I found the argument reasonable. My summary of this article would more read: it would be hugely super expensive to explore this plan, there are many unknown ass

I found the argument reasonable. My summary of this article would more read: it would be hugely super expensive to explore this plan, there are many unknown assumptions, at this point the technology is not sufficient due to the depth of the magma and quantity of water required, and VEI8 explosions actually don't typically lead to mass extinction anyways. I personally give more weight to opinions from those with stronger backgrounds in geology. Things I would add: Yellowstone is in an extremely rural area, so transmission costs and infrastructure would have to be considered in any geothermal project. Yellowstone the park attracts four million people a year now, making up a significant portion of Wyoming's GDP, and geysers are a big reason for this; mucking with this ecosystem should be done cautiously. Aside from aesthetics, there are some potentially very valuable insights on life and science that are perhaps possible within a protected geyser ecosystem. To give an example, this thermophilic bacteria's enzyme plays a very important role in PCR DNA amplification, and it was discovered in Yellowstone's Lower Geyser Basin -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermus_aquaticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermus_aquaticus The other thing I see is that there are many other volcanic systems out there. So as far as the risk of a supervolcano explosion is concerned, I'm not sure how much reducing one potential VEI8 explosive zone matters from a humanity risk perspective. Taupo actually has had 3 VEI8s in 1 million years compared to just 1 in Yellowstone. The worst VEI8 explosion in the last million years (as far as ejecta) was not Yellowstone, but Lake Toba. Other than Taupo and Yellowstone, most of the other VEI8 explosions seem to be at pretty random locations, so it seems like mitigating all supervolcano risk from drilling projects would be difficult. One can argue that doing something is better than nothing, but the cost / benefit ratio might be quite a lot better with things explained in the article like seed banks (which would protect from multiple disaster types occurring in any location, not just one volcanic one).