World Energy Blog

Who’s really setting Energy Policy for Hillary?

9/13/2016 11:25:47 AM

In this election circus one candidate struggles stay on message while the other struggles to stand up.  Much of the swirl around Clinton focuses on her use of a private email server, with the intention of keeping her emails private, even after she left office.  That probably would have worked if it weren’t for the Benghazi debacle and the investigation that uncovered the server. 

This calls into question her judgment, her character, and her willingness to be open about what she is doing while serving the country.  However, while not good judgment, according to the FBI not illegal and for her nothing to worry about.

What should be more troubling is the Clinton Foundation.  For years the foundation has been collecting money and spending that money on the Clintons affording them the lifestyle they have become accustomed to.  Many have tried to make the case that the foundation takes money from countries that are not friendly to women, the LGBT community, and Christians… not to mention Jews.  While all true they fail to point out is that they are also not friendly to our energy business.

Hillary Clinton, through the foundation, has become very close to the Saudi’s, Qatar, Egypt and several other foreign entities that should give us pause.  In her commentary on Energy she tells us that she will move for a “low carbon” solution and not back coal as a fuel source.  She has been anti-fracking, anti the XL Pipeline and anti drilling offshore.  These things are relatively standard for democrats but in her case that will lead to profitability.

Each of these courses will make energy more expensive.  The fracking debate is one that should give each of us pause.  Recently the Saudi’s lowered their oil price to the west in an attempt to achieve market share.  This nearly broke our shale industry, nearly but not quite.  If under a Hillary administration fracking comes under pressure she could effectively finish what the Saudi’s started and put our shale industry out of business.  Good for the Saudi’s and the Clinton Foundation, bad for the rest of America.

At the same time, by shutting down the coal industry our need for natural gas will rise.  However, without the shale gas to make up the difference our natural gas prices will rise dramatically, think 2006 and $14 dollars an Mcf.  While some in the natural gas business would welcome this change, if they were producing from non-fracked wells, the real beneficiary of this move would be Qatar and the Clinton Foundation.  Our ability to export LNG would be greatly reduced and perhaps even reversed, leaving us importing LNG instead of exporting.

Right now, with cheap natural gas and low cost LNG the US is in important position to provide gas to our allies in an offset to what Russia can provide.  If we follow through with Clinton’s policies, Russia wins.  I wonder how many speeches Bill has given in Russia and how much Gazprom has donated to the foundation.

When Hillary was Secretary of State she agreed to keep the foundation at arms length, now we know that arm was Huma Abedin and barely more than a few feet away.  As the President of the United States can we really afford to have someone setting policy, energy policy, which could have an ulterior motive?  Not being a big fan of foreign governments setting US policy I think Trump is right here, the Clinton Foundation needs to be shut down.  At the same time, the Clintons have lived off the largess of these OPEC nations for year; the damage is all ready done.