acohen@geo.arizona.edu)

Working group participants: Baker, Paul; Dodson, John; Fowell, Sarah; Kelts, Kerry; Lowenstein, Tim; Markgraf, Vera; Schlische, Roy; Smoot, Joseph; Verosub, Ken

I. Introduction

Lake sediments archive some of the highest quality earth history records available, given their combination of high stratigraphic resolution, temporal duration and multiple sources of independent proxy data on environmental change. Funding for scientific drilling in lakes should reflect this centrality, and ICDP should place the highest priority on assuring that a wide selection of exceptional lake sites be drilled over the next few years to fulfill this promise. Almost certainly, the most exciting potential records to be derived from an active lake drilling program will be achieved in the field of paleoclimate reconstruction, where scientific questions of both global and regional importance can be addressed. Exciting advances of a fundamental nature can also be achieved in other disciplines, such as lake and basin dynamics, tectonics, paleobiology, and human/environment interactions. All of these are worthwhile endeavors for ICDP-supported lake drilling projects.

II. ICDP Structure

A. ICDP should clearly articulate its goals and interests to the scientific community at large. This workshop represented a first important step in articulating ICDP's aims and interests in funding lake drilling research to the scientific community.

B. Global Climate Change and Quaternary paleoclimate proposals represented the preponderance of preproposals received by ICDP in their call for preproposals. We recommend that this community be represented on the Science Advisory Group by one or more members of the SAG.

C. Lake records provide such a critical and highly resolved source of earth history and global change records that ICDP should strongly encourage national science funding agencies to establish separate lakes drilling programs or funding lines to support these activities.

D. ICDP should establish a set of criteria for proposal evaluation following the general criteria and recommendations outlined in PAGES Workshop Report, Series 96-4 (p. 65-66, and paraphrased below). The following criteria should be laid out in all proposals:

1. Quality of potential paleorecords, dating control and scientific importance of the site.
2. Preliminary data and site survey.
3. A defined organizational structure.
4. Plans for the efficient use of existing equipment or construction of new equipment.
5. Arrangements for obtaining and preserving cores in as high-quality a condition as possible.
6. Recommendations for standard core (and when applicable down hole logging) analyses including non-destructive and pre-sampling measurements.
7. Sampling and analysis protocols that include all relevant dating and environmental/climate proxy indicators.
8. Adequate core storage and archiving facilities.
9. Protocols for data dissemination, core archiving, and sample availability to the scientific community, and publication of results.

III. Range of Lake-Drilling Activities That ICDP Should Support

Given the inseparable issues of real-world limitations of funding available to ICDP to support lake drilling and the need of principal investigators to develop realistic assessments of the drilling challenges they will face and drilling costs they are likely to incur, we propose that ICDP recognize the following activities as appropriate funding targets:

A. Planning grants for co-principal investigator/engineering meetings.

B. Site evaluations for engineering information.

C. Actual drilling costs and basic visual core logging (geophysical down-hole logging should be encouraged whenever appropriate but not required).

D. Transportation of drilling/logging equipment to site and return.

E. Transportation of cores to curation facility.

IV. Scientific Questions That Should Be Of Highest Priority For Lake Drilling

A. Paleoclimate (emphasizing the past several glacial/interglacial cycles, and paraphrased from PAGES Stream II Proposals):
1. What were the phase relationships between climate evolution in the northern and southern hemisphere?
2. What is the role of thermohaline circulation and atmospheric trace gases in transferring insolation forcing between the two hemispheres?
3. What was the long-term record of aerosol loading in the two hemispheres and how did this affect climatic variations?
4. Are abrupt changes in oxygen isotopes that are observed in the Greenland ice core records also apparent in lacustrine records from various parts of the world?
5. Were rapid climatic changes over the past several glacial/interglacial cycles and climate system variability manifested simultaneously in both hemispheres?
6. How were hydrological changes in tropical areas related to changes at higher latitudes? How are changes in large-scale hydrological systems related to orbital forcing?
7. How did biomass change in low and high latitudes affect trace gas concentrations in the atmosphere?
8. How have monsoon climates varied in the past, and were there synchronous changes in monsoon circulation in different parts of the world?
9. On longer time scales:
What are the effects on the continents of the climate changes induced by major tectonic processes such as the Himalayan uplift, subdidence, or drift.
How is the transition from "greenhouse" to "ice House" manifested in continental climate.
B. Lake, Lake Basin And Watershed Function
1. What drives changes in the internal dynamics of water budget, solute, nutrient and sediment cycling in lakes (and early diagenesis of lake sediments) over long time scales (beyond the direct observational range)?
2. How are sediment depositional rates modulated in lakes and can we use an understanding of this process for developing new age interpolation techniques?
C. Tectonics/Basin Evolution
1. What are the constraints of prior structures and the nature of underlying crust on basin formation processes?
2. What are the rates and magnitudes of processes that control the development of stratigraphic architecture in lake basins?
3. What are the systematic patterns in the development of basin geometry or associated volcanism recorded in a lake's sediments?
4. What are the effects of basin margin deformation on regional drainage patterns?
5. What was the timing of formation and rates of basin development of major crustal features occupied by lakes or lake deposits?
6. What the rates of fault propagation, linkage and general kinematics of tectonic basins occupied by lakes?
7. What is the long-term record of paleoseismicity and repeat intervals for different tectonic regimes recorded in high-resolution lake deposits and their seismite layers?
D. Paleobiology
1. What are the rates of evolutionary change in endemic lacustrine species and how do these rates reflect climate and tectonics?
2. What are the histories of integrated, continental-scale drainage systems as deduced from paleobiogeographic data sets from lake deposits?
3. How stable/unstable are paleocommunities and what are the rates and modes of local/global extinctions as recorded in fossils derived from lakes?
4. What is the environmental context of human evolution in relation to regional and global climate and environmental change, and are such changes correlated with patterns of hominid phylogeny?
5. What is the record of human interaction (landscape-scale effects) with the environment over long time spans?
6. What is the record of vegetational change and refugia during the glacial/interglacial cycles?
E. Earth's Magnetic Field
1. What is the high resolution record of variations in the earth's magnetic field (secular variation, excursion, paleointensity and polarity transitions)?

ICDP- LAKE DRILLING OPERATIONS SUPPORT

Discussion Leader, Tom Johnson< A HREF="mailto:tcj@mail.d.umn.edu">(tcj@mail.d.umn.edu)
Rapporteur, Kerry Kelts (kkelts@maroon.tc.umn.edu)

Working group participants: Fowell, Sarah; Harms, Ulrich; Lawrence, Roland; Leyroy, Susan; Negendank, Joerg; Scholz, Christopher; Tungseng Lui; Williams, Doug; Wohlgemuth, Lothar

I. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. ICDP is encouraged to become heavily involved in lake sediment drilling.

This is an opportunity to become the leading organization in this new frontier field of lake drilling for problems of climate change, regional environmental dynamics, the hydrologic cycle, tectonics, paleobiology, and human evolution-environment interactions. The Basic demands on equipment for drilling objectives to cover the shallow-hole (<200m) lake drilling component of the lake drilling initiative include:

1. More than 70m vertical sediment penetration.
2. 100% core recovery undisturbed.
3. Cores without disturbance of even annual laminations.
4. No loss of special layers by pressure fluidization.
5. Coring without disturbance for high precision overlapping coring.
6. System without risk of ecological damage.
B. Initiatives need support of collective growth and maintenance of drilling expertise
1. Recommend designated person responsible for lake drilling technology and access to drilling advisory expertise Needs for building expertise in multiple systems for drilling diverse lake sediments with undisturbed, 100% recovery.
2. Work with NEDRA group to build working knowledge of engineering expertise. 3. Send a delegate to NEDRA drilling in Lake Baikal, Winter-Spring 97. 4. Study quality of cores, fine structure disturbance, and behavior of APC. 5. Work with ODP Engineering and expertise.
C. Recognize
1, Different requirements in different lake systems.
2. Different sizes, depths, sediment thicknesses, and types.
3. Need to further develop some existing systems, for example increased depth capability of Usinger type system or Sedidrill

II. SHARED EQUIPMENT POOL

A. We do not recommend ICDP purchase and maintain their own drill rig at this time.

B. We do recommend the following specialized tools be developed and maintained by ICDP for drilling operations:

1. APC : Advanced Piston Corer of ODP, Modified to fit common systems.
2. Purchase a 4.7 m stroke from ODP, and high pressure, low volume pump.
3. Explore appropriateness of systems like BGS to augment capabilities.

III. DRILLING RIGS AND CORE RECOVERY SYSTEMS

Commercial Lease (CL) or Borrow (B) (see PAGES report. 96-4)
Usinger Piston Push Corer Water 20-50m 60-100m
Sedidrill with extend capacity Water plus sediment 100m
Eurodrill Water plus sediment 220m
Other Commercial Drilling Rigs
e.g.. NEDRA
Water plus sediment 685m

IV. DRILLING PLATFORMS

A. Recommend providing a platform for drilling at remote sites with moon pool.

B. Vessels and Barges of opportunity at the lake sites.

Explore surplus vessels and modify : for example in Lake Baikal using 1400 ton barge.
C. Modular Barge
Explore availability of modular barge elements from various sources for 50-100 tons.
Military bridge building units with inflatable flotation
For example, East German surplus
Steel Container size modules - Flexifloat
Austrian Jet float system

V. ASSOCIATED LAKE DRILLING EQUIPMENT

A. HEAVE COMPENSATION
The needs for high-quality, continuous core recovery from large deep-water lakes with floating platforms will require some form of heave compensation. This is also needed in logging operations.
Recommendation to explore and contract or design soon in anticipation of proposals for drilling in 1999.
B. ANCHORING AND POSITIONING SYSTEMS
Recommend exploring needs for platform drilling stability in various lake environments.
Collect information on tonnage-wind-anchoring relations *Anchors with winches and steel cable with tenders to deploy clump anchors at about 7:1 length/depth ratios. 4% of water depth as radius leeway for drill string
Dynamic positioning is required for depths below 500m
Explore potential for outboard drives or automatic positioning winch systems
C. LOGGING
Recommend ICDP evaluate and advise on logging capabilities and needs
D. *PROVIDE DRILLING OFFICE/LAB CONTAINER MODULE
Allows secured usage of monitoring instruments, computer units, telecommunication, and on-site core logging modules.
(May also be useful for other ICDP groups)
Evaluate and provide information on availability and sources for on-site core handling:
1. pass through magnetic susceptibility to monitor lithological change.
2. multi-sensor logging track : GRAPE, magnetic susceptibility, p-wave (eventual purchase).
3. portable core-catcher magnetometer instrument for reversal identification.

*VI. SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS

A. Recommend ICDP provide help with evaluation of blowout prevention needs based on individual sites.

B. Explore insurance requirements for pollution and damage precautions.

C. Medical Emergencies: preview for Medevac services (ADAC type insurance).

D. Provide safety guidelines based on needs for each drilling project.

*VII. POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. Evaluate potential security needs related to equipment and personnel in remote sites.
Explore and develop tie-ins with multi-national organizations with respect from local authorities.
B. Provide help with research permits and government agencies.

C. Help develop procedures to generate guaranteed waivers on customs, import duties, and deposits and to facilitate cost-effective freight handling.

Work with national embassies.

LINKAGES AND FACILITATION

Discussion Leader, Steven Coleman (scolman@nobska.er.usgs.gov)
Rapporteur, Kevin Burke (kburke@uh.edu)

Working group participants: Dodson, John; Schlische, Roy; Scholz, Christopher
I. Resources presently available to ICDP are such that successful projects almost certainly will require the involvement of other sources of support.

II. ICDP should consider ways of processing proposals that minimize duplication of reviews and decisions that are shared with other agencies. For example, ICDP approval of a pre-proposal might carry an agreement in principle to support a given project, provided the scientific content of the full proposal was satisfactory. Scientific peer review by another agency might be used for that determination.

III. Ways in which ICDP could maximize its limited resources as well as provide a unique contribution to the scientific community include:

A.Some type of endorsement, "blessing," or formal encouragement of proposals rated highly in the review process, regardless of funding decisions.

B."Seed money" that would allow initiation of promising projects.

Both of these actions could be steps toward formal funding of a project, but perhaps more importantly, would be of immense help in leveraging funding and creating partnerships with other funding sources.

IV. The diagram below shows various ways in which proposals might proceed. Every project will be unique and the paths indicated in the diagram should not be considered mandatory.

DIAGRAM OF PROPOSAL ROUTE

V. Specific circumstances will enable proposers to decide whether to first approach a single agency, to simultaneously approach ICDP and another agency, or to approach them in a specific order.

VI. The ICDP support organization could provide assistance in activities ranging from proposal drafting to technical matters like drilling procedures and costs. ICDP could also provide funds for planning meetings prior to the preparation of major drilling proposals.

VII. Iterative interaction between ICDP and other potential sources of funding is expected as a proposal moves forward.