If you force oil prices to stay low such that they do not reflect supply-demand dynamics, you are not solving the fundamental problem. Supply and demand imbalances do not disappear when you fix the price - they are exacerbated.
Further -- the medium and short term supply of oil is determined by existing infrastructure, which already exists. (Oil sands facilities in Canada, for example, were extremely expensive to build, but are now profitable if oil is at $20 a barrel.)
To say that oil companies won't increase supply if prices go down is like saying you'll stop breathing if there's less air. You'll actually, in all likelihood, just breath more.
In terms of supply -- the amount of supply very closely matches demand. A shift of less than 1% of supply versus demand shouldn't be allowed to send the economy into a recession, much less subsidize Russia's war efforts.
Supply/demand can (and should) be mediated by sensible regulations. Just as with drug pricing -- buyers should be able to negotiate. Oil sellers operate cartels. Buyers should as well.
This is a farce. There's not enough oil because OPEC+ has decided there is not enough oil. They can easily increase supply, causing the price of oil to be more consumer friendly, but no, won't someone think of their profits?!
But yes, the core of what you were saying is correct; there is no shortage of oil presently. That said, it's important to consider different sources of oil, and the cost of harvesting them. Shale is a LOT more expensive to harvest than conventional wells, and things like Tar Sands step things up even further. We shouldn't worry about running OUT of oil in the next couple decades by any means, but the ramp up in cost should have us at least considering other options for avoiding ever-increasing energy costs, such as nuclear. Underestimating the importance of an energy supply is worth avoiding -- much of the Roman decline can be attributed to the marked reduction in available lumber. Much of what allowed the global powers of today to get that way was moving from wood to coal to oil/gas, and then a bit into nuclear -- being hesitant to continue this transition shouldn't be done without the understanding that failure to expand energy resources will necessarily cause an inability to expand, and eventually a need to contract as a civilization.
As oil is also used for most modern fertilizer, food production is the other side of this coin, and unfortunately, unlike the options in energy production, there don't seem to be any immediately available remedies that assist with large scale food production that allowed us to get a global population of over 7 billion. Again, this isn't an immediate emergency, but it's on the horizon, and does represent an existential threat to modern civilization; as such it shouldn't be ignored.