The old anti-oil chestnuts, investing and you
A new report says the oil sands are an unethical investment. What do you say?
Two oil sands-related links from the fine folks over at the NY Times:
*Here’s one from the business section weighing the pros and cons of extracting bitumen out from underneath the boreal forest and bogs otherwise known as northern Alberta. You could read that, or just view the slideshow.
*A superficial look at how industry is striving to clean up so-called tar sands. Go here for a follow-up read into the cost structure behind Alberta’s carbon capture and storage roll out.
The newfound attention being paid to Alberta’s oil patch in the States follows a report published by New York-based RiskMetrics Group on behalf of Ceres Inc., which is a network of green-minded investors and environmental groups based in Boston. Doug Cogan, director of climate risk management at RiskMetrics and a co-author of Canada’s Oil Sands: Shrinking Window of Opportunity, concludes that oil sands extraction from mining sites and the resulting tailings ponds are “like the Gulf of Mexico spill, but playing out in slow motion. From a climate and ecological perspective, we’re really no better off” compared to the risks associated with offshore drilling.
What do you think? Is this a rehash of old anti-oil sands chestnuts? Or is “ethical investing” poised to catch on? Statoil shareholders aren’t convinced.
Follow us on Twitter
Related Posts
Shell proposes 12 mmtpa LNG plant for West Coast • May, 2012
B.C. premier floats oil sands royalty sharing • May, 2012
LNG a catalyst for M&A on Canada’s West Coast • May, 2012
URS Corp. eyes oil sands growth with Flint acquisition • May, 2012
Energy leads Canadian M&A, PwC says • May, 2012
A lifeline for Arctic gas emerges • May, 2012
Talisman swings to profit; stung by low gas prices • May, 2012
TransAlta’s Pioneer may be another victim of shale gas • May, 2012
Entries