You were making these predictions in August 2012, and and you weren't qualifying it with "oh, unconventional oil could sweep away any peak oil prediction I make ", instead your PO prediction was backed by "every oil company in the world" and "thousands of scientists and engineers", and you were pressing me to tell you where the next major load of oil to save the world from peak would be.
Complete BS. You make that statement and then use a quote that had nothing to do with the prediction I made back about a decade ago. By 2012 I no longer had up to date access to Petroconsultants and Wood Mac, I did back a decade ago which is when I made that prediction. My statement taken in it’s full context was talking about the rationale for my prediction made a number of years previous. Again reading comprehension is your friend.
The new oil was under your feet, in your USA, a place where you'd already looked. Shale oil sources popped up everywhere all over the world. The industry looked in places it had already looked, and this time it found a lot more oil.
Good God, you know nothing whatsoever about the subject. There was no “new oil”. As Rockman has pointed out time and again we have known about oil and gas in shales for many, many decades. They were the source rocks for all of the hydrocarbons which have been produced from conventional reservoirs, we knew that way back when, it was demonstrated time and time again in literally dozens of published papers. Hydrocarbons have been produced from some of these tight formations for many years, case in point being the Antrim shale which has been producing for about 60 years. The issue a decade ago was that there was no foreseeable economic means of extracting hydrocarbons from the shales and tighter siltstones. The initial wells and fracs into the Marcellus were too expensive and resulted in too little production to be an economic endeavor worth pursuing. It wasn’t until long reach horizontals and mult-stage fracs came into play that it all started to make sense. By 2012 it was obvious that shale was going to have an impact and as the economics continued to improve and oil prices rose the whole picture regarding peak changed.
According to you, I was "incredibly naive" in 2012 for suggesting huge amounts of oil would be found in lands already explored. Well eat your words. A noob like me beat a senior oil prospector at his own game
Again, either you suffer from illiteracy or you just can’t be bothered to actually read what you quote from. What I said was:
I have spent a lot of the last decade looking around the world for what are remaining large exploration targets. Outside of the shale liquids story (the US is likely the biggest followed by Argentina and maybe China or Algeria) there really isn’t anything in areas where people aren’t already exploring. If they are exploring there then it means it is economic at the current price. The idea that there are vast amounts of hydrocarbons left to be discovered that require a higher price for exploration to happen is incorrect. Again, point to such areas if you can.
In short we didn't suddenly "find" new oil in shale, we knew it was there all along but it took better prices and better technology to make it economic.
Today the industry is full of properly educated people who subscribe to abiotic oil.
Complete and utter horsepucky. Please name the senior executives at Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and every other major oil and gas company that subscribe to this theory. Please show where that theory has actually resulted in a discovery of oil and gas.