I would say I had a couple of thoughts reading the article. Thanks for posting it.
1. This is a primary function of government, to help markets develop where they might not otherwise form because of high upfront costs, inefficiencies, short-sightedness, and lack of standards. Perfect role for govt. and given the strategic nature of energy (see US Iraq expeditions, China resource buys, etc.), this looks like a critically needed project.
2. Restricting exports from government land probably doesn't do much as supplies are somewhat fungible (at least within a gathering area) and there are enough supplies outside of government lands to export, which has the same impact of restricting domestic supply.
3. Arguing the US should restrict exports because of impacts on other businesses smacks of price controls and will likely have the impact of causing drilling to slow and shut-ins to increase. This might be a worthy strategic goal of the US (leave our resources intact) while others' get burned, but it smacks too much of self-interested politics and is why the US is going bankrupt - broken political process with each side supporting its own interests
4. This one intended as a partial joke: Article says prices would rise with exports or with production halts. Heck, can't we order them to produce? Doesn't that fix all problems. We need more central planning. NOT!
Jon
