I'm pretty sure that the things we (think we) fully understand are dwarfed by those we don't.
Whatever the processes that created in situ hydrocarbons on this planet, I see no reason at all to assume that those processes just stopped.
Yep. The more we learn, the less we know. Every answer brings more questions.
It is highly unlikely that the processes forming hydrocarbons have stopped, any more than the processes that build mountains or erode them away. It is likely that our consumption of those reserves has reached the point where it exceeds to formative processes output (and our ability to discover/produce those reserves). For now, we have enough, but we are wasting time imho, going down 'green' rabbit holes when we could and should be looking at alternate sources of energy, besides wind and solar as currently utilized, and we should be acknowledging that some energy sources are best suited for certain applications, while others do just fine for others.
One size does not fit all with current technology, nor have we progressed to the degree that there is a single form of energy which will meet all needs. Portability, storability, on demand usage, ability to refuel in a short time, and the ability to carry onboard power for more demanding applications are factors electricity has not met for major energy uses, so if we are to continue to function at even present levels, hydrocarbons are not going away as a fuel source, and definitely not as feed stocks for chemical applications or lubricants--without which the current 'renewable' energy industry cannot exist.
As for long term reliability, Hydropower, Nuclear, Coal, petroleum, are all proven resources. Wind and solar are subject to a plethora of weather and latitude related problems, and thus not reliable enough as a base source, especially without storage capabilities on a large scale.
The calculus of whether "renewables" will have a net gain in energy isn't being done without bias which mucks up the equation, and the long term effects are not known at scale. Mining operations more extensive than those at present may not be able to keep up with demand, have considerable environmental and humanitarian issues of their own, and the problem of waste from units which have reached the end of their service life has yet to be addressed at scale.
I see more problems than solutions in the long term as it sits, and those have yet to be added into the equation to decide if renewables are 'saving' the planet or actually doing more harm than more traditional fuels.
Unfortunately, the politics of control, profit motives (often profits derived from looting taxpayers for subsidies under the boot heel of arbitrary and capricious regulation rather than producing a better product cheaper), and corruption for political/pecuniary gain have tainted the data sets and discussion of the issue to where it is difficult at best to give an honest and frank appraisal of energy generation methodologies currently being presented as the way of the future.
But in the parlance of thousands of oilfield hands (and others), "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!".
Pilot and test projects might be in order, but the push toward full-blown dependence on unproven methods seems ill advised.