Kamala Harris’ seemingly smooth-talking on the debate stage about fracking and oil production has energy experts wondering whether her administration has really changed its perspective.

“Given that she supports net zero emissions — it’s on every letterhead, every executive order — you can’t infer that she supports fracking,” Gabriella Hoffman, executive director of the Independent Women’s Forum Center for Energy and Conservation, told Fox News Digital on Wednesday.

“She was kind of caveat-emptor in her non-answer by saying that what we have encouraged is a lot of leasing,” she continued, “and that shows me and other observers in the energy sector that they are not really inviting a culture… I think it is politically opportunistic.”

During the ABC News presidential debate on Tuesday night, Harris was asked by one of the moderators a question about her being torn between her first and second candidacies about fracking — or hydraulic fracturing.

JUDGE’S DECISION COULD END CORRUGATED FILM PRODUCTION: ‘DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS,’ SENATOR WARNS

The vice president responded that her “values ​​haven’t changed” on the issue, that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) “has opened up new concessions for fracking” and that the Biden-Harris White House has seen “the largest increase in domestic oil production in history.”

Vice President Kamala Harris gave a “non-answer” on her position on fracking and oil production, Gabriella Hoffman, director of the Independent Womens Forum Center for Energy and Conservation, told Fox News Digital. (Getty Images)

Hoffman cited data from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management showing that there has been a massive decline in the number of acres offered for oil and gas concessions each year under President Biden, compared to the first three years of the Trump administration.

“The question is what largely triggers production. I think people forget that, including the vice president,” the energy executive explained. “The reason Vice President Harris is pushing Biden to increase production and keep it going is because there are (checks and balances) in other actions that you see coming from the regulatory side, from rulemaking.”

“President Biden said he would ban fossil fuels, but he couldn’t because of checks and balances. I see the opposite happening. She’s saying this to see if she can win in Pennsylvania, because she knows fracking is a very sensitive issue,” she added.

Fracking refers to the drilling process used to extract natural gas from the ground. They primarily remove sand and water to access the supply, using only about an eighth of an acre of land, Hoffman said.

Her policy center also reportedly tracked the number of new federal onshore and offshore oil concessions each year, saying there are “fewer” new concessions now than at the end of Trump’s term.

“The IRA is a boon to so-called green energy, namely large-scale solar and wind. And so that was chosen over oil and gas. And while there may have been some protections for it,” she noted, “it sits on existing oil and gas leases, and it doesn’t invite new oil and gas leases.”

“If the Biden-Harris administration were really overseeing the greatest production of oil and gas in history, they wouldn’t be tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is an emergency reserve. They wouldn’t be calling on Venezuela, OPEC, other countries… to increase production so we can buy from them. We wouldn’t be seeing higher prices at the pump and on our energy bills if such an event were to occur.”

“But as I said, because it’s driven by supply and demand and despite the regulations we have, you’re seeing this continued production on existing leases, not new ones.”

While former President Trump was a proponent of conservation and energy during his time in office, Hoffman believes he failed to make that clear during last night’s debate.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

“He has not had the opportunity to show why he needs a sensible, balanced, environmentally conscious approach to energy production. He has also created many recreational opportunities and opened up more public lands to other possibilities, even beyond oil and gas production,” the IWF energy chief said.

“He should have emphasized that more. I thought that was a missed opportunity, but I hope that in a future debate he can emphasize that a pro-energy agenda also allows you to be pro-conservationist on federal land. He missed an opportunity.”

READ MORE FROM FOX BUSINESS