(a) the entire US/World infrastructure is engineered to process only one fuel - oil.The capital expenditure required to reconfigure all of the power
station, cars, planes, trains,
manaufacturing processes, domestic light and heating systems, would
run in to literally billions.
(b) the time line for all this reconfiguration would take literally years.
So the Middle East and other oil producing nations ultimately hold the upper hand - even if a new environmentally friendsly cheap source is found.
I like that you put a lot of thought in your post, but I have to disagree with what you're saying. Like, a) is completely untrue . There's no way domestic light or heating were dependent on oil - for instance, oil is responsible for merely 1% of electricity produced in the US. Very few nations actually use oil as a major source of electricity. Most trains don't run on oil, at least in developed countries (which are responsible for majority of global energy usage). Oil is king only in transportation, but the roads, bridges etc. themselves are not designed to run on oil, car engines are, and car, as a technology, is perfectly capable of adapting to another energy resource. Heck, electric cars are already a thing!
That brings us to your second fallacy: yes, replacing all this hardware would take years and cost billions, but we constantly replace them, anyway. Who of you would drive a 15 year old car? Also keep in mind that in richest countries, governments would support the transition, due to environmental concerns. Oil lobby will fight against this, but if unobtainium industry can outcome them economically, it's only a matter of time before it will have a powerful lobby of its own.