Cspan coverage of offshore drilling senate hearing

okay listened to cspan coverage of a republican senate committee hearing on offshore oil drilling...well...several comments in recollection to what I heard. No specific cost estimates provided as to the cost of gas as such relates to expansion in oil drilling, and best estimates concerning higher production would be at three to five years, perhaps, with regards to any further impact with regards to the cost of gas (again no cost estimates provided). Furthermore in the committee hearing the only response given as to how this would help people immediately was only on point of political deflection...well if we had been doing this a decade ago we wouldn't be facing such crisis...and who's ownership might that be exactly...democrats...heheh...now republicans were also helping to shape export/importation protocols as well as far as oil protocols were concerned...let's not say that democrats were stalling on this issue...secondly, the question was not directly addressed rather, this was offered in conjunction with a host of other alternative solutions. The estimates cited upwards of eighty billion barrels of oil alone (in the case of non-proven reserve estimates). Also in the committee hearing were regulatory challenges faced in the obstacle of off shore drilling...a number cited that would pose additional challenges with regards to investment thus proving additional challenges to offshore oil production. Amongst other concerns stateside rights with regards to feasibility in additional production. While it had been acknowledged that industry regulations were a consequence of domestic oil spills having occurred in the sixties, oil industry representatives had indicated a clean environmental track record since such time with respect to oil spills and the effect on environment. I would comment on such point, however, the lack of necessity in industry regulation does not mean that a clean track record for production may apply in the future. I believe additional challenges politically speaking with regards to stateside agreements in additional production may indeed be additional hurdles to be overcome. I would take contention with regards to the losses in the steel industry jobs if such production had been in place prior, noting that the steel industries may not have been displaced based upon necessity of steel based products domestically as a result of deficiencies of domestic steel demand, a senator had offered his opinion that steel jobs could have been saved if we had pursued further domestic production of oil, and I disagree with that contention. Rather displacement having occurred where demand for domestic steel was perhaps the same, while the production of steel products offered elsewhere in the world was offered to the extent that domestic steel production was no longer competitive. Now while the contention is that indeed this could be a solution in the future. I would comment amongst the set of alternatives available for energy increased domestic oil production may not be needed in the first place. It was also further commented in such session that investments per platform could cost upwards of $1 billion in the case of deep water drilling (with a hit or miss rate of 2 out 3 attempts). I think the opportunity to address immediate consumption concerns with demand and the cost of foreign oil, might be more readily addressed with more fuel efficient vehicles, and building a viable alternative fuel infrastructure, rather then attempting to significantly boost existing domestic oil production alone. I believe the viability of such offshore projects while perhaps, helping other markets abroad, may not be the sort needed on domestic basis. I see increased production as a means to perhaps facilitate current consumption demands with regards to energy inefficiencies (if the certain levels of oil production are needed to maintain viability in domestic oil production this implies that consumer market vehicles may be adjusted accordingly...in other words, I believe this may only provide greater incentive, for instance, of domestic auto manufacturers to maintain fuel consumption in terms of the mpg of the vehicle at the rates of consumption according to domestic fuel production...in other words, we may still have the same gas guzzling vehicles to boot in the future). To boost higher domestic production significantly I believe only helps to promote more of the same in terms of fuel consumption, and I believe the viability of these off shore projects is reliant upon certain consumption demands, unfortunately we were neither provided much cost analysis in terms of production (to the extent of what I recalled in the programming). I believe the opportunity is emerging where we can start shifting from significant increased domestic production, to viable fuel alternative infrastructure. If one is looking for immediate cost solutions in terms of oil, yes, fuel efficient cars will help in the short run, long term solutions minding that regulatory challenges, stateside agreement for offshore drilling challenges and cost challenges in the future I believe may prove formidable, let alone that estimates as of current concerning off shore oil are neither proven at this point, and finally I have not argued on the possible environmental outcomes given industry deregulation. I would argue on the point that deregulation means more faith that industry does what it says it intends to do with regards to operating cleanly with regards to its production infrastructure. Yes I have my bias with regards to industry regulations, and I believe especially so when such is there to protect and serve our environment, and neither solely reliant upon industry alone to maintain such.
skeptical concern...I just wanted to point this out neither as stall out...but merely that we have opportunities to debate such issue for a prospective upcoming election and with regards to viability not just solely in the case of increased domestic oil production but also other alternative fuel industries...sorry while I have heard increased debate from democrats concerning other fuel alternatives. My biggest concern is that if project viability is reliant upon predominance in an economy this could have impact with respect to alternatives. If domestic oil production can't compete alongside as a non-predominant or equivalent set to alternatives, then I am afraid we will be consuming in the future exactly as we have been doing all along, and I don't see republicans raising such questions. No this shouldn't be a case of either or...and that is the question that I am raising about off shore drilling viability in a more mixed energies future. Yes if consumption means the same in terms of how we consume gas it means we may continue to pollute our environment as we have for some time possibly to come as well. Unfortunately I did not see much cost analysis provided in such presentation, and I hope we are provided the most honest assessments with regards to the paths chosen in dealing with oil consumption.