Oil is not a fossil fuel, but a substance that bubbles up from the mantle of Earth, and many other planets and moons such as Titan. Because it is generated abiotically in massive quantities, the Earth produces more than we can ever possibly use. A small elite of scientists, including the Russians, are well aware of this, and are engaged in a conspiracy to keep the myth of oil scarcity alive, and help establish their New World Order. Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of Oil Denialism.

"Denialism" is a term normally used to refer to the sorts of people that believe that global warming is a conspiracy, vaccines are dangerous and don't work, and similar purveyors of fringe views. Specifically, it covers "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none ... effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions."

Alex Jones' rant against the "Oil Conspiracy" is a classic example. His wildest claim: "The existence of self-renewing oil fields shatters the peak oil myth. If oil is a naturally replenishing inorganic substance then how can it possibly run out?"

"The Scientific evidence also flies in the face of the peak oil theory. Scientific research dating back over a hundred years, more recently updated in a Scientific Paper Published In 'Energia' suggests that oil is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. Oil, for better or for worse, is not a non-renewable resource. It, like coal, and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth."

"If we continue to let the corrupt elite tell us we are wholly dependent on oil, we may reach a twisted situation whereby they can justify starvation and mass global poverty, perhaps even depopulation, even within the western world due to the fact that our energy supplies are finished."

In much the same way that members of the 9/11 "Truth" movement fail to really understand the reality of situation they attempt to describe, Jones shows virtually no understanding of the oil markets, and it is from this chronic ignorance that his conspiracy theory develops - an argument from ignorance in essence.

Nobody denies that - as with any market - speculators, trading groups, oligopolist and governments are able to manipulate and massage the price of oil to some extent. However, the suggestion that nations are hiding huge reserves makes no sense. It is in the interests of all parties to play a strong hand - the bigger your reserves, the more power you have at the negotiating table. If anything, the evidence suggests that many nations, particularly in OPEC, are probably overstating their reserves. The issue is so contentious that richer countries such as the U.S. have resorted to using satellites to measure the sinking of land as the oil reserves underneath are extracted, in an attempt to get a more accurate picture of what is going on. The truth is that any country with access to vast reserves would have no incentive to hide it, and if it did would be found out very quickly. And why would OPEC nations be taking part in a U.S. conspiracy anyway?

But where Jones' assessment really differs from reality is in his belief that oil is in fact an abiotic, renewable resource, a belief he backs up by citing "The mystery of Eugene Island 330".

Theories that oil is not a fossil fuel, but abiotic (not formed from life) date back to Victorian times, and enjoyed a brief revival in the last ten years due to the efforts of the late Astrophysicist Thomas Gold. According to Gold, coal and crude oil deposits were created by natural gas flows feeding bacteria living at extreme depths under the surface of the Earth - essentially replenished by tectonic forces.

Conspiracy theorists such as Jones that latch on to this theory suggest that therefore oil reserves are being continually replenished, but as Richard Heinburg at the excellent "Energy Bulletin" notes: "If there are in fact vast untapped deep pools of hydrocarbons refilling the reservoirs that oil producers drill into, it appears to make little difference to actual production, as tens of thousands of oil and gas fields around the world are observed to deplete, and refilling (which is indeed very rarely observed) is not occurring at a commercially significant scale"

Heinburg goes on to challenge another common claim: "The abiotic theorists also hold that conventional drillers, constrained by an incorrect theory, ignore many sites where deep, primordial pools of oil accumulate; if only they would drill in the right places, they would discover much more oil than they are finding now. However, the tests of this claim are so far inconclusive: the best-documented “abiotic” test well was a commercial failure."

"Commercial failure" barely describes the abysmal failure of Thomas Gold's attempt to extract abiotic oil from the site of a meteor impact at Siljan, Sweden. Between 1986 and 1992, two commercial wells were sunk at the site, at a cost of US$60m. Only 80 barrels of "oily sludge" were extracted, at an average cost of about US$0.75m per barrel. While Dr. Gold claimed this oil to have an abiotic origin, an independent study proved through geochemical analysis of oil, oil-stained rocks and organic rocks, that the hydrocarbons present at the site were organic, and that there was no evidence to support the claim that the oil was abiogenic in origin.

With the above in mind, let's look at Alex Jones' flagship example - Eugene Island. Eugene Island is the tip of an underwater mountain lying about 80 miles off of the Louisiana coast, in the Gulf of Mexico. I'll let Jones take up the story:

"It was discovered in 1973 and began producing 15,000 barrels of oil a day which then slowed to about 4,000 barrels in 1989. But then for no logical reason whatsoever, production spiked back up to 13,000 barrels a day. What the researchers found when they analyzed the oil field ... is that there was an unexplained deep fault ... which showed oil gushing in from a previously unknown deep source."

"Furthermore, the analysis of the oil now being produced at Eugene Island shows that its age is geologically different from the oil produced there after the refinery first opened. Suggesting strongly that it is now emerging from a different, unexplained source. The last estimates of probable reserves shot up from 60 million barrels to 400 million barrels."

As always with these sorts of breathless stories, a lot of information has been carefully left out. The first piece of the jigsaw Jones excludes is context. It is true that estimated reserves have increased: "From 1978 to 1988, these operations, activities, and natural factors [including better exploration and recovery technology] have increased ultimate recoverable reserves from 225 million bbl to 307 million bbl of hydrocarbon liquids ... other estimates now put the estimate of total recoverable oil as high as 400 Mb."

The thing is, as Heinberg points out with the benefit of his actual knowledge of the industry, this isn't particularly unusual. "Most fields report reserve growth over time as a consequence of Securities and Exchange Commission reporting rules that require reserves to be booked yearly according to what portion of the resource is actually able to be extracted with current equipment in place. As more wells are drilled into the same reservoir, the reserves 'grow'. Then, as they are pumped out, reserves decline and production rates dwindle. No magic there."

The second piece of the puzzle that Jones neglects to mention is the fact that production at Eugene Island is now steadily falling: "Production from Eugene Island had achieved 20,000 barrels per day by 1989; by 1992 it had slipped to 15,000 b/d, but recovered to reach a peak of 30,000 b/d in 1996. Production from the reservoir has dropped steadily since then."

Possibly the worst lie of omission in Jones' article is when he says that "the analysis of the oil now being produced at Eugene Island shows that its age is geologically different from the oil produced there after the refinery first opened". The study actually says that "recent geochemical research at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has demonstrated that the wide range in composition of the oils in different reservoirs of the Eugene Island 330 field can be related to one another and to a deeper source rock of Jurassic-Early Cretaceous age." Far from being evidence of abiotic oil, the analysis demonstrates that the oil produces dates back to the age of the dinosaurs. As Heinberg notes, "her article explains that this kind of migration from nearby source rocks is hardly unique, and discusses it in the context of conventional biotic theory."

It's impossible to prove that there is no such thing as abiotic oil - in fact it's perfectly plausible that small amounts could be produced somewhere. However, there are two basic, practical points that Jones and his devoted followers should consider. Firstly, no abiotic oil has ever been located. Secondly, regardless of the source of the oil we're using, the fact is that production is limited and reserves are depleting.

And there's one final thought to bear in mind. Given the damage that we've done and continue to do to the world through our production and burning of oil, the announcement of unlimited reserves could ultimately be a disaster for Planet Earth. If abiotic oil did exist, would we really want to find it?