Miranda

Looking for Solid Returns from Big Oil

I'm sure that BP will get a bump. Unfortunately, what with payouts recently to injured folks, and work on upgrading their technology, I'm not sure how long-lasting it would be. And, for a buy and hold strategy, I'm sure that BP will gain overall over time.

I know that BP talks a big game in alternative energy investment, and it is investing in jatropha, but a lot of it has been for show. And I'm not overly fond of STO. But it does make an interesting option for people who are interested in carbon neutrality and want a slice of the Big Oil pie.

Over time, all the oil companies will likely increase. I simply pointed out (and I'm not an investment professional) that in fundamentals BP seems to have more of a problem than many other Big Oil companies.

Exxon Mobil Diversifies Into the Hybrid Car Market

Some excellent points here. I, personally, would love to see more from the American spirit of innovation. The whole point of our country's enterprising spirit used to be to make something that does more for less. It's time to move beyond the status quo...

Do Biofuels Harm More than They Help?

@ Thomas: And how! I live in Utah, so I hear a lot about so-called "clean" coal...

Do Biofuels Harm More than They Help?

David: You've made some excellent points on the relevance of the environmental debate in investing.

Thomas: I have to agree with you about subsidies. It's a great way for pols to cater to their Big Ag supporters while at the same time pacifying environmentalists by saying: "Look, we're supporting the fight against dirty, polluting oil!" It also gets them in with those who are looking at energy independence as well. Too bad they skate over the fact that they are also giving big subsidies to oil companies as well...

Do Biofuels Harm More than They Help?

Of course this article isn't about making the most money. It's about environmentally friendly investing. And for many, that means supporting "sustainable" energy, some of which can make money (solar stocks and some clean energy ETFs have been doing okay). The point of this article was not to bring up things like solar, wind and nuclear (which are all better for air quality), but rather point out that the biofuels we are focusing on now are not as great as many seem to think.

Jatropha, though, does not destroy topsoil. It actually turns bad topsoil into something usable later. And, unlike corn ethanol, is fairly efficient.

And yes, CO2 does help plants. Unfortunately, too much of it can be harmful. Too much of nearly anything can be harmful. And when what takes the CO2 from the air is being destroyed by clearing, it can be a problem.

Global warming, though, is not something I am overly concerned about. I see it as a red herring. Rather, pollution and the quality of the air we breathe (and the attendant health issues) is more of an issue for me. But the pols want us focused on a global warming debate. Why? Because air pollution and air quality is something we can work on, and something that requires actual action. Global warming by humans can't really be proven definitively at this time, so focusing on a debate forestalls having to take action.

Do Biofuels Harm More than They Help?

I have written about Jatropha for The Panelist in the past, and agree that it is a an excellent resource that we are should be utilizing. Unfortunately, few, if any, Americans are even aware of it. To BP's credit, it is investing a small amount in Jatropha. It would be an excellent way to help boost developing economies while at the same time producing the means of a biofuel that is more efficient and environmentally friendly.

As for the chicken analogy -- I'm not sure about the point, but we aren't on a desert island (thankfully) and there are other things we could be developing instead of just using oil until it's gone. I think a complementary solution could be used. Perhaps feed some of the cereal to some of the chickens, and eat a mixed diet of chicken and cereal, slowly weaning one of the chicken. (Since the chicken will be gone anyway.) Of course, with both chicken and cereal, it is possible to get more of both. Chickens lay eggs and cereal can be planted and harvested. You can't get more oil.

Exxon Mobil Does It Again

I don't have an issue with them going to court. It's their right. They should be able to appeal what they consider questionable. I just don't agree with them. That's what opinions are for.

I don't agree with the "values" of XOM, in the sense that they don't see beyond profit and obeying the letter of the law and the minimum required in circumstances. Yes, XOM did what was necessary at the time. But no more than that. Going to court, while it is their right, and I think it's fine for them to do it, is a way of avoiding "going the extra mile."

But that's my opinion. I agree that XOM is a good investment choice, but I don't like the way they do things, so I won't invest in the company. You disagree. And you will probably make more money than me if you decide to invest in XOM at some point.

Exxon Mobil Does It Again

Perhaps I should have said that they have a record of not caring about improving its environmental record. Officers of Exxon have made that very clear (one example: money.cnn.com/magazine...)

You're right. XOM doesn't have to try and promote better environmental practices. But for investors who care about that sort of thing, simply meeting minimum standards and efforts to avoid paying for the damages it caused in the Valdez spill equals a horrible record. (Just because a company meets the absolute minimum required by law, and just because a company isn't breaking any laws doesn't mean its doing any good; it just means it could -- and probably would -- be doing worse.)

After all, what you consider horrible is subjective. And that is my point. If profits are ALL you care about in a company, Exxon is the way to go.