You’re going to have to work harder at putting words in my mouth.
The above are the words I am putting in your mouth. Let's break it down, shall we?
"Lifetime of the potentially regenerative resource"=how long the resource lasts (although this is an odd way of putting it, since hydrocarbons do not have a life. Again, words used incorrectly, as with "infinity".
"exceeds the frame of observation"=is longer, temporally, than the time in which some unstated being (humans, I imagine) can observe it.
In English, that means that there will be hydrocarbons here longer than there will be humans. Maybe, maybe not, but that is not how "infinite" was used in the article, which is what I was referring to. In the article, the amount of oil, quantitatively, not temporally, available was described as infinite. I was merely pointing out the fallacious nature of that statement. You got a bug up your ass for no good reason, and introduced an argument against a point that I did not make.
To address your argument, I cannot agree that there will be hydrocarbons on earth for as long as humans (or any other being you might have been postulating) will be around to "observe" them. Who knows what we will be capable of in 1000 years, 100,000 years, one million years, and even, if we are so lucky, one billion years. It is entirely possible for a species to progress to the point of having control of the energy of a planet, a solar system, and a galaxy, and having the ability to use things in ways we cannot comprehend. Not saying it will happen, but not saying that it cannot happen either. We just don't know what we can do given eons of time. So to say that hydrocarbons will be around as long as there are humans makes a lot of assumptions that no one can claim to know right now.
Therefore, the point you actually made, which was not a counter to the point I made, but was some tangential point you seemed desperate to make, is false. And therefore, you have earned the coveted Sheldon Award:
