However, I think a more accurate description of your attitude would be to say that "this is a Trump backed initiative and [so I am presuming that] his motivations for less reporting are FAR more sinister". I think it is a mistake to presume that anything that is backed by Trump must therefore be sinister, even if some things are.

DTB,

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion.

However, if one took a poll of informed voters asking whether Trump's proposal was for the better good of the USA or for his own better good, my opinion is that the latter would be the overwhelming result.

As Buffett once noted, you can't make a good deal with a bad person.

We're now learning that again in what Paul Krugman calls Operation Epic FUBAR. In a Reuters newsletter today, they report that 17% of Qatar's LNG capacity has been damaged, with repairs taking 5 years. Shell's Qatar natural gas to liquids (140 kb/d) will be out for a year. The Exxon-Aramco refinery located at Saudi's only fuel export plan has been attacked. Ditto in Kuwait.

Any projections that O&G prices will return to normal in weeks is simply wrong. The results of this war will impact prices from years to decades. The Middle East "let each other alone" O&G peace has been shattered.

Based on Trump's track record of negative results, proven lies, and the quality of people he has put heading key administration positions, why would one expect anything different on the reporting proposal under consideration?