Both candidates have negative attitudes toward energy production or trade

Fuel Fix:

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton supports stricter regulations on the energy sector than does her Republican opponent, but Donald Trump’s desire to tear up international treaties also would hurt the oil, gas and petrochemical industries, according to a report from Moody’s Investor Service.

Both candidates oppose the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership, which if scuttled could hamper trade with Asia, the report said. And Trump’s plan to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement would further hurt the oil industry, according to Moody’s.

“A renegotiation of NAFTA, as proposed by Trump, would be credit-negative for the oil industry,” the report stated. For instance, about one-third of U.S. petroleum imports come from Canada. “Consequently, in the event that trade agreements were renegotiated, there would be potential for disruption in petroleum product imports, an important source of supply.”

Likewise, nearly 40 percent of U.S. petroleum exports go to Canada and Mexico. Introducing tariffs would hurt U.S. refiners and oil producers, the report said.

“For the chemical industry, any material change to international trade arrangements with China would likely have a modest negative effect, because specific commodities or specialty chemicals could be targeted in retaliation for any trade barriers,” the report added.
...

Clinton's policies would be worse for energy production and Trump's would be worse for trade.  On the production side, Trump would loosen some restrictions on drilling on federally controlled sites.  That should lessen the need for imports, but his trade policies could negatively effect export trade too.