The evidence for and against abiogenic petroleum generation is a topic of ongoing scientific debate. Abiogenic theories propose that oil and gas can be generated from natural processes deep within the Earth, independent of biological matter. However, the majority of the scientific community supports the biogenic theory, which states that petroleum is formed from the remains of ancient organisms over millions of years.
Proponents of abiogenic petroleum generation point to the presence of hydrocarbons in the Earth's mantle and the existence of abiogenic methane as evidence. They also argue that the vast quantities of oil and gas found on Earth exceed what could be produced from biological sources. However, critics highlight the specific locations of hydrocarbon deposits, the presence of biomarkers (chemical fossils) in oil, and the isotopic composition of carbon in hydrocarbons as evidence supporting the biogenic theory.
While there is some evidence for abiogenic creation of methane and hydrocarbon gases within the Earth, it is generally accepted that these are not produced in commercially significant quantities. The biogenic theory remains the dominant explanation for the formation of petroleum, with the abiogenic theory not being widely accepted in the scientific community.
For more detailed information, you can refer to sources such as Quora, ResearchGate, and the American Geophysical Union's publications, which provide comprehensive discussions on the topic. (Quora, ResearchGate)
What are some arguments for and against abiogenic petroleum production?
Why are diamondoids in natural hydrocarbons evidence against abiogenic sources?
What significance do the intersections of faults have in the abiogenic theory of petroleum origin?
How is the distribution of metals in crude oils used to argue for an abiogenic origin?
What is the primary difference between biogenic and abiogenic theories of petroleum origin?