Consortium for Materials Properties Research in Earth Sciences

Funded by NSF Division of Earth Sciences [2002-2012]

Presentation to Electorate by Bob Liebermann on behalf ofExecutive Committee of COMPRES20 June 2007

Probe Earth’s interior with

advanced radiation sources

X-ray and Neutron Community FacilitiesInfrastructure Development Projects

COMPRES: Consortium for Materials Properties Research in Earth Sciences

Mission of COMPRES

• Facilitate access and support operations at national facilities

• Develop new infrastructure and technologies

• Advocate for community

• Promote better science in mineral physics and healthier community

Budget Overview for COMPRES

Current Coop Agreement2006-07: $2100KFive Year [2002-07]: $10,800K

New Cooperative AgreementRequested budget:2007-08: $3245K2007-2012: $17,915K

Approved budget:2007-08: $2100K2007-2012: $11,500K

Shortfall in 2007-08:$913K in operational funds$213 in Equipment upgrades$1145K total

Budget Impact Analysis for COMPRES II [all in $K] Page 1[all in $K]

Category Yr5:2006-07 COMPRES II Yr1

Requested Approved Shortfall 2007-08

Community Facilities Operations/Equipment*West Coast 227 295/60 240/50 55/10DAC at NSLS

Infrared 160 282/80 180/40 102/40X-ray 254/87 400/233 280/120 120/113

MAC at NSLS 341 400/90 350/40 50/50Neutrons 0/0 30 0 30Beamline user housing20 40 20 20Beamline Interns 127 0 127Subawards (1) IDC 8 16 +8Total Facilities 1069 1582/463 1086/250 496/213

•Funds for equipment upgrades in Year #1 are distributed to the various Community Facilities sites

In Years #2-5, the funds for equipment upgrades are reserved in the central pool for deployment based on the decisions of the Standing Committees and the Executive Committee.

Budget Impact Analysis for COMPRES II [all in $K] Page 2[all in $K]

Category Yr5:2006-07 COMPRES II Yr1 Requested Approved Shortfall 2007-08

Infrastructure Development ProjectsMulti-anvil cells 114 107 100 7NRIXS 65 73 70 3HPSynC 300 0 300Workshops (5 to 7 per year) 130 78 52Subawards ($8K each) IIDC 25 16 9Other 282 --- --- ---Total Infrastructure 461 635 264 371

Central ActivitiesCommunity Activities 152 135 100 35

(Ann Mtg,Trav,E&O)Central Office 418 430 400 30

(Salaries, Suppliesr, Travel)Total Central Activities 570 565 500 65

Total COMPRES $2100 $3245 $2100 $932/213 = $1145K

As seen in the Budget Impact Analysis above, the principal impacts of the reduction of $1145K in funding from the requested level of $3,245,000 to the approved level of $2,100,000 for Year #1 are:

$369K reduction in operating expenses for the 4 beamlines operated by COMPRES at the NSLS and the ALS.

$213K reduction in equipment upgrade investments for the 4 beamlines operated by COMPRES.

$127K reduction by delaying the re-establishment of the beamline intern program.

$371K reduction by delaying the initiation of the HPSynC initiative, reductions in workshops and misc.

$65K reduction in Community Activities and Central Office expenditures.

$1145K Total reduction from the requested budget.

____________________________________________________________________________________

In Year #2, if the $100,000 increment is approved, we have made a tentative commitment initiate funding for the HPSynC initiative at the level of $100,000 per year.

This commitment is subject input from the Advisory Council, the Electorate, and the EARProgram Director.

In Years #2-5, we propose to continue to invest $250-550K in equipment upgrades at the beamlines at the NSLS and the ALS operated by COMPRES and/or new infrastructure development initiatives.

Impact Statement for COMPRES Approved Budget for Year #1

Strategic Options for Deployment of COMPRES Core Funding

• Option A: Maintain current portfolio of facilities operations and infrastructure projects

• Option B: Reduce portfolio of ops/projects

• Option C: Eliminate all equipment upgrades

• Option D: Cut all Infrastructure Projects and/orReduce admin costs

• Option E: Find additional partners for providing support for beamlines operations.

• Over-arching issues for COMPRES

• What is the strategic goal of COMPRES as an organization?

Is it to provide access to the beamlines and beamtime to themaximum number of users?

OrIs it to enable the best possible science to be accomplished?

• Should only the best science survive, or is there room for other very good science?

• Is COMPRES completely free to make decisions on closing beamline operations and/or terminating infrastructure projects, or are we constrained by NSF-EAR review?

• If COMPRES were to reduce its portfolio and thereby more effectively deploy the approved funding, would NSF-EAR applaud us for leadership, in making the tough decisions?

Option A: Retain portfolio

• Maintain the existing portfolio of facilities/projects for another 5 years—

• This option is essentially the approach adopted by the Executive Committee for Year #1, which involved minor increases in operational funding for beamlines, modest investments in equipment upgrades, delay in re-starting the beamline intern program, and postponing any new initiatives [e.g., HPSynC].

• This option was chosen by the ExComm for Year #1 ONLY in view of the short time before the start of the new funding period [less than 4 weeks].

• If this option is to be continued for Years #2-5, then for the beamlines to be able to function successfully, additional funding will have to be sought for operations and equipment upgrades from non-EAR sources [e.g., DMR or MRI at NSF], DOE-BES or Midscale Instrumentation Program, etc.

• Is it realistic to think that COMPRES would be successful in such initiatives?

• If the DOE increases operational funding for the light sources in FY 08 to enable them to provide staffing levels closer to their 2004 “minimal” levels, will this actually result in increased staffing/funding for the beamlines operated by COMPRES [and/or GSECARS]?

• Potential threats/risks:Potential threats/risks:Progressive “mediocrification” of beamline operations.Progressive “mediocrification” of beamline operations.Loss of competitiveness with other countries and loss of users.Loss of competitiveness with other countries and loss of users.

• Option A would leave all aspects of the consortium underfunded, with mediocrity inevitable.Option A would leave all aspects of the consortium underfunded, with mediocrity inevitable.

• Option B: Reduce portfolio of facilities operations and/or infrastructure projects to allow redeployment of funds freed up in this process to other facilities/operations.

• If any of this is to be done, the process leading to these decisions must be transparent and the criteria for such an evaluation clearly stated. Who will do this evaluation and what are the timelines for conducting this process. [see next slide for timelines]. This could free up $220-400K/yr (close 1 beamline) or $~250K/yr (eliminate ID projects).

• If these decisions result in termination of funding for any operation or project which involves staffing/personnel, then a plan must be developed to provide at least 6 months formal notice of such termination.

• Potential threats/risks:– Alienate some user communities.– Loss of “real estate” for COMPRES-associated beamlines– Generate competitors for EAR funding for any eliminated beamlines.

Variations on Option B

• Option B1: Close an X-Ray beamline: This would allow something close to full funding of the remainder of COMPRES. It would increase demands for beamtime at other facilities which would make beamtime more competitive. Thus, quality would probably increase and innovation and service would remain high -- but quantity would decrease, leading inevitably to unhappiness in some members of COMPRES and perhaps serious problems within the community.

• Option B2: Close down ID program: If ID projects cancelled, innovation would decrease, facilities would all be better funded but still less than this year’s request. Thus, quality would increase short-term but probably decrease long-term; quantity and service would remain high. Much smaller political cost than Option B1

• Option B3: Shrink central office: If Office severely curtailed, modest increases to facilities and ID could be achieved but overall management and service would decrease markedly. Volunteers would have to pick up the slack which would probably lead to serious problems in a few years, endangering the entire concept of COMPRES.

Suggested timelines for evaluation of ongoing operations and projects in COMPRES portfolio

• Nov 2007: Annual progress reports due, with program plans and budget requests for Year #2.

• 1 Dec 2007: Facilities Committee and Infrastructure Development Committees make recommendations to ExComm

for Year #2• 12 Dec 2007: ExComm discuss recommendations for Year #2 and make

tentative decisions on program plan and budget [in context of NSF-EAR limits on funding for Year #2]To be discussed with EAR Program Director in terms of changeof mission?

• 1 February 2008: Submit Annual Program Plan and Budget Request to NSF-EAR

• Inform any affected facility operation or infrastructure project oftermination of funding in Year #2.

• Commit to personnel support until 1 August 2008 [three months into Year #2].

Option C: Eliminate all equipment upgrade funding for the beamlines.

• This will result in “savings” of $250K in Year #2 and $550K in Year #5.• How will this affect the ability of the beamlines to maintain their level of service?

• The expectation in this option is that the PIs for each beamline will have to exercise their entrepreneurial abilities and obtain funding for equipment upgrades via separate funding [from EAR, MRI, etc.].

• Potential Risks/ThreatsPotential Risks/ThreatsLong-term decay of capabilities of beamlines/deferred Long-term decay of capabilities of beamlines/deferred

maintenance.maintenance.

• Option C might be successful if heads of beamline programs can bring in the Option C might be successful if heads of beamline programs can bring in the equipment needed. Most likely, some will be successful and others not, leading to equipment needed. Most likely, some will be successful and others not, leading to severe differences in quality of facilities. But this probably could be tried for a year severe differences in quality of facilities. But this probably could be tried for a year or two without serious harm to the consortium.or two without serious harm to the consortium.

• Option D: Eliminate all funding for Infrastructure projects and/or reduce administrative costs

• Only $264K has been budgeted in Year #1, with an additional $100K tentatively slated forHPSynC in Year #2.

• The ID program has been one of the hallmarks of COMPRES in the first era [2002-2007], but perhaps it is a luxury that we can no longer afford.

• Note that in 2002-2007, approximately $1100K was devoted to projects which eventually were located at GSECARS under the auspices of the University of Chicago, including:

$429K to UIUC for Brillouin spectrometer$493 to Princeton for laser-heated CO2 DAC$118K for Gas-loading systems for DAC$68K for D-DIA 30 apparatus

• Potential Risks/ThreatsPotential Risks/Threats• Loss of state-of-the-art for lack of innovationLoss of state-of-the-art for lack of innovation

• Loss of professional staff for day-to-day management – the only way to get significant funds from the central office is to cancel the position of President. This would impose major increases in workload of ExComm and on the COMPRES member who would be designated to be liaison with host institution; it would also lead to major loss of communication with community.

• Option D is equivalent to Option B2Option D is equivalent to Option B2

• Option A (status quo) would leave all aspects of the consortium underfunded, with mediocrity inevitable unless heads of beamline programs can bring in the equipment needed.

• Option B1: Close an X-Ray beamline: This would allow something close to full funding of the remainder of COMPRES. It would increase demands for beamtime at other facilities which would make beamtime more competitive. Thus, quality would increase and innovation and service would remain high -- but quantity would decrease, leading inevitably to unhappiness in some members of COMPRES and perhaps serious problems within the community.

• Option B2: Close down ID program: If ID projects cancelled, innovation would decrease, facilities would all be better funded but still less than this year’s request. Thus, quality would increase short-term but probably decrease long-term; quantity and service would remain high. Much smaller political cost than Option B1

Summary of Strategic Funding Options

Summary of Strategic Funding Options

• Option B3: Shrink central office: If Office severely curtailed, modest increases to facilities and ID could be achieved but overall management and service would decrease markedly. Volunteers would have to pick up the slack which would probably lead to serious problems in a few years, endangering the entire concept of COMPRES.

• Option C : This might be successful if heads of beamline programs can bring in the equipment needed. Most likely, some will be successful and others not, leading to severe differences in quality of facilities. But this probably could be tried for a year or two without serious harm to the consortium.

• Option D is equivalent to Option B2

• Option E: Find additional partners. If workable, this could be an ideal solution financially but would increase the user base and therefore potentially diminish access by Earth Science Community.

Why COMPRES?

• Why does COMPRES exist?

• Is COMPRES fulfilling the goals identifiedwhen initiated?

• What are the barriers to doing a better job?– Inadequate resources?– Lack of appropriate vision?

What roles does COMPRES play?

• Interface between major facilities and individual users

• Define and defend opportunities and needs of community

• Promote projects in areas that might not be fundable in direct competition with individual research proposals

What are challenges for COMPRES?

• Must always be viewed as supporting quality and not just quantity

• Must defend the needs of the entire community

• Must be able to respond rapidly and responsibly to changes in funding and science/technology scene

Purpose of Meeting on 25 April 2007 OF ExComm with EAR, DMR and DOE-BES

Thank the Program Directors of EAR for their advice and guidance in the process leading to the submission of the proposal to renewfunding for COMPRES and in the review process over the past8 months.

Seek new ideas for pursuing other funding sources for:Operational funding at beamlines supported by COMPRESEquipment upgrade funding for COMPRES-supported beamlinesNew infrastructure development initiatives [e.g., HPSynC and

Computational Mineral Physics

Consequences of “shortfall” in funding:Operators of beamlines will have to seek other funding for

beamline operations and equipment upgrades.Shared funding for operations and upgrades will require

sharing of beamtime allocations. i.e., COMPRES Earth scientists will receive LESS beamtime [whichis our most valued and precious commodity].

NOTE: This meeting did NOT elicit in any concrete or imaginativesuggestions from the assembled Program Directors.