Yes but think of the timeframes and the scope. Increasing energy independence is a relatively recent phenomenon - say the last decade? Geopolitical "investments" aren't traded quickly precisely because they're not supposed to be so transparently viewed as merely an investment in resources. The perception of things is still important which means such support can't be withdrawn in the short term. (Edit: so yes, I do agree, but...)

The US may well be largely energy independent but a large number of significant client states within its sphere of influence are not. The viability of those client states goes directly to the global effectiveness of US hegemony.