Campaigns and energy policy

With political campaigns in their pre-election crescendo in the U.S., the words "energy policy" emerge only from people and groups who wish there were more discussion of the subject. This does not mean, however, that vital points of energy policy have been neglected. As it turns out, neglect would be preferable.

Holders of and aspirants to high political office seem to have forgotten a core truth about energy. It is that energy nearly always begins in nature in some form other than that in which it can be put to practical use. The provision of useful energy thus starts with a natural resource, whether it be sunlight, buried hydrocarbons, moving air or water, or dead wood. A very attractive feature of natural resources is that their conversion into something useful, energy or otherwise, adds value and thus enables people effecting the conversion to create wealth. This is how economies develop.

Cost of preservation

For environmental reasons, preservation of natural resources has become a political priority in the U.S. "Preservation" means refraining from converting resources into economically useful forms. In places of special natural beauty or environmental peculiarity, preservation can have innate value and be altogether appropriate. But preserving rather than developing natural resources involves costs. Resources not developed mean wealth not created, jobs not made available, tax revenues not generated. The value of preservation must always be assessed against the cost of forgone wealth creation. In the case of energy resources, forgone development also means potential energy supply that must come from elsewhere.

Campaigning politicians, led by President Bill Clinton, are ringing the preservation gong.

Last month, Clinton unveiled plans to create the Canyons of the Escalante National Monument in a large part of southern Utah. He provided few details. It can be presumed that the move would make resource development in the area more difficult than it is now, if not impossible, possibly forever.

The affected part of Utah certainly contains unique and beautiful surface features. It also contains a coal resource estimated by the Utah Geological Survey at 64 billion tons. Of that, 62 billion tons is in Kaiparowitz coal field, which might also contain 2-4 tcf of coalbed methane. The west flank of the Circle Cliffs tar sands deposit holds an estimated 447 million bbl of oil. The east flank holds about 860 million bbl of oil, mostly inside Capitol Reef National Park. The proposed monument area, UGS notes, includes part of Upper Valley oil field, which produces 685 b/d of oil. According to Conoco Inc., which in partnership with Rangeland Petroleum has leased 250,000 acres in the region, the monument and adjoining areas contain as many as 50 giant exploration prospects.

Separately, 110 members of the House of Representatives at the end of September wrote to Clinton asking for an executive order permanently banning oil and gas exploration and development off the East and West Coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The areas are now covered by annually renewed leasing moratoriums. "We believe that such permanent protection is necessary to protect the economies and the environment of our coastal communities," the lawmakers said.

Frontal assaults

These are frontal assaults on U.S. energy and economic interests. They flow from exaggerated assumptions about the environmental threats posed by resource development and from serious inattention to the economic sacrifice associated with refusal to develop natural resources. They also show how energy policy is fashioned at the federal level.

Candidates may not be saying much about energy in the current presidential and congressional election campaigns. But it's a serious mistake to conclude that election outcomes will have no bearing on energy policy, as practiced.