Hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Subject: Impacts of Climate Change on Energy Infrastructure

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): Thank you, Madame Chairman. And I want to thank you, thank you for your leadership on energy issues. I think you have proven yourself, as you talk about the Gulf States, you talk about the development and just the production that comes out of your region. And in terms of an individual that is constantly reminding us all about the energy breadbasket down in the Gulf and how the state of Louisiana in particular has for years been supplying this nation and, in many cases, not asking for much in return -- maybe a little respect, maybe a little funding coming down.

But the trip that we were able to take when you took me down there to Port Fourchon, we had an opportunity to meet with you, Mr. Falgout, to understand and see firsthand what goes on. It's one thing to look at those charts and see the little spider web of infrastructure there. It's another thing to be flying over for a long period of time and looking down; reminds me of Alaska. It's really wet, and it's huge.

So I appreciate, again, your leadership on this. And an opportunity to talk about what happens to this very, very critical infrastructure. Now, Alaska wasn't part of this discussion. Our issues are a little bit different up there.

But when we take into account how really we have so much of our energy infrastructure concentrated in one area down there in the Gulf, there's a level of vulnerability. And when we're talking about whether -- how we protect it from Mother Nature, it's a very dicey issue.

We're looking at erosion issues where we've got communities up north that are literally falling into the Arctic Ocean, into the Bering Sea. And we see how much it's going to cost to move a small village. To move the infrastructure that is literally powering this country will be phenomenally expensive.

So I guess the question that I throw out to you, it's one thing to provide for protection of existing infrastructure. Is there anything out there in terms of innovative technologies that you're looking at, within the industry, that could provide for greater protection?

And the example that I'll use up north, when we knew we had to deal with permafrost, we just didn't lay a pipe on the tundra. We had to elevate it, because you couldn't have the warm pipe on the frozen permafrost. You had the ability to move it, or have it be flexible, in the event of earthquakes. So you build in that type of technology. Directional drilling has allowed us to do remarkable things up north without disturbing the surface.

Is there anything that you see in terms of technology within the industry that can provide for greater security, greater protection? And that's just kind of a general question to you all. Mr. Falgout and Mr. Drevna.

MR. FALGOUT: We have a lot of tools in our chests for coastal restoration, and certainly we have one of the greatest resources sitting there, the Mississippi River, for sediment. But you have to transport that sediment. It's unrealistic to cut the levees and let everything flood again and try to rebuild the delta. That'll take a thousand years anyway.

So long-distance distribution of sediment through pipelines and through dredging operations in the Mississippi River, taking that sediment and placing it through the estuary, trying to rebuild the skeleton, at least, of the system to where then over a longer term you can start to build onto the skeleton. Build meat, so to say, in the estuaries, to build the friction to break the storms, to do the things necessary. All that costs billions of dollars to do.

But certainly, when we look at the resources that are up there, what is coming through coastal Louisiana, I think it just makes sense to approach it in that manner.

And certainly Senator Landrieu has overwhelming experience in seeing some of these things we are starting with the offshore revenue- sharing money. The state has committed 100 percent of it through a constitutional amendment to be used for coastal restoration and infrastructure protection.

So we're getting there, but some of our -- we say, you know, we're at ground zero. And what we say, we're at zero ground, actually -- (scattered laughter) -- down at Port Fourchon. And some of this is immediate need. And unless we develop a mechanism to mitigate some of these immediate energy issues, we may not just be able to sustain the ability to do what we do.

SEN. MURKOWSKI: Mr. Drevna?

MR. DREVNA: Senator Murkowski, just to go back to the comment I made before about Senator Landrieu's charts, absolutely we have the technology to prevent or to minimize damage in the critical infrastructure. And of course we should naturally protect what we have and what's there and now.

But we also have the technology to be able to expand our horizon, so to speak, and not put all our eggs in one energy basket, as we've done in this country for the past 35 years.

If you go back, again, a couple of summers ago, in reference to Katrina and Rita, huge offshore platforms were actually toppled over. Not one iota of environmental damage. We've learned a lot over the past 25, 30, 35 years.

We can effectively and with a very, very, very limited or no environmental footprint bring resources up on the East Coast, the Eastern Gulf, the West Coast, and your fair state of Alaska. For some reason we decide we'd rather tell foreign countries to send more to us, but then tell them not to send more to us, and keep our own resources locked up .

So I think what we need is an energy basket that is for everyone, that is for all resources, whether it's coal, nuke, oil and gas, biofuels -- done in the right way, not trying to create winners and losers or create a false market.

But yes, the long answer to your question. We have the technology available to provide American citizens with the BTUs they need.

SEN. MURKOWSKI: Thank you.

Thank you, Madame

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source