as a company, conoco phillips is committed to doing so. so thank you very much for this opportunity. i look forward to responding to questions that you may have. >> thank you, mr. mulva. our next witness is mr. marvin odom who is the president of the shell il company. he is also on the board of the american petroleum institute. we welcome you. please begin when you are ready. >> thank you, chairman markey, ranking member upton and members of the committee. i'm marvin odom. i'd like to acknowledge the situation in the gulf of mexico which is on the minds of every american. pll of us at shell are deeply saddened by the deep water horizon explosion and the aftermath. a terrible tragedy for the families of those who lost their lives or were injured. and many of our employees and customers live along the gulf coast and feel that pain firsthand. getting to the root cause of this incident is critical. we want to know what went wrong with the well and the execution of this well design. as a investigation, findings are available, shell will incorpo

tillerson as will as some of the other plans, including conoco phillips, there is a dr. watts who is referred to as an expert, a technical support person. he died in 2005, four years before the plan was actually filed. how, mr. tillerson, can you justify a response plan in having a person who has been dead four years. >> it is but let me point out dr. lutz is part of the university of miami's marine mammal research which has been an important resource for preparation of the plans for yeers. the fact dr. lutz died in 2005 does not mean his work and importance of his work died with him. there are other many + individuals identified in the plan. >> it's 2010. >> those numbers are valid in the plan. >> it's 2010. you conclude dr. lutz's phone number in your plan for a response, that you have not taken this responsibility seriously. mr. mulva, the same true for you, is it an embarrassment for conoco phillips to have that as part of your plan? >> the plans need to be updated more completely. obviousll it is embarrassing but we look towards the institution and not necessarily t

so were the plans for chevron and konica phillips -- conoco- phillips.shell did not give us a plan, but we were told that they had the same strategies as a bp used that have not worked. on paper, these plants look reassuring. bp's plan says it can handle the spell of 250,000 barrels per day. both chevron and shell say they can handle over two hundred thousand barrrls per day. exxon says and they can handle over 150,000 barrels per day. that is far more oil than is currently leaking into the gulf. but when you look at the the details, it becomes evident that these plans are just paper exercises. bp failed miserably when confronted with a real leak, and one can only wonder whether exxoo and mobil and the other companies will do any better. it contacteds with the response corp. to provide equipment for a response. all the other companiessrely on this same contractor. bp's plan shows another contractor who will organize spill removal. all of the other companies use a the same contractor. bp's plan relies on 22,000 gallons of dispersant tored in mississippi.

. >> in your response plan as well as some of the other plans, including conoco-phillips, there is a doctor referred to as an expert, a technical person. he died four years before the plan was actually filed. how can you justify, in response plan, having a person who has been dead for four years? >> it is, but let me point out that he is part of the university of miami's marine mammal research division which has been part of the preparation of this plan for many years. the fact thaa he died does not mean it that his work and the importance of his work died with him. >> there are many individuals who worked with him -- >> i appreciate that. it is 2010. it just seems to me that when you include his phone number in your plan for a response, that you have not taken this responsibility seriously. the same is true for you. is it an embarrassment to conoc o-phillips to have this as a part of your plan? >> the plants need to be updated more frequently.. -- the plants need to be updated more frequently. audit -- the plans need to be updated more frequently. obviously it is an embarrassment. >

built by conoco in the 1980s, it is now owned by independent oil producer louisiana-based stone energy. this production platform operates routinely, sending 2,500 barrels of oil and 11 million cubic feet of gas to the shore every day. since stone bought it eight years ago, it has had no leaks, no problems. running night and day, the platform's 18 wells descend deep beneath the ocean floor-- 10,000 to 18,000 feet. the ewing bank 305 will not be affected by the moratorium, but drilling on a stone energy well several miles away is being curtailed pending a safety inspection, to the company's dismay. on board the ewing bank, the six-man crew watched tv raptly for news of the oil spill that could affect their livelihoods. they were not allowed to talk to us, but the oil and gas industry claims that thousands of jobs could be lost if all new offshore drilling was stopped. >> i think that there's people that don't understand what it means for the state and don't really understand what it means for the nation. they probably do have that opinion that they'd like to see the whole thing shut down