2. Although it's only plant (algae) material, really and 'decaying' isn't quite the correct term. Sounds like a very unbalanced documentary.
Yes, there was a Soviet-era Russian (Kudryavtsev) who had an "alternative" theory, back in the 1950's, but it was not mainstream even in the Soviet Union, and is by no means a mainstream theory now. The main proponents could be counted on one hand, whereas every other petrochemist in the world is basically on the other side. And it's only the proponents who claim this is still an open question.
There's simply too much evidence saying otherwise. The biggest single piece of evidence is the existence of metalloporphyrins in oil, which are highly similar to chlorophyll. There's no other theory to explain these fairly complicated organic molecules. (I don't even think the proponents of 'oil abiogenesis' dispute that, but rather claim that while the porphyrins and other biomarkers might have come from biological material, all the rest of the oil came about via their mechanism.)
Oil prospecting is done, quite successfully, on the basis of the mainstream theory. One of the main proponents of oil abiogenesis, Thomas Gold, predicted on the basis of his theory that there'd be oil in the Siljan ring area of Sweden. They drilled for years there - and found absolutely nothing.
It sucks to see these old, discredited theories being dredged up. To me, it seems like the global-warming deniers have convinced themselves so thoroughly that the end of oil means the end of civilization, that they want to extend their delusions to pretending oil will last forever as well!
