Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘energy poverty’

Energy policy must make lives better, not worse…

Posted in energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , on June 16, 2022| Leave a Comment »

The primary goal of energy policy should be ample, reliable supplies that are sufficient to ensure reasonable consumer prices. The “Backup Plan” (below) is only acceptable in cartoons.

From an offshore energy policy standpoint, remember this:

Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 257 was vacated on 1/27/2022 because DC Federal Court Judge Contreras ruled that BOEM failed to consider the “positive” effect that higher prices would have on reducing foreign consumption and the associated GHG emissions. Apparently the Court failed to consider that higher oil and gas prices would:

The Administration chose not to appeal that decision, although API and the State of Louisiana have. It has now been 575 days since the last Federal offshore oil and gas lease sale.

Read Full Post »

DC Judge rules in favor of higher oil and gas prices

Posted in climate, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged , , , , , on January 31, 2022| Leave a Comment »

The very disappointing 68 page ruling on Lease Sale 257 boils down to the following:

  1. BOEM had correctly determined that, from a GHG standpoint, US offshore production was preferable to more carbon intensive foreign production.
  2. The plaintiffs, who are seemingly intent on stopping all oil and gas production regardless of the economic consequences, argued that BOEM failed to consider the “positive” effect that higher prices (the logical result of lower production) would have on reducing demand.
  3. In particular, the plaintiffs asserted that BOEM failed to consider the effect that reduced production (and higher prices) would have on foreign consumption and the associated GHG emissions.
  4. The judge not only decided in favor of the plaintiffs, but ruled that BOEM’s omission was so serious that the lease sale had to be vacated.
  5. The judge reached this decision even though (1) the five year leasing plan expires in June leaving the timing of any future sale very much in doubt and (2) all of the sale 257 bids are now public information compromising the integrity of the leasing process at the next sale (if and when that occurs).

So, if BOEM has to consider the environmental benefits of higher oil and gas prices, shouldn’t they also have to consider the negative economic and environmental effects from the resulting price inflation and energy poverty? Are higher prices, which are most detrimental to the poor and to developing nations, “energy justice?”

If your only objective is the destruction of the US offshore oil and gas program, this was a great decision. For everyone else, this is yet another reason to be concerned about our energy future.

Read Full Post »