I had two reactions.

First, I found it odd that in the entire 2 pages there wasn't a single mention of any sort of environmental or health downside to shale oil extraction (the strip mining and toxic chemical ponds, etc.) or of fracking, or carbon emissions and thus no mention of the relationship between fossil fuels and what the overwhelming majority of scientists are saying is a climate change crisis. Even though they clearly cited the increase in fracking and shale oil as a big component in the global oil shift. Instead, just a focus on the money upside for various producers and geostrategic implications like Iran/Hormuz.

Second, I saw what I've come to expect in the comments below the post, on their site. I have this theory that there are rightwing groups that pay for people to astroturf (sometimes called sock puppets) by posting comments at the bottom of articles on major media websites. Because so many of them seem too well organized, hit too many buzzwords and talking points, as if all following the same script but given a little leeway to improvise. The ridiculous demonizing of Obama backed up by nothing specific, the apparent total naivete and ignorance about the shared positive health purpose of the EPA specifically and government regulations in general (hint: they're not out to oppress oil companies and rednecks, they're out to hopefully minimize the amount that fellow citizens, perhaps even one's own family or neighbors (or potential customers!), get sick and die from toxic pollution. Or to prevent the killing off of entire ecosystems needed for plants, insects and animals to live, creatures that we in turn depend on for our own survival.) If astroturfing IS truly happening, and there was a technical means of preventing it, and I had the power to do it, I would make it impossible. It worsens our society. Swamps signal with noise. Reduces our ability to trust others, etc. If such comments are NOT astroturfing, then it's depressing to think that with our current voting system in the US, everyone's vote is weighed exactly the same. Whether a logical thinker or not. Whether well read in history or ignorant. Whether you know a lot about human health or very little, a lot about biology or nothing. Whether you picked your beliefs out of thin air one day or arrived at positions after many years of careful observation and analysis: doesn't matter, all votes count the same and can cancel each other out. And then if an election can be split along some other line, perhaps more superficial, abstract or emotional issue or false dichotomy ("gubmint bad, Bible good!"), our voting process is cheapened even further.

But yeah, the US getting less oil from Mideast and/or OPEC is good. Still needing it is bad. But since the piece was written in such a way that it seemed to be carefully tip-toeing around saying anything that could be construed as "renewable good, fossil bad" or "pollution is bad" one can't help but suspect they wanted to stay on the good side of various people in the oil industry. Perhaps they weren't ass-kissing the oil industry. Perhaps they just wanted to focus. But why would you focus on the more trivial aspects, and leave out the elephant(s) in the room?