Interesting use of the possessive pronoun there. How do we convincingly change the situation unless we also change our own thinking?

Because I'm pedantic, let me just note that there is (a) no-one but the country within which territorial borders the oil is found, that can be said to own that oil (recognising that whether that country can be said to literally *own* that oil is being glossed over). And (b), the crisis of escalating oil costs might be good impetus to collectively embrace the use and distribution of alternative technologies to off-set our oil dependence.
Taking (a) further: your post advocates for one group to be hung for its failure to achieve a given aim ("they can’t mind our oil"), which is a different order of reasoning than the usual sense of moral outrage to violation and destruction one tends to find around here. In short, you are proposing that those bastards should be hung because they didn't achieve project objectives: mind(ing) our oil!! Therefore we should "change sides" - project teams, if you will - and bargain with those closest to the motherlode, those who turn the taps. Just in case "they" start exacting revenge, racking up the profits while we crawl desperate, cold, immobilised, in craven chaos with our begging bowls extended: "just a drop, Sir. Please". After all, what kind of future is that?

Your point is reasonable. Your question, one of a pragmatic: adapt ? ... or die? Your answer: adapt. My question to you is yes, but ... what's the long-term plan and how are you going to handle the fall-out of our current oil-soaked way of being in the world? How does realpolitik fare in addressing the challenges posed by the need to change paradigms? Is realpolitik, the pragmatism of bet hedging and the short-term focus on short-term survival, up to the challenge of long-term planning beyond our own narrow event horizon?

Nothing personal, but I think a longer term solution to the problems the planet and its human settlements face is in order than switching teams because the one we're backing is losing. Can we take it that if the team you now consider the "wrong bunch of Semites" was *winning*, you'd be a steadfast supporter of this "wrong bunch of Semites"?