The last barrel

Just when the Middle East was beginning to shine as a bright spot for E&P activity in a depressed global market, the diplomatic spat that erupted between Saudi Arabia and Iran on Jan. 3 has now cast doubt on that image. This came a day after officials in Riyadh executed 47 individuals convicted of terrorism. 

Among those executed was Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, who was held in high regard by the Tehran regime. In response to his execution, large groups of protestors on the night of Jan. 2, and into early Jan. 3, stormed the Saudi embassy in Tehran, as well as the Kingdom’s consulate in Mashhad. The crowd in Tehran threw stones and Molotov cocktails at the embassy, starting a fire in part of the building.

Later on Jan. 3, Saudi officials cut all diplomatic ties with Iran following the embassy attack, and recalled the ambassador and all supporting staff. Simultaneously, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir gave Iranian diplomats and related personnel 48 hours to depart their own embassy in Riyadh. 

A day later, on Jan. 4, Bahrain and Sudan severed diplomatic relations with Iran, while the UAE downgraded relations to the level of charge d’affaires. That same day, Saudi suspended all flights to and from Iran. Finally, on Jan. 5, Kuwait said that it would recall its ambassador from Tehran.

How all of this plays out in the Middle East remains to be seen. Al-Nimr was a central figure in Arab Spring protests by Saudi Arabia’s Shiite minority. His execution sparked some rather outrageous statements from Iranian leaders. On his website, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the execution and said that “divine vengeance will befall the Saudi politicians.” Similarly, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard stated that Saudi Arabia’s “medieval act of savagery” in executing al-Nimr would lead to the “downfall” of the Kingdom’s monarchy.

One has to take these threats seriously. If Iran feels backed into a corner, would it lash out by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, causing chaos in the global oil market? Or, in perhaps a more Machiavellian move, would Tehran try to infiltrate Saudi oil fields, and blow up wells and related installations, which would send oil prices skyward? This latter scenario also could be accomplished simply by lobbing a few missiles into Saudi oil field territory. The possibilities are almost endless. There always is the chance that this entire brouhaha will eventually blow over, but we’ll have to wait and see.

Hillary’s radicalism and nastiness. By now, it should be obvious that this industry cannot afford a Hillary Clinton presidency. On her presidential campaign’s website, she lays out an agenda that smells like a Barack Obama third term. Stating that “climate change is an urgent challenge that threatens all of us,” Clinton urges her supporters to “make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.” 

Clinton says that one of her climate/energy goals is to “have more than half-a-billion solar panels installed across the country by the end of [her] first term.” Yeah, for those flakes out there that think oil fields are an eyesore, just imagine how all those panels are going to defile the landscape. Meanwhile, a second goal is to “generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America within 10 years of Hillary taking office.” That would mean the year, 2027—well, that’s just sheer lunacy, unless one wants to completely wreck the U.S. economy.

Clinton also would “reduce the amount of oil consumed in the U.S. and around the world” (tell that to the Chinese). She would “ensure that fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible (code language for continuing to use the EPA as an attack dog), that taxpayers get a fair deal for development on public lands, and that areas that are too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table.” This statement is an excuse for a potential federal land grab, as well as a massive prohibition of new oil and gas development on public lands, and perhaps on some private lands, too.

Beyond the oil and gas reasons to fight against a Clinton presidency, there are issues of personality and moral character. Back in mid-2014, former investigative reporter Ronald Kessler authored the book, First Family Detail, which examines Secret Service agents’ work to guard American presidents and their families. The book is full of anecdotes about Hillary’s nasty, abusive behavior, some of which were recently profiled in a New York Post opinion piece.

For example, a Secret Service agent once said, “Good morning, ma’am,” in greeting Hillary. Her response was, “f**k off.” Another agent said that “Hillary would cuss at Secret Service drivers for going over bumps.” In one infamous episode, Kessler states that Hillary one day ran into a White House electrician, who was changing a light bulb in the upstairs family quarters. She screamed at him, because she had demanded that all repairs be performed while the Clintons were away. “She was a basket case,” recalled a former assistant White House pastry chef.

It is said that in the White House, Hillary had “a standing rule that no one spoke to her, when she was going from one location to another.” Staffers were expected “to hide behind drapes used as partitions.” Once out of the White House, Clinton was no better. While running for her U.S. Senate seat, she stopped at an upstate 4-H Club. As one agent recalls, Hillary saw farmers and cows, and then had a hissy fit. “She turned to a staffer and said, “What the f**k did we come here for? There’s no money here!”

The implications are obvious—not only is Clinton not fit to be President from an oil and gas perspective, she is certainly not fit from a moral and character angle. This industry must do all it can to ensure her defeat, should she be the 2016 Democratic nominee.  

About the Authors

Kurt Abraham

World Oil

Kurt Abraham kurt.abraham@worldoil.com