29 January 2013

Present: John Firth, Phil Rumford, John Miller, Gemma Maxwell, Katerina Petronotis, David Houpt, Paul Foster, Chieh Peng.

Item 1: Comments from Exp. 344 

· Kurz – Lighting at the sampling table can be improved 

Although it is not usually necessary or desirable to describe core at the sampling table, such was found to be necessary on Exp. 344. Currently, and as Dr. Kurz observed, lighting at the sampling table is not sufficient for core description, although mobile lamps are, and should have been available to supplement the ambient fluorescent light. Replacing current lighting with and LED array would be the ideal solution to the problem. However, investigations revealed that in the sampling tables present location such an upgrade would not be possible. 

Action – Curatorial specialists will check to make sure ample additional mobile lighting of the correct wavelength is available in the ship stores to be deployed as needed in these unusual circumstances.

· Kutterolf - Generally the facilities are in a very good shape and perfect for the space available. Nevertheless although there have been improvements form the last cruise (334) to now, SampleMaster software is still an issue for most scientists. 

· Screaton - SampleMaster is not easy to use and frequently crashed. 

This Expedition was thought to be unusual in the fact that scientists had much more interaction with SampleMaster than normal. The technicians, whom are more intimate with the peculiarities of the software, commented that the program performed no better or no worse than on previous Exps. However a new initiative the LIME project, a sample/tests/results editing program, is now in development. It is hoped that this program will address some of the procedural problems that scientists frequently encounter, and find annoying. 

· Uchimura - A group leader of paleontology, Paula Diz, didn't follow the IODP standard procedure for shipboard paleontology and she forced all group members to conduct her own strict/complicated method for sample handling. Therefore, our work load was increased and we could not have enough time to conduct my own research such as microscope observation other than sample preparation. Also, she is experienced only in modern forams and never understood the role of benthic foraminifer as a paleobathymetric indicator to contribute the expedition objectives. This is the fundamental conflict with my research motivation and then, causes of communication problem.”

Dr. Uchimura’s concerns should have been brought up earlier in the cruise and reported to the Staff Scientist. These issues could have been reviewed with the other paleo scientists in a timely fashion and appropriate action taken. However, it seems that in this case, a review of the operations shows that Dr. Diz did follow the proper IODP procedures for shipboard paleontology. 

· Yamamoto - Somewhat of a problem was that there are no sampling shift set 11:00-13:00 and 23:00-1:00, main factor of delay of core flow. 

It was thought at the time that holding a good crossover between the two shifts of scientists over the midnight/noon time period was more vital to the success of the cruise than continued sampling. The disruption these meetings caused to sampling and core flow was thought to be minimal. However, this is an issue that Staff Scientists should keep in mind for future Expeditions where core recovery could be much higher.

· Yamamoto - We saw unexpected sedimentary interval just above the basement at Site U1414. In spite of very important and very limited interval, there were no discussions about the sampling strategy, and the one-shift peoples took most of all the samples. We should wait for all person’s flagging and discussion before sampling as same as the sampling method for the basement.” 

This seems to be a complaint directed towards Dr. Yamamoto’s fellow scientists. It is important that timely communications of problems/issues such as these are made to the Staff Scientist so that they can be addressed immediately.

Item 2: SaDR progress

SaDR is now live at http://iodp.tamu.edu/curation/samples.html and receiving sample requests for Expedition 346. Although it has been live for over 3 weeks no sample requests have yet been submitted. John Firth and Ursula Rohl will decide when to make an official announcement about its deployment and use for legacy requests. At this time SMCS will stay in use only for moratorium requests for samples from Expeditions already in the SMCS system, eventually being phased out as those Expeditions come out of moratorium.

Item 3: SEM specimen mounts

The group stated that SEM specimen mounts be handled as any other sample residue coming from the ship.

In order to incorporate the samples into the LIMS database an additional SEM option is needed under the TEST list in SampleMaster.

Action: Paul Foster will have the programmers do the necessary work to incorporate the SEM option.

Item 4: Ghost Cores, Wash Cores, and Drilled Intervals

It appears that there is some confusion over the definition and usage of the terms Ghost Core, Wash Core, and Drilled Interval.

Action: Rumford, Broyles, Maxwell, and Firth in consultation with Operations personnel were tasked with producing a document defining these terms and how they should be employed in drilling and database operations. The document will then be circulated to the LWG for approval, then on to the IMT for ratification. It will be published on the GCR web site under Procedures and Policies, and elsewhere as the LWG recommends.

A preliminary definition of a Ghost core is given below:

Ghost Cores

Ghost cores are called Type G.

Definition: The term ghost core refers to material entirely recovered from a depth interval that has been previously cored/drilled. Consequently no advancement is recorded.

Curation: These cores are curated like any other. Hard rock ghost cores are curated from bottom to top. Oriented pieces are marked. Individual rock pieces are separated with dividers, and a split line is drawn. The curated length and bin lengths are then recorded in the database.

Database: The Ghost core when recovered should be given a number n+1 where n is the last core drilled.  For example a Hole may recover cores 1R, 2R, and 3R before the bit is changed, the Hole is then re-entered with a new bit and a ghost core is recovered. The ghost core should be called 4G with an advancement of 0. The next drilled core would be called 5R.

The top depth interval for the ghost core will be entered into the database by the Operations Superintendent. In this example 3m is entered. The bottom depth of the ghost core will be calculated by curated length.

If core 4G has an original (or created) length of 1.4m (1 section) and the curated 4G has a final curated length of 2.05m (2 sections 4G1 and 4G2) then the database entries will be as seen as follows:

It is important to note that the material recovered in a ghost core could in reality have come from anywhere in the Hole above the base of the drilled interval.

Item 5: Nitrile Gloves

Action: Chieh - This is what we will do regarding these gloves.We will not order or ship any more nitrile gloves to the ship. We will use up what we have onboard, and "inactive" them. We will also discourage people using the nitrile on the catwalk, but only use them in the labs.

We will now order the neoprene gloves and ship those to the ship.

The remaining nitrile gloves in the shore warehouse will be used here in the lab and maybe donated, please talk to Brad J and David H.

Item 6: The hold reefer on the ship has not been working properly since they replaced the cooling units (fan coils) last year

Action: Should be rectified during tie up in Victoria. Chad to monitor.