Transcript Tentative Conclusions - Virginia Tech Department of Physics

Blacksburg DUSEL Worshop
Earth Science and Engineering
Tentative Conclusions
What have we accomplished?
What next?
A work in progress
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
1
B.Sadoulet
Our goals as defined yesterday:
Scientific Roadmaps
for 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?
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
2
B.Sadoulet
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
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
3
B.Sadoulet
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
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
4
B.Sadoulet
“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)
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
5
B.Sadoulet
Active Processes Laboratory: Big Science Questions
Essential 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
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
6
B.Sadoulet
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
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
7
B.Sadoulet
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
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
8
B.Sadoulet
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
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
9
B.Sadoulet
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?
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
10
B.Sadoulet
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 simulation
carbon 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
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
11
B.Sadoulet
Our goals as defined yesterday:
Major Experiments
for 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
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
12
B.Sadoulet
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
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
13
B.Sadoulet
Generic Experiments
(naïve Mickey Mouse drawings)
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
125°C
Biological sampling + monitoring
-> Seismograph (3D)
Coupled process laboratory (horizontal view)
100m
+ Cloud Chamber
0.5 km
(3-5mØ 500-1000m high)
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
14
Specialized
Tests: e.g. oil
Reservoir
Simulation
B.Sadoulet
Infrastructure Requirements
Our goals yesterday:
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
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
15
B.Sadoulet
Requirements
EXPT
DEPTH
BI O - ST I M U L A T I O N
A NY
C L O U D P H Y SI C S M I C RO G RA V I T Y A N Y
A Q U I FE R D Y N A M I C S & T RA N SP O RT D I F FE RI N G
H Y D RO C A RBO N
DEEP
RO C K M A SS M E C H A N I C S
A LL
O R E D E P O SI T
DE P E N DS
T H E RM A L T E ST
DEEP
M I N I N G E XT RA C T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y
A NY
FRA C T U RE P RO P O G A T I O N
D I F FE RI N G
C A RBO N M A N A G E M E N T
DEEP
SIZE
20M
.5 - 1 KM
M - KM
KM
100M
KM
100M+
KM
10-100M
KM
W ET
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y /N
Y
Y
Y
Y /N
Y
TEMP
LITHOLOGY
A M BI E N T +
A NY
A M BI E N T A NY
A M BI E N T +
A NY
A M BI E N T +
SE D P RE F .
A M BI E N T +
A NY
C O N T RO L L E D A N Y
C O N T RO L L E D A N Y
A M BI E N T
A NY
A M BI E N T
A NY
A M BI E N T
A NY
W A TER
CHEM
FRA CTURED
EIT HE R
EIT HE R
Y
Y
Y
EIT HE R
Y
EIT HE R
EIT HE R
Y
O LDER
NA
A NY
A NY
A NY
A NY
A NY
DILUT E
A NY
A NY
MINEBA CK
Y /BH
N
LI M I T E D
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
PRISTINE
Y
NA
EIT HE R
Y
EIT HE R
Y
Y
EIT HE R
EIT HE R
EIT HE R
HETEROGEN
Y
NA
Y
Y
EIT HE R
EIT HE R
Y
EIT HE R
EIT HE R
Y
Expt.
Name
Depth
Spatial
Req.
Time
Sequence
Issues?
Duration
Lithology
Special
Safety
Aspects
Plumb/
Electric?
Deep
120 deg
spatial
yes – prior
drilling
flexible;
Yes; many
both;
Life
depth
size
to constr.,
duration
focus
including
drilling
sufficient
too,
(weeks?);
appropriate
bio-waste,
needs
for core
possible;
monitoring
strata
gas
rig plus local
must
will
specific
hazards,
experimental
coordinated
hypotheses,
etc.
needs (e.g.,
a priori
Limits
if
be
be
long-term
on
for
COMPA TIBILITY
A LL - 2
?
A LL - 2
1 ,3 ,4
A LL - 2
A LL - 2
A LL - 2
1 ,6 ,4
A LL - 2
A L L - 2 ,6
for
if possible
refr igerat.)
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
16
B.Sadoulet
What Next?
1
Documentation of this workshop
Web - no written conclusions deemed necessary at this stage
Continue informal discussion/reflection
Use of [email protected]
Email to PIs: [email protected]
S2 preparation
Further synthesis/fleshing out by working groups
Progress on themes+ wordsmithing
Tree building process (F. Heuze)
Conditions Ever Changing
Earth
for Life
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
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
=> Boulder Jan 5-7
17
B.Sadoulet
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
Secure Earth
National Labs
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?
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
18
B.Sadoulet
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
Blacksburg conclusions (updated from discussions)
19
B.Sadoulet