Look in to government subsidizes given to big oil to drill when oil prices are high reducing the need for coal, and reducing the capital expenditures for renewable energy when place on par with oil the key here is since high capitalization for fracking which is literally scrapping the bottom of the barrel as fracking produces what it call “dirty oil” fracking increases startup costs as it is harder to get too and in most cases at the expense on the environment, the cost to the government (tax payers) “drill baby drill” the consumer “higher energy costs” now that this has driven up the costs to drill for a resource we all know is limited (as with all fossil fuels will run out) dirty oil more to get to, increase cost due to additional refining costs. So doing away with regulations for allowing for subsidizing for oil companies to explore and shifting them to renewable energy sources will off set the capital costs and of course once this phase is over production cost become nominal with room for improvements. Provide major advantages reducing government spending, reducing start up costs or at least on par with fracking reducing production cost once production transition occurs, reducing consumer costs with lower energy cost, vastly reducing environmental impact / foot print. So this is another example of “regulations helping the many at the expense of a few” instead of “the benefit few at the expense of the many and the benefit of a few”. So a mud puddle can be just that a mud puddle because our energy would come from the wind, sun or hydro. geo-thermal. As technologies advance as our knowledge of physics increase we will think of fossil fuels like do of flint tools.