I make no bones about it, that when I invest, I take note of environmental considerations. When Coxe was talking about oil sands calling it in the bag, I didn't agree to the extent that I felt water considerations and GHG emissions would have a 'say' as well. (I want to thank the board for allowing me to do the odd, toned down by the way, mini rant, w/out coming back and also making this yet another nauseating 'does man contribute to warming' argument, if you know what i mean.)
I used to own DPM and when I met up w/ DPM's IR in January, it was more to complain about the pathetic CRG IR efforts (an oxymoron if there ever was one). On the topic of DPM however, I wanted to ask about their smelter. I asked if it was wholly owned in the DPM entity or in a sub, and was told it was wholly owned and that DPM is committed to spending the money to make the necessary improvements. That the smelter is owned in DPM vs. in a sub is probably a red herring??? I don't often read about so and so parent walking away from a mess that is in the sub. Regardless of whether the problem is in the parent or a sub, any purchaser is going to do his best to get indemnification from the parent.
OK, now disregard the above because IT MAY ALL BE RED HERRING B.S. IN REGARD TO DPM AS AN INVESTMENT, AND THEIR NAMIBIAN SMELTER!!! My point is simply that environmental matters matter and issues of sustainability will not be going away.
theglobeandmail.com  |
