No real argument there except that (1) the oil depletion allowance is not a subsidy, instead it is an accurate accounting measure of a declining asset. (2) 86% of out total energy consumption (including electrical power) comes from fossil fuels; just under 9% from nuclear; and the rest mostly from dams. Other renewables are under 1% of the total (even though we, along with China, are the world's leading producer of wind power).
EPA appears determined to shut down the 22% of the total that comes from coal. How will we replace it? We could double our consumption of natural gas (it is currently about equal to coal), but we both know what that will involve. There's no prospect of renewables doing the job, and the paralysis in the permitting process effectively allows only gas turbine plants to be built - and them only reluctantly.
We live in a world of imperfect alternatives. Which would you choose?
By the way, as I'm sure you know, nuclear power alone includes most life cycle costs in its current rates, and is still cheaper than coal or (barely) gas. Utilities must prefund plant decommissioning and cleanup during their active operations, and are still taxed by the Feds for the design and construction of a permanent fuel repository (even though they have already paid for Yucca Mountain and the government has no alternative plan).