> Maybe environmental issues?

Amongst others. It's not enough to just dig a hole in the ground, you have to make sure it doesn't seep into the ground as well. In addition, you have the always present risk of fire...

Unfortunately, right now it seems that there is incentive out there for oil to "go missing" for a profit -- presumably at the cost of the environment. I'm curious if anyone is thinking about trying to replace their fracking fluid with oil for a while...

Why don't the producers turn down the output? Does it cost more money to produce less? Is it mutually assured destruction? A game of chicken? This is so weird.

I heard on NPR yesterday that oil producers are concerned that output will be dampened by "turning down the output" because it can make flow rates lower when they reopen.

@recursive, I read here that there are contractual obligations in play. Search for jofer@'s answer.

I mean for a "personal" amount of oil, I suppose a backhoe would do. But, to change the front month price, you have to actually store a significant fraction of world oil production (1-2%?). I don't think a backhoe is going to cut it. Then you have to somehow make sure it doesn't plume into the ground water, which is impossible absent very specific geological features or somehow lining the world's largest open pit mine with an impermeable barrier.

You don't need to change the price, you just need to sell a contract for the future and deliver the oil then.