Blacksburg DUSEL Worshop Earth Science and Engineering Tentative Conclusions

1. Blacksburg DUSEL WorshopEarth Science and EngineeringTentative Conclusions What have we accomplished? What next? A work in progress

2. Our goals as defined yesterday:Scientific Roadmapsfor Deep Underground Earth Science • Starting from previous studies (in particular Ness2002,Earth Lab report, Berkeley workshop) go further • Identification of major themes • With syntheses which make sense for the specialists, resonate with other scientists and fascinates the non scientists • Relatively few working groups: Coupled processes, rock mechanics and tectonics, geo-microbiology and applications • Prioritization • What are the most pressing questions to answer deep underground?

3. Our advances the first day and a half • After a long day and a half of fact collection • Even though, not necessarily • either totally relevant to DUSEL (in particularly the deep aspects) • or solicitation 1 character (a little bit of propaganda sipped through most site presentations) • and some time slippage in the schedule • in part motivated by the desire not to restrict the discussion too early • Better understanding of the need to • Simplify the message: Big questions (“sound byte”, “the elevator speech”) • Overcome the fragmentation of the field into a large number of small expert communities (true in physics too) • Hold together the three motivations and facets of our work • • Tantalizing fundamental science questions • • Fascinating new instrumentation capability • • Critical applications for our society

4. Science-Methods-Applications • Ever Changing Earth • Coupled processes • in heterogeneous media • THMCB Resources Origin Discovery Exploitation Transparent Earth Remote Characterization Perturbation Mining back • Overlap is testimony of the richness of the field • Opportunity for multiple advocacy • NSF-DOE- Congress - Industry • Experts-other scientists- Public at large

5. “Observatory Group”:Big Science Questions • 1.What are the limits of conditions for microbial life? • 2.Can we increase our fundamental knowledge of the earth and its dynamic processes? Observing from the inside… • 3.Can we improve resolution, using observations at multiple-scales and at ranges of depths, of the couplings among thermal, hydrologic, chemical and mechanical (deformation) processes? (natural observatory context)

6. Active Processes Laboratory: Big Science QuestionsEssential issues revolve around fractures and scale effects in space and time I – How do Mass, Momentum, and Energy, transfer and transform in fractured media -THMCB Experiment -Ore Deposits II – How do we image and scale in fractured media -Earthquake Cycle -Characterizing structure III – How do we engineer ultra-deep and large excavations -Caverns -Deep boreholes IV – How do we better understand cloud processes to improve climate prediction

7. The Big Questions: A second attempt • The conditions for life • Limits • Metabolism/ Energy source • Evolution/Evolution • The ever changing earth • Behavior of rock and fluids at depth. • Coupled processes in inhomogeneous media: mass, momentum,energy flow • Spatial and temporal scaling “laws” • The structure and the evolution of the earth • Observing from inside out: Core/mantle/crust/mountain • Dynamics: earthquakes • The concentration of ore deposits • Climate change • Paleo-climate ? Ancient sequestered water • Clouds

8. Methods • Transparent Earth • An old dream: being able to see looking down as well as we can see looking up • “Making the rock transparent”, “Walking into your image” • Combination of our most sophisticated sensors • Acoustic • Electromagnetic • Neutrinos • Anti-neutrinos from U/Th (solar neutrino detectors, ≈ not directional) • X raying the earth with atmospheric neutrinos? (proton decay/long base line detectors) • Passive/Active methods • Tracking Life Underground • Systematically characterize the biosphere deep below the surface • Variety of habitats • Most advanced sampling methods • Full use of state of the art biological technologies

9. Applications • Resource extraction. • Energy, mineral and water resources • Improve: Prediction • Imaging • Recovery : Physical /chemical/biological • Biotechnology • Use of microbes as recovery or containment agents • Pharmaceutical applications of genome • Underground engineering: The mastery of the rock • The largest cavity underground • Safer mining methods • Instrumented drilling bits

10. Yesterday: Dependence on Geology • Earth science is not geology independent • Not everything can be done at every site • What are the generic site characteristics which are necessary to at least start to tackle the most important questions • cf Depth as a major characteristic for physicists (but not needed for all) • Do we have enough of a scientific case for recommending eventually a combination of sites?

11. Sedimentary vs hard rock • We need both! • Actually 3-4: igneous, metamorphic,sedimentary + salt • + variability in terms of detailed rock type, fractures and feature scale (usually available at a single site) • Build up case: Understand the differences / complementarity • in science: e.g. porosity/permeability • Difference of chemistry, role of water • Balance additional complexity vs additional information • in applications: e.g. oil vs mineral deposits • in methods: Cases where rock type just modifies general approaches • where one type of rock is needed:e.g., oil deposit simulationcarbon sequestration? • Elaborate roadmaps using complementarity • e.g. from simplest to more complex • comparison low/high porosity, carbon rich-hydrogen rich • Integration of existing facilities • WIPP, URLs • International context • Postpone prioritization/ tactical arguments: • “ Let us not clip our wings too early or get stuck in unproductive rivalry” • Eventually develop consensus on scientifically optimal deployment strategy

12. Our goals as defined yesterday:Major Experimentsfor Deep Underground Earth Science • Can we identify major types of experiments or facilities • Not necessarily same approach as physicists • But go further than the “1km3 sand box” where we want to play for at least 10 years • e.g. Earth Lab • Ultradeep Life and Biogeochemistry Observatory • Deep Flow and Paleoclimate Laboratory and Observatory • Induced Fracture and Deformation Processes Laboratory Deep Coupled Processes Laboratory

13. Generic experiments • General feeling of substantial progress in break out session Saturday afternoon • See summary presentations on dusel.org • Common aspects in the approach • Complete characterization before perturbations • (laboratory construction, active experiments) • Long term monitoring • Attention to compatibility with other experiments • High demands of geo-microbiology • Systematic use of tracers even for bore holes at site exploration stage • Do not disturb long duration experiments (e.g. thermal) • Simultaneous or consecutive use of bore holes and instrumentation • e.g. deep observatory bore hole first used for biology then deep seismograph • More generally build up as we go cavities/bore holes and instrumentation: initial high priority experiments => facilities open for proposals • Increasingly better characterized blocks • Increasingly powerful instrumentation

14. Generic Experiments (naïve Mickey Mouse drawings) 100m Specialized Tests: e.g. oil Reservoir Simulation 0.5 km Observatories (vertical view- some extrapolation my part) Various depths Interesting geological features Deepest level e.g. 2 km Potential sites of energy sources for underground life Deep bore hole ≈5cmØ cores 4-7 km Site dependent Biological sampling + monitoring -> Seismograph (3D) 125°C Coupled process laboratory (horizontal view) + Cloud Chamber (3-5mØ 500-1000m high)

15. Our goals yesterday:Infrastructure Requirements • Adapt infrastructure requirement matrix to Deep Earth Science (Lee Petersen, Derek Ellsworth) • At minimum, additional columns indicating rock type, fracture characteristics etc. • Define also needed characterization / monitoring of the site + precautions for biological studies • Estimate of the demand in an international context

16. Requirements

17. What Next? 1 • Documentation of this workshop • Web - no written conclusions deemed necessary at this stage • Continue informal discussion/reflection • Use of duselscience@cosmology.berkeley.edu • Email to PIs: sadoulet@cosmology.berkeley.edu • S2 preparation • Further synthesis/fleshing out by working groups • Progress on themes+ wordsmithing • Tree building process (F. Heuze) • How to deal with the needed diversity of rocks/conditions? • Document scientific complementarity, deployment strategy, use of existing and international facilities • Infrastructure requirements: work with Lee Petersen & Derek Ellsworth • + compatibilities=> Boulder Jan 5-7 Ever Changing Earth Conditions for Life

18. What Next ? 2 • Work on synergies • Validate/ Flesh out cross cutting ideas • e.g. neutrinos to X ray the earth • Full integration of existing sites: needed for the science • International coordination, and estimation of world-wide demand • Coordination with other US initiatives and major stake holders • Earth Scope, IRIS National Labs • Secure Earth NASA centers, USGS • Involve industry (through S2 proposals and professional groups?) • Broaden our base as much as possible • Evolutionary biology + other “extreme conditions” biologists • Solid Earth scientists (tectono physicists) • Climatologists • Professional meetings (AGU,APS,ASMB etc.) • What can we start immediately? • Science: Exploit the new contacts that this process generates • Use exploratory bore holes for science (T. Kieft) • Education and outreach: Webcast lecture series (J. Wang) • Involvement of students and postdocs in studies? Science talks for local populations around sites • Contact with science journalists as soon as we are approved • what is the story? Unique collaboration between physicists, astronomers, earth scientists, biologists and engineers?

19. Conclusions • A work in progress: A great deal done • Still a lot do be done • Thanks to all • Everybody for their patience and courtesy • Thanks to our Virginia Tech Colleagues for the organization • In particular Tom Burbey, Bruce Voguelar, Bob Bodnar, Matthias Imhof • and staff behind the scene • Boulder Jan 5-7 • Bring in “mainstream” biologists (e.g. evolutionary molecular and microbe) • Synergies between fields • Focus on infrastructure requirements <= results of working groups Modules • Sketch of report: major themes • Last opportunity to adjust our common language before Solicitation 2 • Important to attend in spite of S2 proposal pressures