The truth is that the way self-styled 'peak oil' sceptics use abiogenesis theory is actually quite far apart from the way its main proponents, such as Thomas Gold, did so - who implicitly acknowledged that even if the theory were true, it wouldn't really avert peak oil in practicality. Putting it simply, we would all be swimming in oil if the 'strong' proponents of abiogenesis were right - that oil self-replenished on such a massive continuous scale, it would be enough to avert peak oil. As that's not the case, the theory is simply irrelevant.
I just came across this ridiculous, hysterical article at the misnamed "Climate Realists" regurgitating much of the same absurdities about abiogenesis oil theory. There are many decent websites which show how the peer-reviewed scientific literature refutes the claims made on sites like these. One I'd recommend is Skeptical Science, which is basically an excellent resource, and came in handy when tracking down some of the most prominent 'sceptic' arguments that I systematically refuted in my book.
The article's stale argument is that Russia is experiencing a massive oil bonanza because they're the only ones that recognize the deep 'truth' of abiogenesis oil generation and therefore have been able to exploit this special knowledge that our own Western oil industries "sinisterly" deny.
This is the comment I posted in response:
"Yes, the Russians have thousands of so-called peer-reviewed papers all proving that peak oil is a myth.
That's why Russian oil production peaked in 2008 according to Leonid Fedun, vice-president of LUKOIL, Russia's largest independent oil company.
That's also why Viktor Khristenko, Russia's energy minister admits that the future of Russian production looks like "plateau, stagnation."
The idea of "realism" on this website clearly equates to neurotic naval-gazing."
I really don't have time for this sort of thing, but I just couldn't help myself. If you want to have a more detailed analysis, do check out the book.