Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
1 comment 
Although the Abiotic Hypothesis Shows That Hydrocarbons Can Form in the Earth’s Mantle, Geochemical Evidence Proves That the Large Oil Reserves Explored in the World Are Fossils — Not Minerals.
The debate about the contested origin of oil remains alive even after more than a century of scientific studies. The dominant explanation, accepted by about 95% of the scientific community, states that oil is the result of the decomposition of algae, plankton, and microscopic remains of plants and animals buried for millions of years in sedimentary rocks, under extreme conditions of pressure and temperature.
This is the basis of classic works such as Petroleum Formation and Occurrence (Tissot & Welte, 1984) and the opinions of organizations such as AAPG and USGS.
On the other hand, the abiotic hypothesis, defended by names like Dmitri Mendeleev and revived in the Soviet Union in the 20th century, proposes that oil would form in the Earth’s mantle, with no connection to fossils, from chemical reactions between carbon and hydrogen.
-
Offshore industrial demand in Macaé skyrockets with the recovery of oil and gas and could grow by up to 396% by 2026 in the Campos Basin.
-
Offshore industrial demand in Macaé surges with the recovery of oil and gas and could grow by up to 396% by 2026 in the Campos Basin.
-
Brazilian giant expands borders in the Southeast: Petrobras confirms new oil discovery in ultra-deep waters in the pre-salt of the Campos Basin.
-
Alert in the global energy market: Severe tropical cyclone hits the coast and disrupts gas production at major plants in Australia, threatening global supply.
Although minority, this idea persists and still provokes global debates due to its scientific, economic, and geopolitical relevance.
What Supports the Fossil Origin
The fossil theory is supported by direct evidence that has been repeatedly confirmed in field and laboratory analyses.
Biomarkers such as steranes and hopanes, derived from cell membranes, are found in practically all studied oil samples.
Moreover, the association of oil with sedimentary rocks — environments rich in fossils and organic matter — reinforces the biological explanation.
Another key point lies in the carbon isotopes, which carry signatures compatible with vital processes, ruling out a purely mineral origin for large reserves.
What the Abiotic Hypothesis Says
Despite the consensus around the fossil origin, the abiotic theory still has defenders.
Mendeleev suggested in the 19th century that chemical reactions at great depths could generate hydrocarbons.
Decades later, Nikolai Kudryavtsev, in the 1950s, reinforced this view in the then Soviet Union.
His arguments include the existence of hydrocarbons in lifeless celestial bodies, such as the methane lakes on Titan (Saturn), and laboratory experiments, such as that of Kenney et al. (PNAS, 2002), which reproduced hydrocarbon synthesis under conditions equivalent to those of the Earth’s mantle.
The drilling of Siljan in Sweden in the 1980s, where small amounts of gas and oil were found in deep rocks, is also cited.
Limitations and Criticisms of the Mineral Hypothesis
Proponents of the fossil origin emphasize that over 95% of commercial reserves are in sedimentary basins.
The Siljan experiment, while notable, did not result in viable production.
Furthermore, the presence of biological biomarkers in oil remains unexplained within the abiotic hypothesis.
Another argument is that hydrocarbons found on other planets or synthesized in laboratories do not prove the existence of exploitable reserves on Earth, only demonstrate that organic molecules can form under varied conditions.
The Geopolitical Impact of the Controversy
The confirmation of the abiotic hypothesis on a commercial scale would completely alter the global landscape.
Oil would no longer be considered a finite resource, which could reduce OPEC’s power, modify international relations, and even slow investments in renewable energy.
However, all major discoveries to date reinforce the fossil origin.
The consensus is that oil is rare, limited in time and space, and therefore will continue to be a strategic resource.
The controversy persists because it goes beyond science: it involves trillions of dollars, geopolitical disputes, and the energy transition.
And you, do you believe that the abiotic hypothesis could someday change the course of the oil industry, or will it remain just a scientific curiosity? Share your opinion in the comments — we want to hear from those closely following this debate.
Se um dia confirmar que é abiótico, muita coisa nesse mundo iria mudar e todos iriam ser impactados a meio e longo prazo