I am writing to report on progress, to all the people to whom I wrote last year explaining what Ellen Thomas and I would be doing towards an IODP drilling proposal aimed at determining the time of onset and palaeoclimatic influence of the ACC. The pdf files of the preliminary proposal itself (634-Pre, submitted for the 1 October 2003 deadline) and of review documents produced by the relevant IODP panels - ESSEP (the Environmental Science Steering and Evaluation Panel), received January 16th 2004, and the Site Survey Panel (received 18th March 2004) are available on the main page of this web site. The ESSEP review (the key one for the science) is very positive: we are encouraged to move on to submission of a full proposal. SSP review is concerned mainly with site survey, but its requirements are mandatory. The Panel has recently decided to involve itself in the process at an earlier stage than previously, and has at the same time slightly toughened its requirements and changed their format to digital. Also mentioned is a Pollution Prevention and Safety Panel (PPSP), which will review our proposal at a later stage, but should not be overly concerned about it given the environments in which we propose to drill.

The paper that we wrote for Earth Science Reviews is still in press, can also be downloaded from this web site and is accessible at Elsevier's Science Direct web site. A more Scotia-Sea-specific follow-up paper submitted to the Proceedings of the 8th ISAES (Potsdam September 2003), is not yet returned from review. We are pleased that almost all the ESSEP comments are in fact already dealt with in one or other of these papers. The abstract of a talk I gave at a recent Euro-IODP/ICDP meeting in Bremen is also available here.

We are now at the stage of recruiting co-proponents: we want to 'internationalise' the proposal, and broaden the experience base of proponents. We plan to submit a full proposal by the 1 October 2004 IODP deadline. Although we feel we should keep the number of proponents moderately low, we would like to encourage people to join us who have good ideas as to how our approach to the problem can be improved, and are willing to put in the time to help write a drillable proposal. Within a full proposal, we see the possibilities of using additional techniques, and/or of moving or proposing different sites. We envisage a conventional JR-type drilling effort, which would have time for 4 or 5 sites in a 2-month leg. IODP planning involves sending full proposals (when IODP considers them ready) for external review, and then ranking favourably-reviewed proposals for drilling. As you will know, a wider range of drilling platform is now available to the community. However, the majority of proposals, like this one, will remain candidates for drilling from a JR-type ship, and the typical proposal will undergo several iterations before drilling.

A very important aspect is the absolute need for additional site survey. SSP has asked for data used in our Preliminary Proposal to be sent to the Data Bank, and we have done this. However, although better sites may be identifiable on other existing profiles, no amount of adding such profiles to those already used, or replacing them, will remove the need for additional, dedicated site survey, contrary to our earlier thinking. To satisfy SSP requirements, such survey (at each site) must include a grid of seismic lines (highest resolution compatible with sure penetration to full drilling depth - possibly short-streamer multichannel with GI gun source), 3.5 kHz or equivalent profile, and piston or gravity core. Multibeam bathymetry would be useful (as would any other kind of data) but is not a requirement. Although ice cover is highly unlikely at the right time of year, we have been required to identify alternate sites and must provide site survey data for them also. We foresee a need for about 2 days work at each site, with perhaps an additional day at each of the primary sites. The data will have to be processed, and a basic core examination (lithologies, sedimentation rates) undertaken. Site survey is therefore a significant task and, although independent publication of site survey data would be possible, we feel it would be appropriate to give a representative of the group or groups undertaking site survey the highest priority within a list of potential co-proponents. As site survey cannot be organised quickly in so remote a region, and will be needed at least a year before drilling, we think it sensible to begin planning now. The earliest we can hope for, we think, is drilling in early 2007, which means site survey in early 2006.

As I write (Apirl 2004), it is uncertain if the IPY will include a Gateways strand (such as POGE). If it does, it might provide useful additional justification for site survey, and support our proposal within IODP

In summary, therefore, this report includes an invitation to become a co-proponent, by contributing to the science and/or by planning to undertake some or all of the necessary site survey.