Lisa Murkowski

I just wanted to confirm.

Mr. Newell, yesterday the Department of Energy released a finding stating that the construction of an oil pipeline out of Canada into the United States would reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

I think there is strong bipartisan agreement that our Nation is far too dependent on foreign oil.

But what you are saying is we don't have a uniform definition as to how we are defining reserves, and that doesn't allow us to do an apples-to-apples comparison. Is that correct?

Do you include these prospects in your assessment, either the BP-Rosneft deal or just anything in the Arctic?

Doesn't that give us less assurance. When we are talking about the concerns that we are seeing in the Middle East right now, to know that you have most of your spare capacity located in one country, what kind of assurance does that give us?

The American people expect their Government to keep energy affordable, but right now, it is failing on that front.

If we lose a large-diameter pipeline like we have up north that brings crude into the lower 48, what is the economic impact of this?

As you know, the throughput is declining to what we believe is dangerously low levels, and if we don't take some very serious steps in the very short term to add more oil into that line within the next few years, there is a real chance…

At times, our energy policy goes beyond frustrating and becomes simply irresponsible.

But right now, because you have so much production centered in Europe, you have a stumbling block if something happens.

Here in the United States, where do we currently export our highly enriched uranium to for medical isotope production?

Given the current world production levels, how long does it take to accumulate enough of the radioactive waste product that's left over to really pose a proliferation risk?

This legislation will be very helpful to assuring the long-term supply of medical isotopes in the U.S.

I think you will find this is a committee where we jump into the interesting, complex, sometimes contentious issues with great relish, but do so with a degree of civility, honesty, and attention to the work that yields good product.

It is important that we do some reruns.

Is there something that we should or should not include in this legislation that would speak to that as an issue?

You don't view a NEPA review as being duplicative of the other reviews that are currently in place?

The question has been raised by some in industry as to whether or not the legislation is technology-neutral.

We have not had here in this country a domestic supply since 1989.

I appreciate your statement. I think it is important to reinforce the need for additional research should not be used as a de facto moratorium on activity in the Arctic.

Clearly we were impacted up North. We had hoped that Shell would be able to proceed with a project out in the Beaufort and Chukchi.

Does loss of well control mean a blow out?

I understand clearly what you are saying. Your report also recognizes that you have at least two companies that you cite as having exemplary records for operating in the OCS.

Ultimately, we need to address this incident--but must proceed cautiously to avoid passing legislation that may present unintended consequences to our economy and energy security.