When Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that the feds would be interested in pipeline projects for “decarbonized oil,” the folks at the Pathways Alliance must have felt their hearts skip a beat. The oilsands consortium took it as a sign that the federal government might embrace a pitch by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to approve a new pipeline to the west coast in exchange for a carbon capture and storage project the producers have talked about since 2022, but never started.
Pathways president Kendall Dilling told the Globe and Mail he’s feeling optimistic as he sees a “real, renewed interest in getting past some of the barriers that have been slowing infrastructure down in this country.” And Smith said this week a private-sector pitch to build the pipeline is close.
Pathways’ grand plan is to capture carbon dioxide from oilsands production facilities and pipe it to an underground storage facility in Cold Lake, Alta., thereby preventing its release to the atmosphere where it adds to global warming.
Oil produced this way is billed in industry circles as “decarbonized” even though — critically — the end product will produce as much carbon pollution as any barrel of oil ever did when burned in cars, ships, planes or factories without carbon capture technology, also known as Scope 3 emissions. Climate scientists were quick to call bullshit when feds used the euphemism in a list of projects that might be considered in the “national interest.” Among the naysayers was none other than Simon Donner, co-chair of the federal government’s own Net-Zero Advisory Body, who called the notion “Orwellian.”
While applying the term “decarbonized” to the end product is disingenuous, cutting the substantial emissions from oil production is still significant. Oil and gas producers are Canada’s most egregious carbon polluters, and of those, the oilsands giants are among the worst of the worst. So there is a valid argument to be made for cutting emissions during the production phase, at least until the world transitions to clean energy.
But if the oil giants are as convinced as they claim to be about the efficacy of carbon capture and storage, why isn’t the Pathways project already up and running? First, it’s hugely expensive; an anticipated $16.5 billion before the inevitable cost overruns. Second, it’s a relatively new technique with a spotty record.
And finally, the companies know oil is a sunset industry — with peak oil just around the corner, they can no more justify billions for carbon capture than they can new oilsands plants. Oil is predicted to reach peak demand sometime between 2030 and 2050, depending on who you ask and trust. Their runway is simply too short to justify spending on carbon capture, so they are looking to us to pay.
Industry claims the grants and tax credits on offer from the feds is not enough and that funding from a carbon credit market created just for them is too risky. And Smith, for all her whining about the lack of federal support for Alberta’s oil and gas industry, hasn’t coughed up sufficient cash either, possibly because many in her party are climate change deniers who don’t believe carbon is worth capturing. Former Energy and Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson said late last year that Pathways is “probably looking for something more from the government of Alberta.”
Aside from the huge dollar figures, carbon capture projects also have a spotty track record. Although it’s widely regarded as a part of the climate change solution and the technology is improving, there have been some spectacular failures.
The Pathways website boasts that Alberta has experience and expertise building and operating large-scale CCS projects, citing Shell’s Northern Alberta Quest Carbon Capture and Storage facility as a star example. But if Quest is a success, which became a matter of debate when Greenpeace revealed that Alberta allowed Shell to sell phantom carbon credits to juice the numbers, there are plenty of others with even bigger problems.
A carbon capture project at Saskatchewan’s Boundary Dam was an utter flop; Archer-Daniels-Midland, an American agribusiness project with a carbon capture project in Decatur Illinois, was forced to shutter after it leaked; and Sleipner, Equinor’s flagship CCUS project in Norway admitted last year that defective monitoring equipment caused it to overbill its ability to capture and store carbon and storage by about 28 per cent.
Of all these, the potential for leaks is perhaps most concerning. Carbon capture is only worth the massive investment if the carbon injected deep into underground wells stays there forever. That means monitoring the sites in perpetuity and repairing them if things go sideways. All this at a time when Alberta is still struggling to clean up or even seal off the original oil wells.
The federal government has bent over backwards developing complex economic incentive programs to try to make the Pathways Alliance project happen and may even greenlight a new pipeline to further sweeten the pot.
But it’s not clear why the federal government would trust the oil companies to pony up their share of the money for carbon capture, given they haven’t so far. A Pembina Institute study last fall found oil companies in Canada are dumping money into increasing production and have not yet made “meaningful investments” in emission reduction projects.
A new pipeline to further aid the extraction of some of the world’s dirtiest oil is a costly mistake for the climate. And trusting that the Pathways Alliance partners will fund a carbon capture project and get it operational soon enough to mitigate the damage is a longshot bet.
The fact that companies are reluctant to invest in their own giant carbon reduction projects speaks volumes about how they view their longevity. If anyone understands the economics of peak oil, it’s the players in this sunset industry.
Comments
Carbon Capture is pure greenwashing. It has been shown repeatedly to not deliver the results promised. Taxpayers should not support or allow any tax dollar to be wasted on carbon capture; it is up to the industry already subsidized by taxpayers to clean up their own mess.
Thank you Adrienne for calling out the "bullshit" as you so aptly describe this ludicrous proposal. We cannot let the "decarbonized oil" discourse continue without constant pushback. The focus for critical analysis and activism must be to stop federal subsidies for false solutions to the climate emergency.
The O&G industry supports CCS, but only if taxpayers pick up most of the bill. Privatize the profits, socialize the costs. The O&G industry's business model.
Pollution control / emissions reduction is a business cost. To maximize profits and shareholder returns, the O&G industry offloads as much of its costs as possible to the public purse, the environment, and future generations. Industry-captured governments are now conditioned to cough up billions of dollars for CCS, pipelines, SMRs, blue hydrogen, clean-up and reclamation, etc.
Does CNRL need pencils and paper? OK, just put it on the public tab.
Does Suncor's CEO need a new private jet? Fine, put it on our bill.
Even if CCS were efficacious in other sectors, it has only limited application in the oilsands.
As the Pembina Institute notes, in the oilsands sector "most CO2 is emitted in low concentration streams, and the efforts to capture it will be challenging and expensive." Where CO2 sources are small or diffuse, e.g., in the oilsands apart from upgraders, CCS is not economical or practical.
Pembina Institute "Getting on Track" report (2022): "full deployment of CCS in all high-concentration streams could result in a decrease of approximately 7 Mt CO2e annually, which equates to 8% of total oilsands emissions."
CCS captures a fraction of upstream emissions, zero emissions downstream, and no other pollutants.
The IPCC ranks CCS as one of the least-effective, most-expensive climate change mitigation options.
The main purpose of CCS is to provide political cover for fossil-fuel expansion and perpetuate fossil fuels.
As PM Carney's enthusiasm for CCS shows, he has not done his homework.
"As PM Carney's enthusiasm for CCS shows, he has not done his homework."
Or....he has done the math and is still willing to prop up a failed concept. That is far worse than being misinformed. It is disingenuous.
If I may...
Something that Carney is proving very adept at, IMO, is punting at any point he feels that his true intentions (and "Values") might become apparent.
Whether it be:
- his obsequiousness towards Trump (is it Carney that has persuaded the likes of NATO and the EU to follow his lead in fawning over the incipient dictator?)
- his foreshadowing of "sacrifices" and its synonyms required of Canadians, as more resources (i.e. cash) is diverted from programs-unstated to defence and (very likely, but as yet unspoken) industry handouts.
- his adoption of oilpatch bafflegab ("decarbonized oil") and, earlier, euphemizing (new word. You're welcome!) about *traditional Energy".
- his apparent doubling down on low-value extraction as the primary foundational brick of our economy.
I'm reminded, because I recently rewatched it, the movie, Enemy of the State, in which Gene Hackman's character mused about Will Smith's character, "he's either very stupid, or very smart".
In Carney's case, I don't believe he's stupid, but the longer he holds his hand so close to his chest, the less I feel that his values align with anything resembling a society based on strong, democratic governance. His bill C-5 seems indicative, obliterating decades of democratic nation building and the choices made by federal governments over generations. There are ways of expediting processes that don't toss out the rule book.
It's unfortunate that my pre-election strategic concerns about Carney appear to have been well-founded.
Disingenuous? or deliberate mendaciousness?
Alex Botta wrote: "That is far worse than being misinformed. It is disingenuous."
You said it.
So much for Carney's "Values".
In 2021, Carney wrote a book called "Values: Building a Better World for All":
"A bold and urgent argument by the Prime Minister of Canada and former bank governor on the radical, foundational change that is required if we are to build an economy and society based not on market values but on human values."
Where is the radical, foundational change?
Fossil-fuel expansion and propping up Canada's largely foreign-owned O&G industry is Poilievre's agenda. Now it's Carney's too.
Where do duplicity and cynicism rank among Carney's values?
It should become clear in the Fall budget that the Federal cannot afford to invest in any manner (cash, tax relief, debt guarantor) to support building an underground storage of worthless CO2.
We seem to be heading for another big experiment in economic incompetence. Canada can't take many more of them.
What is it about Canadian oil that makes even the most supposedly intelligent decision makers fall over themselves seemingly drunk on the oil supply expansion narrative? How many bankruptcies and stranded oil and gas assets will it take to educate Canada to actually practice honest due dilligence before committing tens of billions to the climate bonfire?
In 2023 the CEO of China's Sinopec declared that China had reached peak gasoline demand due to the millions of new EVs on their roads. He estimated that China will reach an overall oil demand peak in 2026. Perhaps the numbers have changed when accounting for the pandemic demand rebound, but by that year the trends would be clear enough.
And here we are, oil proponents in Canada pushing very hard to ramp up production of Canadian oil supply to China, the top theoretical oil export market outside of the USA.
It doesn't make any sense that 16 independent energy analysis organizations, the IEA being the most visible, have independently estimated the peak in oil demand for 2030 with gas following a few years later. Renewables are growing exponentially, and the resulting electricity is replacing gasoline first and foremost.
There is no magic bullet for CCS and troubling pipeline economics, especially through mountainous terrain. There is no nation or continent waiting with bated breath for new oil supplies to slake their thirst, especially when China is already bringing them not just new EVs, but new EV assembly plants and beneficial new port infrastructure, with not a small amount of indebtedness to China.
Mark Carney, you shouldn't have to be reminded to do the math. But here we are with ample evidence at hand that increasing Canadian oil production and dabbling in failed experiments with CCS and putting tens of billions in public money at risk along with adding weight to expend the planet's already largely drained carbon budget even faster is a fool's game.
We can only hope Carney's sop to Alberta and the petro + conservative political mindset is short lived, and that he will swing full on into electrification and renewables immediately after.
There is no viable alternative to Carney's Liberals on the horizon who have the critical mass to form government, except for the Conservatives who are too drenched in volatile MAGA compounds to be anything but explosive on the socioeconomic, legal and science-based persuasions that have limped Canada along for decades with its fair share of fumbling.
Using Canada's increasingly tenuous economic wiggle room to sink us further into financial pyramid schemes led by foreign owned fossil fuel companies and their local puppet politicians is not a gamble we should be taking, especially when there is much evidence at hand on the risks that will no doubt materialize.
Politics leashed to self-interested industry is often too dangerous for economies and a citizenry's well being.
I propose we start a real movement, similar to what people had in the USA during part of the Viet Nam war.........let's get together and publicly announce we're refusing to pay the percentage of our taxes that is equivalent to all the subsidies government gives, IN OUR NAME, to the Fossil Fool industry.
If we don't know by now that transitioning off this noxious energy source is crucial to a liveable earth for the 7 generations, than its likely quite possible that we don't give a f...... for those future human beings. And for certain sure, using vast amounts of greenhouse spewing fuel to build massive structures that only succeed in capturing, at best, 60% of those emissions....while continuing to increase the number of barrels per day.........is a mug's game.
If the energy companies refuse to be those 'mugs'........there is now good reason on earth for the public to step up and volunteer to wear the label. It's past time for TALK.
We need robust ACTION on the ground. (Now we've saved Canada from Trump by voting for Carney)
. O&G have most likely been Canada's biggest welfare bums since the days of railroad building. However, they are only a hop skip, jump ahead of the auto sector. An idle thought occurs... how do these loans and debts get counted in Trumps meretricious accounting of US-Canada trade imbalance, since most of the O&G and auto sector is majority owned by US or other offshore corporations. Canadians are left with pennies on the dollar flowing into this nation.
Proposition 13 in California was an anti-tax backlash by citizens that has had a devastating effect on that state's budgets for nearly two decades. It was a general call by conservatives who think all taxes are bad, no matter of contrary evidence.
I'm not sure how an anti-oil tax revolt could materialize in Canada, but the idea has some merit if we find our latest national leader dives deeply into oil and gas. I don't see that happening because Carney and the Libs know full well their electoral successes for the past three elections have resulted from progressives switching to the Libs to defeat the Conservatives. Liberals would betray their progressive voters at their peril; there are huge constraints to their tolerance of even a small amount of more climate pollution.
If the NDP found an economically literate Ed Broadbent to lead them, they would do very well in future if Carney tips the canoe into a pool of oil in the next few months.
If "the runway is too short to justify spending on carbon capture", what does that say about the viability of more pipeline? Any government support for any more fossil fuel infrastructure is a sinkhole for public money.
There is no incentive for oil companies to implement CCS. They will continue to string government and taxpayers along until the tarsands are no longer profitable. Yup, that means there will be orphan tarsands left to taxpayers to clean up.
Imo, the CCUS debate is all smoke and mirrors:
+ The O&G industry, through its actions (share buybacks, huge dividend distributions) shows that it knows it is a sunset industry, so they're managing it like an income trust. They do not intend to spend big money on a useless investment.
+ The Carney government, in an effort to keep Alberta at the table, dangles various prospects for future assistance. It has (hopefully) no intent to actually go through with any of them.
This game plays against the background referenced in the article and various comments:
+ China's oil demand (the key prospective customer for more oil from Canada) will soon peak, and so will demand in the rest of the world.
+ The track record of CCUS projects is spotty at best and its contribution to reducing CO2 emissions is minimal. (As well, CCUS has most succesfully been used to *increase* the yield from oil mining!)
+ There are far more cost-effective ways to reduce emissions and transition to clean energy than investing in CCUS schemes (solar, wind, geothermal).
As for squaring Carney's actions to date with his *Value(s)*, I'd say give the man some time. So far he is stickhandling extremely difficult situations rather well, even if not in the balance that some of us would like. The fog should clear within the next 12 months.
Three questions for the "give the man some time" advocates and "it's too early to tell what Carney is going to do" crowd:
1) Why would good projects — environmentally sound, climate-friendly projects — need to override any of Canada's environmental laws? Or trample democracy? Or be rammed through Parliament?
2) Why would Conservatives support the Liberals' Bill C-5?
3) What will Poilievre's Conservatives do with such powers?
We've seen more than enough to set the alarm bells ringing:
"Why we built the Climate Backtracker: Canada’s quiet climate retreat" (National Observer, June 26, 2025)
"Those of us concerned about climate change can be forgiven for breathing a sigh of relief when Mark Carney was elected prime minister. We might not have approved of the dismal record of the Liberals on climate action, but at least we didn’t end up with a Conservative government intent on supporting the fossil fuel industry at all costs. We were lucky. The worst-case scenario didn’t come to pass. And maybe — just maybe — the Carney Liberals might take the need for climate action seriously.
"But just two months into Carney’s reign, that optimism is fading. The warning signs were there from the start. Carney’s first act of government was to kill the consumer carbon tax. The promise to 'build, baby, build' — Carney’s nation-building rejoinder to US President Donald Trump’s mantra to 'drill, baby, drill' — includes plans that could help Canada curb emissions, such as support for clean energy projects and an East-West electricity grid. But Carney’s vision of Canada as an energy superpower also includes new pipelines, changes to the oil and gas emissions cap and federal impact assessment legislation. For Carney, building Canada’s energy sector is likely still going to involve drilling — and a lot of it."
1. They don't. TMX proved that bad projects can be built with existing laws based on one single premise: they are federal projects and federal jurisdiction reigns over provincial jurisdiction on provincial boundary crossing projects. Both the highest courts in BC and the nation unanimously decided for the feds on TMX based on jurisdiction alone, and screw everything else except token acknowledgement of First Nation's right to be consulted.
2. Obviously, they like pipelines, but were thwarted before on Indigenous rights after one try. TMX proponents went back to First Nations and went through the motions of consultation a second time, which seemed to satisfy the courts. But Carney could shock them by building out interties between provincial grids too and electrifying the railways. Neither carbon or electrons have been ruled out. We have to wait and see.
3. Obviously, the Conservatives will run fast and hard on "correcting" their pet peeves and projects. However, didn't we read somewhere that this bill has a 5-year time limit? And that Indigenous rights and provincial environmental rules will be respected? Again, we are forced to wait and see.
1) Why would good projects — environmentally sound, climate-friendly projects — need to override any of Canada's environmental laws? Or trample democracy? Or be rammed through Parliament?
There is no need to override environmental laws in order to build good projects that respect existing law. The obvious implication is that the Liberals plan to nominate projects that would otherwise run up against Canada's environmental laws. Namely, environmentally dubious, climate-unfriendly projects, including fossil-fuel projects like oilsands pipelines.
3) What will Poilievre's Conservatives do with such powers?
The sunset clause is a red herring. Future governments will be able to revive and revise The Bulldoze Canada Act as they see fit.
The Conservatives will likely repeal inconvenient environmental law altogether. Carney is merely formalizing its irrelevance for major projects. C-5 moves the goalposts. From here, it's just one more step for a Conservative government to repeal environmental laws and assessments on any and all projects they choose.
Poilievre or his successor can ram legislation through Parliament without proper scrutiny, just like Carney is doing.
A Liberal opposition will be able to say nothing to oppose it.
"The federal Conservatives have claimed the bill does not go far enough and want to see the Impact Assessment Act repealed."
(CP, Jun 16, 2025)
As for indigenous rights and consultation, merely consider TMX; Coastal Gaslink and the Wet'suwet'en; Alberta oilsands.
"Meaningful" consultation means whatever the government says it means.
Indigenous groups are not buying Carney's reassurances. Why should they?
Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond: "The process that led to Bill C-5 is a case study in how not to engage with Indigenous nations. The conditions for an Idle No More 2.0 uprising are being written into the law as we speak."
The Bulldoze Canada Act does not implement or honour UNDRIP.
Under UNDRIP, the government is obliged to obtain the "free, prior and informed consent" (UNDRIP) of affected indigenous communities.
Not going to happen.
"[Ontario] Bill 5 and [federal] Bill C-5 will open the door for governments to carve out special economic zones or designate projects that can bypass both environmental rules and the need for Indigenous consent.
"'UNDRIP is broken. Free, prior, and informed consent is broken. The duty to consult is broken,' said Coleen Moonias, a spokesperson for Neskantaga First Nation. 'We must continue to fight together and be united.'
"… Kataquapit pointed to Ontario's Bill 5 as clear evidence that the provincial government does not value meaningful input from Indigenous communities. He noted that the legislation was passed without consulting First Nations, undermining the duty to consult and weakening legal protections for Indigenous rights and the environment."
"'Here We Stand': River journey protests controversial bills" (National Observer, June 20, 2025)
No matter what projects the Liberals build, both procedurally and substantively PM Carney has set a terrible precedent.
No need to wait and see.
Good points. I'm willing to give Carney some time -- but there are limits -- to see him square his actions with his well articulated values espoused over the past decade or so, irrespective of the election campaign rhetoric. Carney. does support CCS in his book and speeches, but he is also an economist who will soon understand the limitations of technology, especially when a magic bullet is expected to appear out of nowhere like a winning lottery ticket.
You cannot win a federal election today without acknowledging Alberta, even when its leader is a deluded mouthpiece for the fossil industry. That's the reality of Canadian politics.
But you can do what is right for the country. That means Carney will have to make the decision to give oil and gas a few minor tokens for political expediency, then turn the corner into full electrification, clean energy, non-fossil natural resources and value capture.
Going deeper into carbon will be bad for the country. Period. And Progressives will have to decide on a better course of action electorally. Right now, that means great, wrenching change to defeat an emerging Liberal-Conservative alliance should Carney plunge deeply into expanding oil and gas and rejecting a decade of his personal clean energy narrative. So far, there is no evidence of anything other than that verbal sop to Alberta sprinkled on top of the clean energy characterization for Canada's optimal future clean energy course of action. His actions over the next year will be what rally counts.
It is so aggravating that CNO cannot find the resources to provide a simple Edit button despite years of donation pleas on top of our subscription revenue. This was in response to Erwin Dreessen's comments.
AB wrote: "You cannot win a federal election today without acknowledging Alberta, even when its leader is a deluded mouthpiece for the fossil industry. That's the reality of Canadian politics."
That's just false. In the last election, the Liberals won only two seats in Alberta. One seat in Saskatchewan. With a comfortable margin of victory (25 seats) over the rival Conservatives. The Liberals do not need to win seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan to win elections.
*
AB wrote: "But you can do what is right for the country. That means Carney will have to make the decision to give oil and gas a few minor tokens for political expediency, then turn the corner into full electrification, clean energy, non-fossil natural resources and value capture."
Wishful thinking. We both know that's not going to happen. New pipelines (likely taxpayer-subsidized) and carbon capture are not "minor tokens". That tens or hundreds of billions of public dollars down the drain. Dollars not invested in the energy transition, but in obstruction and delay. Locking us into a fossil-fuel future.
Bill C-5 is not necessary to build up "electrification, clean energy, non-fossil natural resources and value capture". The only reason to invoke C-5 is to build the wrong kind of projects that would otherwise run up against Canada's environmental laws.
*
AB wrote: "So far, there is no evidence of anything other than that verbal sop to Alberta sprinkled on top of the clean energy characterization for Canada's optimal future clean energy course of action. His actions over the next year will be what rally counts."
Your "verbal sops" include Bill C-5, which isn't necessary EXCEPT for fossil-fuel projects and other damaging infrastructure. A commitment to make Canada the world's leading energy superpower, in both clean and conventional energy. Repeated declarations of support for pipelines and CCS.
Carney's $200 M subsidy for Cedar LNG already demonstrates concrete support for Canada's uberwealthy and largely foreign-owned O&G industry.
The Liberals can find untold billions for the O&G industry, but can't afford $680,000 to send Canadian scientists and experts to IPCC meetings:
"Canada will no longer cover travel costs of experts it nominates to UN's climate science body" (CBC, Apr 12, 2025)
"In a sudden and unexplained change from previous decades, the federal government has stopped covering the travel costs of Canadian experts volunteering for the next major global climate science assessment."
Not buying this "Wait and see" approach. Wait for what?
Where do you draw your line in the sand?
Funny, isn’t it, how the oil companies’ messages change? Pathways Alliance used to tell us that carbon capture would solve so many problems. It would protect the planet and be good for the environment, and good for Alberta’s economy. But when they talked to governments, federal or provincial, it was never time to do carbon capture. Too expensive, too early, have to wait till the market is right. If “the time wasn’t right” in 2022 and 2023—record profits due to Putin’s war on Ukraine, and Putin weaponizing gas and oil sales to the EU—then will the time EVER be right?
Let’s consider, too, the oilpatch’s reaction to the Liberal government’s proposal of an “emissions cap.” Remember that one? Panic and hysteria. “It’s not an emissions cap, it’s a production cap!” Daneille Smith, predictably, provided much of the hysteria.
But if carbon capture will save us all, why were they so frightened of a cap on carbon pollution? That makes no sense.
Unless, of course, the oil executives knew that carbon capture wouldn’t work as claimed. THAT would make sense. If carbon capture is a dud, then a pollution cap really IS a production cap! Now I get it.
If I were King Michael the first of Canada, I’d tell the bitumen execs it’s time to put up or shut up. No tax breaks, no funding, no loan guarantees. Pay for carbon capture yourselves. If you really, truly, honestly believe it’ll work, the put your own money into it; buy some shares, don’t just award them to yourselves for being there.
And AFTER you make it work, we can talk about tax refunds. Not before.
>> Panic and hysteria. “It’s not an emissions cap, it’s a production cap!” Daneille Smith, predictably, provided much of the hysteria. <<
I figure another million Chinese EVs on China's roads and in their EV export markets will generate that production cap in Alberta after all, but it will be based on global market demand destruction for oil. How far will Alberta's victimhood / separation card get them then?
Hi Alex. If demand for Alberta bitumen drops off in China, that’ll just reinforce the “It’s not FAIR!!!” howls of the oil-is-God mob. They’ll blame Ottawa, of course. By that time, we’ll have had the separation referendum. If Smith keeps pissing off everyone but her fanboys, I expect the vote will be at least 67% No. With luck, some of the noisiest anti-Canada RWNJ’s will leave Canada in disgust for Trumpland.
This all depends on Carney being smart enough, and brave enough, to resist the extreme pressure oil moguls will use to bend, or break, Carney to their will. Time will tell.
PS: BYD of China is reportedly building factories in Europe, to avoid high EU tariffs on imported Chinese EVs:
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/06/25/byd-in-midst-of-unmatched-flurry-o…
The days of Big Oil’s dominance are numbered. Sadly, that means they’ll fight ever harder to grab all the money they can.