Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on June 13, 2015
Peak Oilists are the new Flat Earthers
Apparently it is necessary to point out that Peak Oil doctrine is still wrong.
Ronald Bailey explains Hubbert’s Peak Refuted: Peak Oil Theory Still Wrong. He points out an author who has written multiple books defending Peak Oil.
I just checked Amazon and can find four books from the mentioned author, written in 2001, 2005, 2008, and 2010. All are selling well. Not great, but okay. I’m astounded that so many people still believe that foolishness.
Article gives some info I’ve not seen before:
As I have explained earlier geologist M. King Hubbert famously predicted in 1956 that U.S. domestic oil production in the lower 48 states would peak around 1970 and begin to decline. In 1969 Hubbert predicted that world oil production would peak around 2000.
Yes. The ol’ gig of my precisely calculated, ironclad calculation of the date of disaster is totally wrong so I will just fine tune my calculations and pick another date.
Usually we see that with false-doctrine-advocating religious “teachers” who have calculated the exact date Jesus will return. That is in spite of the Bible verse saying no one, not even Jesus when he was on the earth, knows when that would happen. Those teachers, however, are smarter than the bible. When the world is still here the day after their precisely calculated date, they quickly make another calculation.
Dr. Hubbert and his disciples are in good company.
(Is that ridicule? Yes. Well deserved too. Sometimes making fun of the foolishness of an idea is the best way to illustrate its foolishness.)
Here’s a superb explanation of Peak Oil doctrine from the article:
Hubbert argued that oil production grows until half the recoverable resources in a field have been extracted, after which production falls off at essentially the same rate at which it expanded. This theory suggests a bell-shaped curve rising from first discovery to peak and descending to depletion.
Article points out that author’s books continue the revisionism habit by calculating new dates of the always-soon-to-arrive afternoon we will finally hit Peak Oil.
In one book, anyone who disagrees is labeled a “flat-earther.”
With rapidly rising oil production, article asks:
Who’s a flat-earther now?
Author introduces a phrase I’ve not seen before, but which fits well:
Peak oilists
Flat-earther is also a good description for the Peak Oil disciples.
6/10 – Say Anything Blog – Who Are the Flat Earthers Now? – Article pointed me to the one I just discussed. Thanks, Mr. Port!
The production surge in North Dakota of the last five or so years is merely the latest in a long string of proofs that Peak Oil is false.
Article rephrases the comments I’ve seen so many times, especially from Prof Mark Perry. Mr. Port’s comment:
But our understanding of the world is always evolving, and we should never underestimate the ability of humanity to invent, innovate, and adapt.
The ignorance proudly on display by commenters show another reason it is still necessary to point out that Peak Oil is completely, totally false. There are still lots of true believers.
Oh, two more articles that blow apart core components of Peak Oil doctrine:
6/10 – Yahoo Finance – U.S. Ousts Russia as Top World Oil, Gas Producer in BP Data – Data from BP shows that the U.S. is world’s biggest producer of hydrocarbons, surpassing Russia for the first time.
Most of that oil production is from fields that were technologically untouchable two decades ago. There was no one on the planet that had any possible idea on how to get the stuff out of the ground. Yet today shale oil and shale gas has moved the US past Russia in output.
5/27 – Rigzone – Norway Has More Oil than a Decade Ago – The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate announced that the country has more recoverable oil now than it did 10 years ago.
New fields have been discovered, existing fields have been explored and proved recoverable, reservoirs understood better, development solutions improved, and drainage strategies optimized.
I don’t know (and won’t bother to look up) how much oil Norway has pulled out of the ground, but they have more that is economically and technologically recoverable today than a decade ago.
Let me make that point again, since so many people hold to the false doctrine of Peak Oil: in spite of all the oil Norway has produced, they have more technologically and economically recoverable oil today than they did 10 years ago.
97 Comments on "Peak Oilists are the new Flat Earthers"
Apneaman on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 12:51 pm
Here is a link about your beloved academic from the Fraser institute. That is the Canadian arm of the fossil fuel funded Cato institute. Another EconOpreist sticking his econ 101 numbers into physics formulas and proclaiming it to be valid science. Square peg in round hole don’t fit.
G.Campbell Watkins
G.C. Watkins, PhD, was Saudi Aramco Chair of Energy Economics at King Faud University of Petroleum and Minerals in 2002, and is an Honorary Professor at the University of Aberdeen as well as joint editor of The Energy Journal. He has worked extensively on energy policy and the application of economic analysis and statistical tools to the energy industry.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/author.aspx?id=15374&txID=3276
BobInget on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 1:06 pm
Shortonoil is, I believe, ignoring alternatives to oil now being used to make electricity.
Where once, almost universally oil, coal and gas
were once the only fuels available. Today, drillers, producers are using waste gas, once thought stranded and flared to do diesel jobs.
Several major companies are selling CNG generation equipment used on off-shore oil rigs, pumps, compressors, lighting, the works.
Using energy once thrown-away, kills the old energy to lift exceeds final product value argument.
But, that’s not what I’ve been thinking. Thinking because Shortonoil doesn’t waste time bashing
other posters. Instead he pounds the table around sustainability of shale and/or oil sands.
This makes a person think, stirs argument in the best sense of the WORD.
I’m endlessly curious about new computing power, (did Hubert or Tesla have access?)
Shortonoil’s prognosis may be correct… But,
perhaps not for the (somewhat oversimplified)
reasons he puts forward. Being right, at the end of the day, counts. If your horse wins because another stumbles, your ticket pays off, no questions asked.
I keep harping on food, in particular grains.
Because of this ‘bear-trap’ oil market we find ourselves, energy conversions have slowed.
SUV and pick-up sales are booming on what most here might agree are false assumptions.
Article after article tell us of new, Super Bakkens just waiting for financing.
“The US now world’s biggest oil producer”.
“oil prices going lower”
Now we are being told, ‘no everything we said before is wrong, there’s more, cheap oil to come’.
I wish Shortonoil’s theories were correct in every detail. I wish Congress would debate oil wars we find ourselves fighting.
Say something serious, even listen to the CIA or the Pentagon around Peak Oil and Climate Changes. Instead of science we debate qualities of one mythology over another.
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 1:08 pm
Ape: IOW, he knows what he is talking about.
All: your whole peaker movement has long shed it’s pseudoquantitative pretensions and emerged to be more and more of a political/religious one. There is a reason why TOD is dead. And why Staniford does not write about SA decline any more. The facts have kicked butt.
GregT on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 1:33 pm
Answer my question Nony.
Apneaman on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 1:41 pm
IOW you could not find a more biased person. 100% financial interest. And as I pointed out before all the people from TOD have moved elsewhere and are doing fine. For example, Nate Hagens went and studied for another degree and is in high demand as a peaker speaker. You on the other hand have not changed one iota. It is very hard to take someone seriously who is completely obsessive about being right on every thing all the time and is constantly poking and prodding people to admit they are wrong and admit others are wrong. It’s like being back in the play ground. Also, you never grant anyone even the slightest point or ask a genuine question. Even Plant does that on a regular basis. No you are 100% right about everything and everyone else is wrong and stupid – nary a doubt or uncertainty. Now we all like to be seen as being right and knowledgeable, but you are on a completely different level. Most peakers I know admitted that there was/is a shale boom (not revolution) they did not foresee and did not expect the recent price drop. That is unlike anything we ever see from you Nony. Were all wrong about everything, even the minutia, all the time. Completely blinded by our inability to see as you do. None of are perfect and we most of us exhibit some of these behaviors some of the time depending on our inherent personality types and current mood, but with you it seems pathological.
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 1:43 pm
My point is that peakers made bad predictions and then showed dishonesty by not admitting it. This is why society dismisses the whole movement and why it is dying and more and more is just an enclave of conspiracy theorist nutters.
I agree that FF won’t last forever. But you need to stop thinking in terms of anything my side does is OK and anything the other side does is wrong.
joe on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 1:45 pm
So many people cant see the wood for the trees. Politics and religion are exactly the point. It was pure politics that saw the US so determined that Saddam wouldn’t reap the rewards of surviving the US attempts to topple him and live to sell his oil in Euro’s. It was the politicians and their friends in the banks that literally war profiteered US into oil over 100. The collapse didn’t happen because of oil but because of an intentional act by bankers, just look up what an inverted yield curve is, and when the last one happened to US treasuries bond yields. It happens when the price setters refuse to buy bonds and leave the price to go down, its a signal of a disruption in long term bonds and they become cheap to buy. Who buys them? The federal reserve, they buy them, then lend them out to their banking system, that’s money creation (or not), that’s power.
This constant question about peak oil (if/when) is a totally pointless debate. The real question is this. Can tight oil exist without credit? Can easy oil exist without credit? Which of them can survive without the other? Therin lies the answer to ‘peak oil’, not if/when but instead what is going to happen to credit markets when interest rates go up. Can tight oil deliver consistent marginal profits in a higher rate environment? In an export driven energy market how will the US manage inflation and keep credit easy and cheap? Can global economies continue to absorb US inflation and grow their own economies by continuing to lend to and borrow from the US/Britain?
Banksters tell us they have the answers but they don’t, how can they, they are not in control, other forces are, other older and more fundamental ideologies are and they are not operating on the same timescale as most of us. People and institutions that are founder investors in the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve etc work off a totally different set of rules, they were there before oil, they will be there long after.
Oil. What a distraction.
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 1:48 pm
Ape, I think the peakers have not adequately admitted their failures. They came at things with this big sheople versus us smart people thing and then they won’t admit their mistakes.
GregT on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 1:48 pm
Good post Joe!
GregT on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 1:58 pm
Nony,
The vast majority of people have never even heard of peak oil, but I can assure you that at the corporate level of the organization that I work for, it is very well understood. It is a topic of concern that has gained considerable traction over the last several years.
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 2:02 pm
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059978294
Peak oil is die, die, die-etty dying. TOD closed. Internet traffic peaked. Staniford no longer updating his energy posts. ASPO conferences shelved.
Apneaman on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 2:04 pm
Nony, I don’t really have a “side” per se. Were a doomed species, so it don’t really matter anymore. Getting back to the debate though, what do you say about Texas oilman Jeffrey Brown’s thoughts?
“All of this leads my friend and colleague, Texas oilman Jeffrey Brown, to point out the following: If what you’re selling cannot be sold on the world market as crude oil, then it’s not crude oil. The implications are fairly obvious: The world has substantially lower oil production than widely believed, and growth in world oil supplies has slowed considerably in the last several years. Using the BP definition of oil, world production in 2014 was 88.7 mbpd. Using the stricter definition of crude oil including lease condensate, the number was 77.8 mbpd. Big difference!”
“If what you’re selling cannot be sold on the world market as crude oil, then it’s not crude oil.”
Sounds just like what short and others have been pointing out. I know Jeffery Brown is not one of your super smart theoretical economists – just someone who has actually lived it, a realist I’d say.
http://resourceinsights.blogspot.ca/2015/06/no-bp-u-s-did-not-surpass-saudi-arabia.html
Apneaman on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 2:15 pm
Nony how many times do you need it pointed out to you that presenting predictions and popularity as evidence to argue are both logical fallacies. I even provided you with links. This is old school stuff man, we learned it from the ancient Greeks. Keep counting those barrels Nony.
GregT on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 2:16 pm
Even if what you are saying were true Nony, which it isn’t, how do you see it as a good thing?
The implications of not running out of oil are much worse than the implications of peak oil.
So again, what is your point?
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 2:21 pm
I think Jeff Brown is right to distinguish that BP numbers are not strictly crude oil and especially right to segregate NGLs.
I think he goes a bit too far with the condensate whining. He has gotten to the point of defining WTI as condensate! And condensate is liquid hydrocarbon of mixed molecules. It’s just hyperlight oil. It sure is NOT natural gas.
Even NGLs do have some nontrivial ability to substitute for crude (butane especially). Stephen Kopits who is far, far from a cornie, but attempts to be an honest man calls out the increase in US NGLs as important and as impacting the world oil price.
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 2:26 pm
Ape: So, why cite Hubbert’s 1970 US peak call then? If bad predictions are irrelevant, why do peakers tout the ones that worked for them? Seems intellectually dishonest.
GregT on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 2:31 pm
We have more than enough fossil fuels available to cook the planet Nony. We can continue to extend and pretend our economies, and wage wars around the world for the dregs, but the end result will be the same. In the meantime, the longer we remain addicted to fossil fuels, the more dire our future becomes.
apneaman on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 2:52 pm
I have never cited Hubbert – not once. The first thing that got my attention was when I moved from BC to Alberta in the 1990’s and went from building and doing shutdowns on Pulp Mills and small refineries and tank farms to building and doing shutdowns on the tar sands plants. In camp is where I first heard of peak oil and looking around it was pretty obvious that we were getting desperate – typical addict behavior. If your not already aware Nony a lot of people who have worked in the energy industry are among the so called peakers. Oh there are corns too, but when your pay cheque depends on it that is standard fare. What I would like a proper answer for is why the definition of crude was changed? Why do we now count things as oil that are not oil?
GregT on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 2:52 pm
Quoted from Hubbert’s 1956 paper Nony:
“One other contingency merits comment. By means of present production techniques, only about one third of the oil underground is being recovered. The reserve figures being cited are for oil capable of being extracted by present techniques. However, secondary recovery techniques are gradually being improved so that ultimately a somewhat larger but still unknown fraction of the oil underground should be extracted than is now the case. Because of the slowness of the secondary recovery process, however, it appears unlikely that any improvement that can be made in the next 10 or 15 years can have any significant affect on the date of culmination. A more probable effect of improved recovery will be to reduce the rate of decline after the culmination with respect to the rates shown in figure 21.”
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf
Page 24
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 2:55 pm
IOW, Hubbert had already anticipated improvements as a possibility and said they were unlikely to affect his predictions. He was wrong.
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 2:57 pm
Ape, good on you for not citing Hubbert.
FWIW, I don’t think definitions have recently changed or changed suspiciously. They have always been fuzzy. It is only with the recent failed predictions of peakers that they feel the need to subdivide oil finer nd finer so they can say they were not wrong.
GregT on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 3:05 pm
He was not wrong Nony. The reserves that he cited, using the techniques that he was referring to, peaked in/around 1973. He was off by a couple of years.
apneaman on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 3:14 pm
Long-run evolution of the global economy: 1. Physical basis
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000171/full
GregT on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 3:14 pm
Nony,
I worked in the oilfields in Alberta back in their heydays during the 80s. Everyone knew that the Tar sands existed, but nobody thought that they would ever be exploited due to costs, energy requirements, and environmental consequences. Not only have we changed definitions, we have also changed the names. What everybody always called the Tar sands back then, the industry refers to as Oil sands today. Bitumen is not oil.
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 3:35 pm
Greg, it is bitumen, a heavy viscous oil. Tar is different.
http://www.capp.ca/canadian-oil-and-natural-gas/oil-sands/what-are-oil-sands
GregT on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 3:40 pm
You’re missing the point Nony. They are the dregs.
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 3:58 pm
I can still get high on the dregs, Greg. 🙂
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 4:16 pm
Peakers messed up.
http://www.npr.org/2014/10/17/356713298/predictions-of-peak-oil-production-prove-slippery
Newfie on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 5:37 pm
Societies are always the most optimistic just before they peak and go into terminal decline. We should be watching for Peak Optimism.
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 5:50 pm
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/27/have-we-reached-peak-peak-rise-ubiquitous-phrase
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 5:55 pm
and of course the primary cause of collapse
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/kittens-reaching-peak-cuteness-2014043086128
shortonoil on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 6:48 pm
“This is why society dismisses the whole movement and why it is dying and more and more is just an enclave of conspiracy theorist nutters.”
We already see shale dying from an over indulgence of debt; the other high cost producers are not far behind. The value of oil to the economy is falling as depletion continues a relentless march toward its completion. We are on the verge of seeing the greatest industry on earth begin its death-throes. Oil industry closures, and bankruptcies will soon be as common as the political rhetoric that will go with it. The world will shutter in fear for what is to come. The word conspiracy will become as obsolete as the system, and fools that hid the truth behind it.
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 6:55 pm
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRFPUS2&f=W
9.6 MM bpd
Northwest Resident on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 8:46 pm
Peak oil is a “movement”?
Perhaps what Nony means is that there is “movement” toward recognizing that peak oil and all its dire consequences are something to be concerned about — very concerned about.
Maybe he is talking about a “movement” toward intellectual and analytical awareness that we live in a finite world, one in which we’ve already burned through a major portion of earth’s resources, just when the population and associated “demand” is exploding exponentially.
Or what the heck, he could be just talking about the “movement” of thought processes over time that result in highly aware individuals greatly discounting government/corporate propaganda and evaluating facts without the hype. Doing so, of course, exposes issues that derive directly from depleting resources especially oil, and lead to observations and factual data that are topics OF the Peak Oil subject.
Is that the kind of “movement” you’re talking about, Nony?
What evidence can you provide that society is “dismissing” the “whole (peak oil) movement”? Link to YouTube video made by a climate change denier, secretly employed by Koch Bros Inc?
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 8:59 pm
I don’t have any evidence, NWR. I was just trying to use social pressure to influence you.
antaris on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 9:35 pm
NR. I think the evidence is that whomever you talk to thinks the way things are today is the way they always will be. Society is dismissing peak oil. In fact 99.9 % don’t even know about it. I bought an electric car 3 1/2 years ago and people rarely ask me about it and think I’m a little nuts if they do ask. If I start talking about oil depletion they start looking for a paramedic or cop.
Northwest Resident on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 10:30 pm
antaris — The way I see it, the vast majority of “society” is totally uninformed, just buzzing around wrapped in a cozy blanket of ignorance, reinforced by the major propaganda themes pumping through MSM and official communication channels. They aren’t dismissing peak oil reality, they just don’t think anything about it — they’re oblivious. But those in society who do actively monitor economic and global trends — which would include CEOs, politicians, energy industry workers, military, finance, and growing numbers of ordinary citizens who are putting two and two together — DO recognize peak oil as an issue whether they admit to it or talk about it in public or not. But society in general — clueless.
Northwest Resident on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 10:35 pm
Nony — Nice try! You really put the pressure on me. I could feel pangs of guilt, thinking how totally out of line and not normal it is of me to think of and talk about issues related to peak oil and resource depletion. There was a critical moment where I almost decided to stop thinking, be happy, drink the koolaide and just become one with the buzzing hive of ignorance. But then the moment passed. I’m back where I was before you laid he social pressure on me — still evaluating facts and thinking logically. But it was a close call!
Apneaman on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 1:48 am
Got jobs? Not a lot of work to be had in the oilpatch
Alberta’s oil industry has shed 25,000 jobs already this year
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/got-jobs-not-a-lot-of-work-to-be-had-in-the-oilpatch-1.3109185
Kevin Cobley on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 2:12 am
Go here, http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/peak-oil/
shortonoil on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 7:57 am
“But those in society who do actively monitor economic and global trends — which would include CEOs, politicians, energy industry workers, military, finance, and growing numbers of ordinary citizens who are putting two and two together — DO recognize peak oil as an issue whether they admit to it or talk about it in public or not. But society in general — clueless.
Anyone who has even taken a cursory look at the petroleum situation realizes that $60/ barrel is not enough revenue to allow for replacement of reserves. They are also completely bewildered as to why prices are not rising. What we are seeing has never occurred before so there is disbelief that it is even happening. It will take some time for Joe Q public to realize that the reason they don’t have a job, can’t pay the mortgage, or are generally broke is because oil is losing its ability to power the economy. That is more than two dots, so the public is having trouble connecting them. Then there is the informed, intelligent citizen who does, and doesn’t even want to think about it. The coming end of the oil age is going to be one hard pill for most to swallow!
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Cloud9 on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 8:19 am
Boat, shale may be the salvation of us all. Climate change aside, then again maybe not. Consider the downgrade of the Monterey shale formation. When considering all sides of the argument, everyone is talking their own book. Developers and financiers have good reason to overhype their predictions. They need credit. They need investors. What we may very well have just witnessed is a bubble in shale oil production brought about by hot money seeking a return in a zero interest environment. If that is the case, then what we have seen is a lot of uneconomical plays brought into production that will collapse the moment the credit dries up.
I know the Keynesians among us think that credit is infinite, but I have a fifty trillion dollar Zimbabwean bank note on my desk that says it is not.
Malthus was way early in his predictions on British populations. He did not imagine the expansion of the British Empire, North Sea oil or the ability of London to transform itself into the money changer capital of the world. Still was he wrong? Consider the potential for the collapse of the currency, the resulting impediment to world trade and then argue Brittan’s ability to feed itself should worldwide supply chains break down just for a few months or so.
I for one don’t like the trends I see and am going to make every effort to make my family as resilient as possible. I like Malthus may be early, but I had rather be early than late.
Northwest Resident on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 10:00 am
“The coming end of the oil age is going to be one hard pill for most to swallow!”
I had a friend who ended up going through radical cancer treatment to save his life. For more than a year before he finally was forced to admit that he had cancer, there were numerous unmistakable signs that something was seriously wrong with his health. But he didn’t want to admit there was a problem. He rationalized and he kept repeating to himself “everything is just fine”. Until one day, he was forced to face reality.
Imagine being what society considers a highly successful individual, sitting on top of the world, having it made in the shade so to speak — but also having these persistent and disturbing exposures to information which tend to indicate that your privileged position is under direct threat by forces that you have no control over. Denial, rationalization and refusal to confront the logical conclusions would be a normal although ultimately self-defeating behavior for these people.
Those of us who are able to see through the hype and denial, to embrace the grim realities, and to prepare both psychologically and strategically to the best of our abilities for the coming shit storm are few and far between.
Nony on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 10:35 am
“https://rbnenergy.com/dancing-in-the-dark-will-gulf-coast-condensate-splitting-trump-the-export-market”
R/P has been growing for decades now.
The market has pretty clearly said that 100+ was too high (that too much oil was produced and not enough consumed). And that 45 was too low. Looks like 60-70 is the “new normal”.
Nony on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 10:38 am
Forgot to paste what I was responding to (from short):
“…60/ barrel is not enough revenue to allow for replacement of reserves.:
GregT on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 10:55 am
Oil price crunch exposes energy industry inefficiencies
Canada’s oil sands producers are struggling to adjust to much lower crude prices despite jettisoning thousands of employees and slamming the brakes on billions worth of growth projects.
Now, with oil prices hovering at about $60 a barrel and multibillion-dollar pipeline projects on shaky ground, some oil sands executives are raising alarms over festering productivity challenges and technological short-comings in an industry long described from the inside as leading edge.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/oil-price-crunch-exposes-industry-inefficiencies/article24735941/
Nony on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 11:09 am
Canada can be hard, cost-wise. Tough weather. Transport costs. High paid, unionized work force. Immigration restrictions. Import restrictions.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/hebron-oil-project-gets-ok-as-costs-balloon-by-billions-1.1303274