Exxon Mobil under its CEO Rex Tillerson frequently pressed the U.S. State Department for help in negotiating complex business deals and overcoming foreign opposition to its drilling projects, according to documents reviewed by The Intercept.
The requests for help — documented in diplomatic cables obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from DeSmogBlog as well as some previously released by Wikileaks — raise a whole new series of conflict-of-interest concerns about Tillerson, who retired as Exxon Mobil CEO soon after being nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to be the next secretary of state.
Consider: Exxon Mobil sent State Department officials a request to help overcome local opposition to fracking in Germany; in Indonesia, the State Department acted as a advocate for Exxon Mobil during contentious negotiations between the firm and the Indonesian government over a major gas field in the South China Sea; and in Russia, Exxon Mobil asked the U.S. ambassador to press the Russians to approve a major drilling program, noting that a “warming of U.S.-Russian relations” overall would also help the company.
Under the leadership of Hillary Clinton, the State Department started its own in-house energy promotion department, the Bureau of Energy Resources. The team works on a variety of energy projects, but its most high-profile programs have been focused on spurring the worldwide spread of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) technology, with the hope that doing so would blunt the influence of certain foreign powers. The Bureau’s Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program (formerly the Global Shale Gas Initiative) has in the past engaged with Exxon Mobil for projects in Poland and eastern Europe.
“In theory,” said Stephen Kretzmann, the executive director of Oil Change International, “the U.S. State Department is supposed to promote American values and human rights around the world, but in practice that often comes into conflict with an agenda to ensure access for American firms to new markets and reserves.”
In reality, said Dan Beeton, international communications director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research,”generally, the U.S. promotes ‘stability’ abroad, rather than democracy or human rights — stability that benefits U.S. businesses.”
Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2017, at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Germany
In a cable sent on August 26, 2011, titled “ExxonMobil Request USG Help on Shale Gas Investment,” a State Department official noted that “shale gas development in Germany appears to be grinding to a halt in response to a vigorous campaign by the environmental lobby.”
Popular opposition to fracking was widespread in Germany at the time. A 2014 paper by German academics titled, “‘ExxonMobil in Europe’s Shale Gas Fields: Quitting Early or Fighting It Out?” described Exxon Mobil as the “most prominent target for environmental groups and new grassroots initiatives.” That paper also detailed how the company launched an expensive full-fledged public relations and advertising campaign in the attempt to win public trust. Berlin’s national daily newspaper Tageszeitung denounced Exxon’s actions as creating a “pseudo-dialogue” which was both “cosmetic” and “manipulative.”
The State Department cable explained it this way: “Exxon Mobil is meeting with opposition groups as part of its own education campaign, but would like the USG to make a direct appeal to the German government in hopes of breaking the logjam.”
Exxon Mobil, the memo also noted, had recommended an “action plan” that included reports on the benefits of shale gas, guest speakers coming to Germany from U.S. government agencies, and a formal lobbying appeal to German officials.
Whether State acted upon the recommendations is unclear; the foreign service officer who authored the memo, now retired, did not respond to a request for comment. Several other diplomatic cables referencing the State Department’s involvement in Germany during this period are heavily redacted. Exxon Mobil was ultimately stymied, however: the German government banning fracking in June 2016.
“The behavior of Exxon Mobil in Germany shows pretty clearly that the global oil and gas industry tries at the moment everything it can do to torpedo the necessary efforts towards a much needed energy transition,” said Andy Gheorghiu, a policy advisor for Food and Water Europe.
Russia
A February 2009 cable published by Wikileaks shows Exxon Mobil asking then-U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle to intervene on its behalf and speak to the Russian government about its then-stalled offshore drilling project in a major oil and gas field to the east of Russia called Sakhalin.
“Exxon Mobil [officials] told the Ambassador on January 31 that GOR [Government of Russia] refusal to approve project budgets has halted development of new Sakhalin 1 fields,” reads the cable. Kremlin officials, perhaps motivated by anti-American sentiment, were blocking approval of a budget needed to move forward with the project until a Russian entity took control of 51 percent of the deal.
Exxon Mobil officials hoped that the incoming Obama administration could persuade the Russians to change course on the project. The president of Exxon Mobil’s Russian operation and its Sakhalin project manager “told the Ambassador they believed a warming of U.S.-Russian relations could help reverse the refusal to approve the Sakhalin 1 budget,” and “asked the Ambassador for USG support in pressing the GOR to act on the matter. ”
In May 2009, the Sakhalin 1 consortium agreed to sell 20 percent of the gas extracted from the field to Russia’s state-owned company Gazprom, and production continued.
Other cables released by Wikileaks suggest Exxon Mobil pushed for better U.S.-Russia relations to advance its business interests.
One 2007 cable noted that Russian-based executives of Exxon Mobil and other U.S. firms met with Under Secretary of State Reuben Jeffery III in Moscow and argued that “the best way to engage Russia and enhance global energy security is to focus on positive dialogue geared towards helping Russia improve its oil and gas investment climate.” Russia, the oil firms noted, “is about to embark on a new era of oil and gas development in areas (East Siberia and Arctic regions) that cannot be exploited without Western technologies and expertise.”
Tillerson’s ties to Russia — which center around the joint venture he signed in 2011 as the CEO of Exxon Mobil with Russian state-owned company Rosneft to drill for oil on the Arctic shelf — have been a source of controversy. After the signing, Tillerson was presented with an “Order of Friendship” award from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Indonesia
In 2007, during a dispute over the Natuna gas fields in the South China Sea, the State Department relayed Exxon Mobil’s concerns to the Indonesian government about the government’s attempts to change the terms of previous agreement between Exxon Mobil and the Indonesia state-owned company Pertamina. The new Indonesian demands, as described in a diplomatic cable about “resource nationalism” in the country, included more favorable financial terms for the Indonesians, as well as giving “Pertamina personnel the skills and knowledge to function as a real exploration and production company.”
Then-U.S. ambassador to Indonesia, B. Lynn Pascoe, a separate diplomatic cable about the Exxon Mobil negotiations noted, backed Exxon Mobil’s position privately in talks with Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla.
After Pascoe relayed Exxon Mobil’s issues with Indonesia’s demands, Kalla replied that the firm had three months to come to “acceptable terms or else the bloc would be put out for a new public tender.” Kalla also noted that he had discussed the issue with then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, making the case that “in order for democracy to work in developing countries, they had to have economic opportunities or else they would go backwards.”
The cable continues: “The Ambassador replied that changing agreements signaled risks for outside investors. Kalla rejoined that politically it was impossible to back the original contract: opponents of the government would call to support a future radical president, citing the success of Presidents Chavez in Venezuela or Morales in Bolivia. If the current agreement were implemented the GOI would be open to charges that they allowed a ‘bad’ U.S. company to cheat Indonesia of its wealth. How could the government respond? A response in favor of the U.S. firm could be much more costly down the line. The Ambassador replied that foreign businessmen looked to Kalla to understand the important role that business plays in society. There had been previous cases from a few years ago of businesses subject to arbitrary actions and that Indonesia’s reputation needs still to recover from such events.”
In the following years, Pertamina and Exxon Mobil reached a new agreement, making the U.S. firm its main partner for the Natuna gas fields.
The Natuna fields contain massive natural gas reserves, a potentially lucrative development that could feed the growing economies of the region. But the area is also fraught with geopolitical tension, as the Chinese government has claimed an overlapping area of the South China Sea. China has increasingly focused its military buildup in the region in part to gain access to oil and gas fields.
Tillerson, during his confirmation hearings last week, sharply condemned China’s recent move to build artificial islands in the South China Sea, comparing it to “Russia’s taking of Crimea.” He added that, “we’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”
Tillerson’s aggressive posture toward China — one that risks open conflict — highlights how decisions he makes could be influenced by Exxon Mobil’s drilling interests in the South China Sea. The firm not only maintains a relationship with Indonesia, but also signed an agreement with a Vietnamese state-owned firm for a drilling concern in a disputed area of the South China Sea.
In his ethics letter sent to officials earlier this month, Tillerson wrote that he would not participate in any significant decisions relating to Exxon Mobil for a period of one year.
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., however, said such a short exclusion period is insufficient during his confirmation hearing on Thursday. “You could be secretary of state for four years, or for eight years,” said Markey. “You, in my opinion, are going to have many, many issues after that one year period is up that relates to the economic interests of Exxon Mobil.”
Though Exxon Mobil’s worldwide drilling operations and issues around recusal were discussed repeatedly during the confirmation hearings, the State Department’s own direct involvement with Exxon Mobil was not mentioned.
Top photo: Protesters hold a placard with the words “Stop Fracking” during a demonstration near Langeneck, Germany, in February 2011.
Good reporting wherever this originated from. I’m all for this new administration but this appears to be a significant conflict of interest!
Having read the article and the comments so far, it just seems to me that the old model (possibly just an imagined view by the uninformed) of foreign policy and diplomacy is moving to the new model – which is, yea we are corrupt and why bother hiding it anymore.
It is not about philosophic concepts about right and wrong or truth and justice – but simply about what the USA can and cannot due with its’ sheer power – either through money or the military or both – to keep its’ sheer power.
Simpler not to bother (or getting more difficult) hiding it,? Yes.
The problems arise thou when the masses see that they are bearing the burden and will rise up and kill the 1% who is oppressing them. When 100’s of thousands of people rise up – there is no weapon that can stop their fury.
Yea, best to keep trying to hide the corruption – money does not do you much good when the vast majority of the masses want your head.
Uk_naziland is going ahead with all that is wrong with big-business currently. The barmy spending on new nuclear weapons, the effective genocide of a foreign nation or total annihilation of Earth. The maddening agreement to give nearly double price electricity too a french company for a new power station deal. Fracking been okay’d bi-passing local government & public decision making. Frankly this mrs-may is coming across as a fascist dictator and with the disbandment of the uk environmental agency she now places ruining the country ahead of future generations health & happiness. Because she hasn’t got any children to inherit the dismal dystopian years ahead. We have hundreds of thousands of new shite homes been built who’ll end up in the hands of the rich as usual. Meaning newly enslaved renters are burdened with paying for someone else’s mortgage & third/fourth homes. Literally I hate bricks&mortar as its impossible to ever see myself gaining stability through ownership. We might aswell tarmac over the countryside as that is how these scumbag londoners see growth taking precedent, never again to see green belt & nature.
As I read through the article and comments, I note only one person used the word “corrupt”. When the SCOTUS
made it’s corrupt Citizens United decision, it not only gave corporations personhood, it declared ‘corruption” a legal process. In the words of other commenters: Business as usual. While this is hardly news, at least there was a time when some effort was made to hide it.
This article reminded me of one of my favorite movie scenes.
“The world is a business”. (Exxon gets a mention)
https://youtu.be/8jIw22XXSso
Some reasons why Democrats questioning Tillerson would be reluctant to bring up the State Department’s role in ExxonMobil’s business plans:
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/oil-companies-donated-clinton-foundation-while-lobbying-state-department-2348832
Gosh, why didn’t the FBI investigate that obvious example of pay-to-play bribery during the Clinton-Sanders primary?
The request to actually partner productively with countries permitting extraction of natural resources is reasonable but likely to be ignored and/or denied by companies looking to minimize competition as much as possible. Where forced they will yield, as they did in their sale to Gazprom. But where they can force countries to yield to their demands or see resources lie fallow they will ruthlessly pit governments against the wishes of their own populations. Germany has the resources to tell them to take a long hike off a short fracking pad. I doubt Indonesia was able to maintain similar control when they negotiated the new agreement over the Natuna fields. Of course, if we end up going to war with China on behalf of Exxon in coming years, any skills/output nationalized by Indonesia may very well be for naught as they will be smack in the middle of that conflict, with all the consequences that implies.
The sooner we get off fossil fuels the better. :-s
OT – A couple of typos/errors that need attention:
Under the Indonesia header:
Replace first “m” with “n” in ExxonMobile. And a bit further down in the third paragraph of the same section the word “with” is duplicated.
Thanks for this article Lee and Steve. With all the hullabaloo over Russia going on a lot of people seem to be ignoring the very real and present danger of conflict with China over resources that the US is trying very hard to turn into massive amounts of profit for people who don’t give a damn about the consequences because they never truly suffer from them.
ExxonMobil’s record in Equatorial Guinea’s dictatorship is instructive, on several levels. The country’s offshore wells were a huge part of Exxon’s business, but it was run by a repressive dictator, Obiang, with a Saudi-like record on human rights, that the US was reluctant to directly support. The complex machinations set up to protect Obiang involved ExxonMobil, Washington lobbyists, the CIA, Israeli arms dealers, and the U.S. State Department and explain a lot:
Source: Steve Coll’s “Private Empire of ExxonMobil” (now in paperback)
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13372977-private-empire
“[Equatorial Guinea] produced 450,000 barrels of oil per day, and American oil companies, including ExxonMobil, had invested about $13 billion that would be at risk if Obiang fell from power or stopped trying to curry favor in Washington.”
“In 2002, Obiang had detained and tried dozens of alleged plotters on treason charges. The poor standards of the trial were one reason why the State Department had so far refused Obiang’s pleading for a license to hire MPRI, the Virginia-based security firm, to train his police and military.”
“If ExxonMobil’s Washington office, or those of Hess and Marathon, “oiled” Obiang’s efforts to win favor from the Bush administration by becoming too directly involved . . .it would only discredit Equatorial Guinea further. Obiang reached out to two of the most successful lobbying firms in Bush’s Washington: Barbour Griffith & Rogers and Cassidy & Associates.”
“Separately, and even more quietly, the Bush administration encouraged Obiang to develop a commercial and security partnership with Israel, whose military and internal security specialists had developed a global business out of selling advisory, training, intelligence collection, electronic surveillance and arms supplies to small, weak regimes in difficult places.”
“In 2005, around the time the CIA opened an intelligence liaison with Obiang’s security service, a Mossad officer approached Ruben Maya, Obiang’s national security adviser. . . By 2009, the Israelis had sold Equatorial Guinea electronic surveillance equipment and taken orders for armed speedboats, to be delivered by 2011. . . Some international diplomats in Malabo felt the Israeli trainers were not particularly helpful to their efforts to coax Obiang and his advisers towards political reform and the elimination of torture as a policing method.”
“As long as these security arrangements remained secret, and ran on bureaucratic autopilot in Washington, the United States seemed prepared to deepen its partnership with [Equatorial Guinea]. The difficulty was, every so often, news reporting or investigations by human rights groups would turn up fragmentary information about the growing security ties, and the disclosures would provoke angry denunciations by members of Congress or human rights advocates. . . Fortunately for Obiang, African governments rolling in oil but lacking in arms and intelligence to defend their bounty had a discrete alternative to the Pentagon and the CIA for defense support: Israel.”
Of course, Exxon didn’t just work with Bush Republicans; they happily switched over to Team Obama after 2008:
“After millions of dollars of expenditures on Washington lobbyists, Equatorial Guinea’s president, Teodoro Obiang, managed for the first time to have his picture taken at the side of an American counterpart: Barak Obama, who agreed to pose with Obiang. . . Obama’s adminstration continued to license military and police trainers to support Obiang’s regime. . . ”
“Cohen [Exxon’s PR chief] authorized contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative, to advance and publicize ExxonMobil’s global programs on woman’s rights. . . In Washington, Fariello [Exxon’s top lobbyist] invited State Department officials, ambassadors, congressional staff, and other influential arrivals to Obama’s administration to hear ExxonMobil’s energy futures briefing, its gospel of 2030.”
The old story of public assets used for private profit.
Repubs and Demos are about the same, because the same 1% buy them both.
without discounting the all too cozy relationship between government and the oil industry, and everything that implies or demonstrates, Production Sharing Agreements within the oil industry are a common means of making oil exploration and exploitation feasible in areas around the world where the technical and financial resources needed might otherwise be lacking. many state-run oil companies in the former Eastern Block countries found themselves sitting on significant oil prospects with no way to develop them.
it isn’t really feasible to see these deals between operators (who are large enough to front the costs) and foreign governments taking place without some US government involvement. the problem, of course, with such a relationship between people like Tillerson and the State Department might be seen as a knock-on effect.
again, none of this is intended to suggest that we disregard the anti-democratic results of this dynamic, but as far as the actors directly involved are concerned, this is quite literally business as usual.
again, none of this is intended to suggest that we disregard the anti-democratic results of this dynamic, but as far as the actors directly involved are concerned, this is quite literally business as usual.
The only real difference is that we now seem to be more directly dispensing with the fig leaf of intermediaries that used to be supplied by having non-CEOs in the governmental controlling positions. Not that it was all that big of a leaf. They are moving up the ladder from controlling regulators to controlling the highest levers of government. I wonder how long it will take lobbyists to realize that they may soon be nearly completely obsolete. :-s
isn’t that what Trump’s ascendency has represented across the board? the two metaphors that i keep seeing are a removal of the fig leaves and holding up a mirror. nothing that Trump has done or proposed is really that big a departure from what has been “business as usual” for at least a number of generations. he just doesn’t care to dress it up.
nothing that Trump has done or proposed is really that big a departure from what has been “business as usual” for at least a number of generations. he just doesn’t care to dress it up.
Yes. The Emperors haven’t had fig leaves, or clothes, in a very long time. And therein lies a large source of past and continuing contention between people who refused to vote for Clinton once she clinched the nomination because they were sick of the democratic party’s raggedy fig leaves and the people who refused to vote for Trump and supported Clinton because raggedy fig leaves are still enough to cover their own degenerating futures.
Republicans have never really had much of a veneer covering their intentions. Their objections to Trump were always more about the fact that he rejects even the most ephemeral efforts at camouflage than they were about actual policy differences. That became apparent once he won. The only pockets of adversarial activity that still exist in those establishment groups are within the ones he still proposes to thwart, such as the CIA. It will be interesting to see how these remaining skirmishes develop.
Now wait a minute. As far as the State Department goes, there is a huge difference between helping out business, as in the past, and being run by a business man who has no apparent interest in its other functions at all, especially with a man at the top of it all who knows nothing about anything but pretends to be the world’s best businessman. Look, what the has mostly done is to make money off the failure of other people’s investments. Be very suspicious of someone who fails in the casino business, especially when he had trouble getting loans because it was already apparent that he was over building. There are terrible analogies to this in world affairs just waiting to happen.
i agree, to a point. there may be a difference between a statesman who serves parochial business interests and a businessman serving in state office . . . maybe?
but i wouldn’t say it was HUGE!
The revolving door is stuck, however, according to Washingtonpost.com:
” ‘Never Trump’ national-security Republicans fear they have been blacklisted”
Based on his crop of appointees and their corporate origins, I wouldn’t say the door is stuck at all. It just now has a very YUGE doorman carefully checking loyalty credentials before allowing entry.
p`ska
Are we talk’n, Rerun` huge?!
(:^)-{-<\:
skate`dude
https://youtu.be/Xka0KBGI4vU
The bottom line of neoliberal/neocon corruption and elite self interest that is not aligned with either US or Global humanity is bottoming out. It has and will damaged environmental and human quality of life. Pray we do not get something even worse, it is about even money.
The CIA is an evil expression of american corporate power.
It creates/offers nothing of value for real human beings at all.
It kills, tortures, bombs and starves to death millions of innocent human beings in the name of american corporate interests. Exxon is just one of their clients.
The elimination of just the CIA would be a great blessing for all of humanity.
In my mind I keep replaying the killing of the Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Oz.
Whatever the neoliberal/neocon establishment planned in their decades long world domination schemes, by opening the door of incredible Executive power to unilaterally wage wars and direct national resources to that end, they seem truly terrified by the outsider walking through that door now.
And whatever happens it’s not the fault of Russia or Comey or hackers or Bernie liberals or critics, but especially not the fault of journalists asking tough questions and speaking truth to power. This is a new world order on a road to imploding because of its blatant corruption and hypocrisy – in everything.
People still keep calling that billionaire tax thief and friend of the GOP (public #NeverWhatshisface façades notwithstanding) an “outsider”. I pity them.
The world needs better options to oil and coal. Bush Jr. tried to give us Hydrogen Cars, but Obama killed it. People are struggling to create LFTR nuclear reactors, but there is no real interest in Washington to fix things.
Intellectually and morally, America is a spent force. It will be up to other nations to fix things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3sMnWrHeXg
So,
what this article is really saying is that the appointment of Tillerson
is a continuation of the democrat’s policies
which are
just like the republican’s policies.
Trump and Clinton are the same kind of lousy corporate agents.
None of this surprises me in the least.
In other news: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/01/15/nuscale-first-to-submit-smr-nuclear-application-to-nrc/#46d098e1135a
Interesting link. I still want to see LFTR developed. This SMR apparently still uses only a fraction of the nuclear fuel leaving the rest as waste, relies on highly pressurized water and can’t burn nuclear waste materials.
Here is an interesting link on Hydrogen cars. It posits the use of lithium-6 deuteride to store the hydrogen. The hydrogen can be delivered in a form usable by most internal combustion engines, but the technology is being restricted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3GDjVskYIs
I’ll admit to ignorance in regards to these SMR technical troubles you bring up, but the Forbes article was the only bit of good news regarding energy production I’ve run across in quite awhile.
Perhaps the restrictions you mention will someday be overcome, but in the meantime, I recommend a sailboat. ;)
Due to a very slow intenet connection, I’ve not watched your full Youtube link yet. Will get back to you.
When you get a better connection check out Thorium based LFTR reactors. It also helps prevent nuclear weapon proliferation which is why the US didn’t pursue it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
Aha, the use of hydride, restricted by the government because it’s an ingredient in nukes.
Thought maybe it was GM/Ford, etc.doing the restricting. Not that they’d have anything do do with that, of course.
I’m off to build my very own particle accelerator.
Lithium- 6 makes up at most 5% of the lithium on the planet.
it could never be economically feasible for automobile use.
You can manufacture it. It was in the video.
“You can manufacture {Li-6].”
Not without massive expense. It is laughable to say he built his own accelerator (what he has looks like a Van de Graaff generator) to make his own Li-6 that he then made into hydride.
Misdirection. He said he built it with an accelerator. He didn’t say he built it with that equipment ( or even that the equipment shown was an accelerator). Doesn’t want people to know where it came from or who helped.
Probably a ‘toping party.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED3qoGEiWcU
The title of this article is confusing.
Notice how it says that the business needed to ask permission from the foreign affairs department.
In a normal world, one would do business with anyone else wanting to do business – it’s called trade. But since the elected dumb&dumbers need to be needed, the dumb&dumbers decided that interfering with B2B and B2C economies was necessary.
For sure, the sale of weapons and other items of devastation and destruction do indeed need special permissions – that is a good thing. However the foreign policy dumbers have managed to so invest themselves, normal responsible grownup relationships are replaced with the parent child superior subordinate model at a costs of more than your average extortion racket.
So an oil company had to interface with the state department – gee by golly by gosh. Had the company not, the headlines here would instead read – EXXON VIOLATES LAW CRIMINALLY WITHOUT GETTING STATE DEPT PERMISSIONS.
Ever done exporting? scary. try it.
yadda yadda yadda
Even if they didn’t insert themselves into every possible nook and cranny, why would it be a big deal for a company to ask the State Department to make a call or recommend something? The State Department is certainly free to tell Exxon to cram it, aren’t they?
The diplomatic cables released by Manning via Wikileaks clearly documented that the State Department is the marketing arm of USA Inc. So I fail to understand the concern about a conflict of interest. Isn’t everybody on the same side?
“Lee Raymond [Exxon CEO before Tillerson] regarded the State Department as not particularly helpful to ExxonMobil. . . America’s career diplomats did not understand international business very well . . They often did not know enough detail to be constructive, and they did not appreciated the need for strict confidentiality, he concluded. . . That did not mean ExxonMobil never asked State for favors; it only meant that the corporation’s demands for Bush administration intervention were erratic, inconsistent and influenced by Raymond’s access to back channels with Cheney and other officials he regarded as sophisticated and reliable.”
During the Obama administration, ExxonMobil developed similar back channels with the likes of Hillary Clinton via large donations to the Clinton Global Initiative.
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/oil-companies-donated-clinton-foundation-while-lobbying-state-department-2348832
This explains the decline of the State Department. To succeed, any business has to keep its best customers satisfied.
Putting Mr. Tillerson at the helm shows the State Department realizes its mistake and is trying to rectify it.