All instances I ever heard of who have allegedly tried the abiotic model have pumped the investors, not oil.
Every producing oil or gas well I have worked ( a few hundred in the US) has had strata associated with it containing organic debris, be that plankton, plant, or animal microfauna to macrofauna, which have been the source of the oil.
1. Let’s not confuse the “Russian theory” with the theories of this or that Western crackpot. Apparently, in Russia there is an extensive scientific literature on their theory, published in Russian. Do we know what it says? We have to, before we can think of rebutting it.
2. Don’t dimiss it out of hand because it came from the USSR. The Soviets generally produced solid science. Yes, there were episodes when the crackpots took over for political reasons (e.g. Lysenko) but not for a long time and not in the fields that mattered for national security. The fact that the theory was around for fifty years should tell us something. If it were outright nonsense it would’ve been thrown out of the window very soon after this fact became apparent. It must’ve worked, at least to a large degree.
3. Whether oil is or is not abiotic is a purely academic issue. Ultimately, all organic matter on Earth has abiotic origins. What really matters are practical applications. Perhaps the premises of the Russian theory are completely wrong, but if it makes predictions that helps the Russians find oil in places where it shouldn’t be according to the orthodox theory, if it’s the case we should look into that.
4. But, the objection goes, the Russians haven’t discovered much lately. Well, of course. Their economy just undergone a terrible crash; their oil industry has no capital and uses outdated equipment. This doesn’t mean that their theories are wrong.