But Why DRILL Act?

Liberals refuse to question their simplistic world view. In their view, anything associated with business, and especially "big oil" is always malevolent. Anything that business wants or does is attributed not to common business and economic sense but always to malevolent intent. Liberals always seek emotional satisfaction to their sense of indignation (even when indignation is unwarranted) and the most expedient way to assuage that indignation is to punish perceived malevolence. But seeking to understand business motivations and economic dynamics would not be as emotionally satisfying and would possibly disabuse them of an opportunity for emotional masturbation. The DRILL act is just an extension of this world view. The latest claim against opening up to even the slightest discussion of off sore drilling is that oil companies should drill on lands for which they already hold leases before exploring offshore or other environmentally sensitive areas, as if in their malevolence they would not seek the most cost effective source but rather ways to inflict the most harm. Firstly, the idea of off shore drilling has so far mostly been conjecture on the part of politicians and lay people. I don't know that any oil companies have actively indicated urgent interest in exploiting such new locales. But taken at face value, the argument about existing leases raises the question, except apparently to liberals, as to why oil companies are not actively exploiting these properties? It doesn't take business sense to know that the low hanging fruit are the obvious targets of first choice. If I am an oil executive and looking for places to drill for oil, am I going to choose someplace on easily accessible dry land or someplace off in the depths of the ocean? All thing being otherwise equal, the obvious answer is dry land. That is unless all things are not equal. If oil companies are not exploiting these leases, are the low hanging fruit not what they would appear to be and why? As a pragmatist, these are questions I want answered before going off and setting oil policy and legislation. But apparently in the liberal world view such questions and answers are irrelevant to creating legislation. It doesn't make sense to pursue more costly options before exploiting less expensive options. For liberals it's sufficient to just attribute it to malevolent intent and not bother to ask why. And that being the case, let's pass a bill to force them to use these properties first without first really understanding why this is not already happening. I believe that businesses in principle are motivated by economics and not malevolence. And as such it is important to understand the economic rational behind the things business do if there is to be any hope of having rational, effective, and and workable policies. Crafting economic policy based on an assumption of malevolence as opposed to economics can only lead to disaster.