The vast majority of it was stored underground as petrochemicals. A fact made immediately apparent by looking at like any chart. Is this a serious conversation?

In the vast majority of cases that energy could have come from other sources, though the cost would have been somewhat higher. In the hypothetical case of solar would you still describe it as being finite or stripped from the natural commons? I suppose raw land area or 1 AU solar sphere surface area could be viewed that way but it seems reductionist to me.

What if I use what would otherwise be a waste product to create something people are willing to pay for? For example sawdust. Is that not value creation?

Are you really positing that America's wealth is due to petrochemicals?

Consider Japan, for example. No petrochemicals. No natural resources. Economic powerhouse.

Consider Russia. Floating on oil. Not a wealthy country.