As drilling was considered of lesser importance, it was not included among the high priority items. It was felt that some drilling might be undertaken later with state-ofthe-art technology only after problems were adequately defined. Drilling that needed "leapfrog" technological development, a la Glomar Explorer-riser drilling, although desirable, could if necessary be delayed until the problems were more clearly defined and alternative drilling sites were explored in detail. Implicit in our high priority research recommendation was the construction and outfitting of one or two modern geophysical vessels (12-15 million 1977 dollars per vessel) for the academic community. In our judgement the quality of academic geophysical work was (and in general, still is) less than adequate, particularly if compared with commercially available geophysical surveys. Today the need for modern geophysical equipment would appear to be even more urgent as it was in 1977, but I sense that the academic community and NSF are slow in recognizing this urgency. QUESTION 4: If funding were available, how long would it be desirable to continue the Challenger program, and what would the program include? ANSWER I feel an extension of the Glomar Challenger program at current cost levels for about 3-4 years beyond 1981 would yield significant rewards, particularly if coupled with extensive use of the new hydraulic piston coring device. New insights could be gained in the following areas: - Paleoclimatology, where detailed sampling of carefully selected sites in the middle and lower latitudes of all oceans would provide the basis for complete paleoclimatologic models; - Evolution of microfossils. The structure of microfossils reflects evolutionary changes in considerable detail. With complete cores of the Plio-Pleistocene sequence such changes could be studied in great detail; - Ocean crust drilling to supplement the exciting discovery of thermal springs on mid-ocean ridges, which could contribute much to the understanding of the genesis of ores; - Drilling coupled with detailed modern seismic surveys aimed at understanding basic stratigraphic principles, which appear to be illustrated on seismic lines in detail not previously observed; - Drilling in the Caribbean area and the Gulf of Mexico where new surveys have outlined a significant number of drilling targets, which probably will not be included in the remaining Glomar Challenger program. QUESTION 5: Are there significant differences in the scientific results ANSWER The terms drilling "on structure" and "off structure" are vague and to me roughly correspond to drilling for commercial hydrocarbon accumulations versus drilling for general information. Typically, hydrocarbons occur in stratigraphic or structural anomalies. Scientific information obtained in the process of drilling such anomalies is purely coincidental. It is, therefore, less likely that new scientific principles will emerge from the study of anomalies which have the possible occurrence of hydrocarbons as the only common denominator. Scientists prefer to address situations which permit the generalization of principles - in other words, they prefer to understand what is relatively more "normal". Of course, in areas where hardly any direct rock sampling has been made, almost any information obtained by drilling is likely to be of interest. However, scientists ask questions that differ from the questions asked by explorationists, and chances that the best scientific answer can be found on an exploration prospect are low. Conversely, explorationists can at best hope that a scientifically oriented research program will provide interesting and relevant background, but it will never actually replace an exploration program or an adequate resource assessment. AFTERTHOUGHT As the hearing was primarily addressing a proposed drilling program, there was no opportunity to address what I consider the more important general question of research priorities in the U.S. earth sciences as a whole and how these priorities relate to the role the earth sciences might play in the next decades. Earth scientists as a group and NSF specifically surely ought to be able to sketch some overall priorities for the earth sciences in the coming decades. These in turn could be weighed against the high priorities of other sciences. It would be naive to assume that such a prioritization would correctly anticipate future developments in science, but on the other hand, the simple recognition of priorities would allow to better weigh the pros and cons of funding requests. I would recommend that NSF be requested to outline overall research priorities in the earth sciences (including second and third priorities) and to compare them with priorities in the other sciences. A. W. Bally (kaz) March 12, 1980 Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Dr. Bally. Professor Sclater? Mr. SCLATER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would like to read the second part of my prepared testimony, and to go quickly over the first part of it and then put it in your record. Mr. BROWN. Without objection, it will be entered in the record. [The biographical sketch of Prof. Sclater follows:] FEBRUARY 6, 1980. RELEVANT VITAE, J. G. SCLATER Born: June 17, 1940, Edinburgh, Scotland. Degrees: B. Sc. Physics, Edinburgh University, Scotland, 1962; Ph. D., Cambridge University, England, 1966. Employment: 1965-1972-Postdoctoral, then Research Scientist at the University of California at San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; 1972– 1977, Associate Professor at M.I.T.*; and 1977-1980, Full Professor at M.I.T.* Expertise: Chief Scientist, numerous oceanographic expeditions; Co-chief Scientist, Log 22, Deep Sea Drilling Program; served many panels JOIDES Program; Member, Ocean Sciences Committee, National Academy of Sciences, 1974-1977; presently member, National Academy of Engineering Committee considering engineering aspects of future drilling in the deep sea for scientific purposes. Awards: 1979 recipient Rosenstiel Award in Oceanography. Publications: Approximately 90 publications in scientific journals. Research interests: Tectonic evolution of the Indian and southern oceans; the subsidence, heat flow, and age of the ocean floor; the subsidence, mode of formation of continental basins and shelves; and predictions of degree of thermal maturation of shelf and basin sediments. STATEMENT OF PROF. JOHN SCLATER, DEPARTMENT OF MARINE GEOPHYSICS, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Mr. SCLATER. I find testifying at this time on this particular program difficult. The reason is that I feel the program has not been crystalized completely, and second, I think few people have had a chance to discuss or review the ocean margin drilling program. I have been able to keep up with this because I have been on the committee that is serving as an adviser to NSF on the engineering problems associated with the drilling. You have heard from Dr. Bally and have heard his views how some of the programs work and how they have come to pass. I would like to address my testimony to the proposal as presented to us on September 1979 by the National Science Foundation. Essentially for reasons of cost, principally due to the necessity of drilling with a riser the program has been reduced to what I will call the present program. This program was presented to the engineering committee by NSF in December 1979. It consisted of one hole in the Gulf of Mexico, two in the deep Atlantic and four on the continental slope off the east coast of the United States. As a scientist who is working on the continental margins and who might be involved in the OMD program at a future date, I have reservations with the present program. The continental slope drilling has now become the dominant objective and most of the time and effort will be spent on this problem. Thus the scientific objectives associated with drilling on the slope have to Also involved in Joint Graduate Program with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. justify the cost. What especially concerns me is that this drilling has been limited to four holes in water depths between 2,000 and 4,000 meters. Of the area between continent and the deep sea the slope at depths greater than 2,000 meters is in my mind the least attractive area to drill at this time. First, it represents only 3 to 4 percent of the surface of the ocean and less than 25 percent of the distance between the continent and deep ocean proper. Second, the basement of much of the slope can only be observed through geophysical measurement and cannot be reached by drilling. Thus, the justification of the program is solely the sediment recovered. Finally, because it is in deep water and we do not know the depth of deposition of these sediments through time the quantitative analysis of the subsidence that has been so successful on the shelf cannot be applied to the slope. As the program is presently structured I find it difficult to support on purely scientific grounds and I know that my concerns are also shared by a large body of the academic community. Our specific problems are (1) There are so few holes that the program is now dominated by drilling on the slope; (2) we feel that it is difficult to justify such a large amount of money for scientific objectives that are second order; and (3) it is not clear that if cost overruns occur how the science budget will be handled. It is the opinion of myself and the other scientific members of the engineering committee that even for the present OMD program the possibility of such overruns has to be considered. It is my opinion that cost cutting on the original proposal should be done on the basis of science. The least important scientific objectives should be dropped first. In the case of the present drilling proposal, I feel that if cuts have to be made, that it is the slope drilling program that should go and the broad based riserless drilling that should be retained, together with the scientific objectives outlined in the continental margins report. It should be remembered that the oil industry is already drilling in 1.500-meter water depths. If present projections of increasing depth of drilling keep up they will be at 3,000 meters by the end of this decade. The present Challenger drilling program has generated much excitement and support. The proposed ocean margin drilling program, in my opinion, does not share the same level of support. However there is a totally different way of looking at this program. There are good possibilities that the slope portion of the continental margins such as the area of drilling proposed in this program may contain substantial accumulations of oil and gas. I believe it is in the national interest at the present moment to investigate the potential of these possible accumulations. Though there will be some benefits to science, it is in the field of geological resource potential that this program will have its largest effect. Hence I feel there is a strong resource potential argument for drilling. The question raised by your staff report is, if resource potential or resource assessment is the major goal, then why is NSF the lead agency? Though I understand it is not traditional for NSF to run such programs, there is a iustification for their involvement. NSF, JOIDES, Global Marine, University of California San Diego, and five foreign countries have demonstrated with the Challenger their |