He doesn't go into this argument, explicitly, in his video, but one thing most people (including governments and voters) do not understand, is that private owners have an incentive to raise the price of oil very rapidly, in order to trigger the subsidies and tax breaks (another form of subsidy, as it means more of the consumer-paid price goes to the resource owners).

If we allow the consumer prices to rise and naturally reduce demand, then that is _bad_ for the owners, as reduced demand for energy is usually "sticky". People who use less energy, in a crisis, often achieve that by making changes to their lives, lifestyles, and even simply their mindsets, that don't immediately return to their former state, after the crisis is over. That means that producers have a natural incentive to cushion their consumers from price shocks and _swallow the loss, themselves_.

If they cannot cushion their consumers, it means that the resource is persistently and dramatically scarce and that means _demand must go down_.

Any attempt to directly intervene in the price destroys the market signal. We need the market signal to effectively and efficiently distribute the resources.