I can't find figures but I expect the amount of crude used for fuel is very high compared to its other uses. Maybe 99% but that's just a guess. I'll try to find figures tomorrow (it's late here). Let's call it 95% for now.

If 95% of energy is not burnt but extracted for other uses then it stays in the ground 20 times longer (ok, not forever).

But we have no way of replacing that huge energy source that is crude. So we will not stop because there's no alternative. What he suggests is a counsel of perfection - "precise and also correct", I agree, but it's not going to happen. So it's a useless suggestion AFAICS.

Basically I'm confused as to what he's suggesting.