Profit From the BP Debacle and Eurozone Crisis

Greece's economy is on life support. Spain, Portugal, and Italy could be next, and the prospect of more spillover to the Eurozone looms. The U.S. is dealing with one of the worst environmental disasters in its history. In short,you're not totally crazy for contemplating the world's end.

Mayan calendar prophecies aside, these events spell hard times for oil services companies. The prospect of Eurozone contagion means declining economic activity and lower oil consumption. And the BP (NYSE: BP  ) spill carries the prospect of increased regulation, restrictions on drilling, and higher costs.

We don't know the exact magnitude of the risk. But we do know the world's not ending, and our addiction to oil is not going away. That makes Oil Services HOLDRs (AMEX: OIH  ) , an exchange-traded fund comprising the sector's biggest and brightest, a compelling contrarian opportunity.

Let the world worry about the near term. Given a chance to invest in the cream of the crop -- 25% off 52-week highs, at 22 times cyclically depressed earnings -- I'll be sleeping well.

Surveying the opportunity
Oil Services HOLDRs is basically a way to play oil and natural gas. Its components make a living contracting oil rigs, providing intelligence used to extract oil (or natural gas) from the ground, building parts for rigs, and other "services." Think of them as very technologically advanced picks and shovels.

It's cheap because the underlying components -- Schlumberger (NYSE: SLB  ) , Transocean (NYSE: RIG  ) , Diamond Offshore (NYSE: DO  ) , and National Oilwell Varco (NYSE: NOV  ) , to name a few -- face concerns over the economy, regulation, and the resulting impact in the oil patch.

Let's be fair: Drilling activity may temporarily decline. Deepwater drilling will almost certainly face increased regulation. And oil consumption might slip, at least temporarily. Transocean will almost certainly face some legal liability from the BP oil spill. But I take the long view.

Does it matter?
We're hooked on that grimy black stuff. The world's not quitting oil, long-term consumption's unlikely to decline, drilling's not getting cheaper, and taking a barrel from the ground isn't easier. No oil spill will change that.

Additionally, big oil's increasingly looking to the offshore deepwater to meet demand for new oil. The Energy Information Administration anticipates U.S. offshore production will grow from 1.4 million barrels per day in 2006 to 2.7 million in 2030. To pursue these opportunities, oil companies must contend with higher costs, increasing complexity, and harsh drilling conditions. This means more cash for oil services companies.

As for the Eurozone crisis, don't assume economic tumult will gut oil demand. From 2007 to 2009, the span of the U.S. credit crisis, worldwide daily petroleum consumption declined only 2.5% . That doesn't look catastrophic.

Unless the world economy's permanently declining -- and I don't think it is -- long-term demand is headed up. Emerging economies are hungry for oil: Asian countries' daily oil consumption increased 23% from 1999 to 2009. That may sound like a lot, but there's still growth here. Sixty percent of the world's population lives in Asia, but it represents only 30% of worldwide oil consumption.

Put it in context
These companies are priced at about 22 times earnings, telling us the market expects low-double-digit earnings growth. That's a reasonable long-term expectation, but it doesn't reveal the whole story.

I think those earnings, and the multiple, are depressed to an unsustainably low threshold. These companies' earnings plummeted in 2008 and the early part of 2009, as the U.S. suffered the credit crisis' ravages and oil prices tanked. Still, remember that the world needs oil. To support its thirst, these companies need to get back to work.

Seem familiar?
I'm not the only one advancing this thesis. The guys at Motley Fool Pro recommended Vanguard Energy (NYSE: VDE  ) a while back, recognizing an inexorable trend toward more oil consumption, and irrationally priced energy markets. They're up 22%. Today, the opportunity's more concentrated, but the thesis is eerily similar -- irrationally priced oil-services shares. Oil consumption is just not going away. You might as well profit from it.

Want to know what the folks at Pro are doing now? Just give us your email, and we'll be happy to tell you.

Mike Olsen is a senior analyst for Motley Fool Hidden Gems. He owns shares of Transocean. He is not a lobbyist or an oil rigger, or enamored of living in a greenhouse. National Oilwell Varco is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor selection. The Fool owns shares of Vanguard Energy ETF. The Fool has a disclosure policy.

Read/Post Comments (43) | Recommend This Article (96)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On June 17, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Zaneyjaney wrote:

    With the dip in Big Oil's graphs, I'm tempted to, but am willing to wait until the gushing geyser in the Gulf is plugged. Seems better than needing to plug the hole in my portfolio as their stocks continue to plummet.

  • Report this Comment On June 17, 2010, at 6:22 PM, ifool100 wrote:

    You wrote: "We're hooked on that grimy black stuff. The world's not quitting oil, long-term consumption's unlikely to decline, drilling's not getting cheaper, and taking a barrel from the ground isn't easier. No oil spill will change that." It could. As investors, our aim is to make as much money as possible. As humans, I think we are called to something more than that. We can keep on buying into something that is wrecking our world to make a fast buck or we can finally decide that this is not the answer for us or our kids. BP is pouring the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez into the gulf every 3 days. They will probably continue doing so until at least the end of the year, It could get much worse as the integrity of the bore casing begins to fail. This is BP's fault - with well over 100 times more safety violations than any competitor. BP is also on sale, about 1/2 off. So it seems to me the real question is not whether or not BP is a good investment, but at what point do you do you say "this is wrong and I will not be a part of it, regardless of the profit I may earn"? If this is not that point, there probably is none for you. And that is a very sad thing for all of us.

  • Report this Comment On June 17, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Dannysea wrote:

    Though holding these items, is and will not be popular, oil is still black gold. As we look into new energy options and see the full circle come to existing technologies,the muscle of these vying in lieu of the oil consumption is still a while away.

    All life is filled with tragedies as our oil spill in the gulf reminds us; but we still love those creature comforts like driving out for a bite to eat or to see a movie.

    With looming tax increases a minimum of gov't response to the spill, and we Westerners using less of the gooey stuff, gas drives the world. Especially the first two generations of going automotive, as we are seeing in China.

    Add into this how China has been buying up rights all the way from off Vietnam, to purchasing our natural gas.

    Can not but think this is the way to invest for now.

  • Report this Comment On June 17, 2010, at 7:15 PM, derjazzpa1 wrote:

    You people think of the damn cash first as opposed to the sufferring of human beings and Mother Nature. I don't get your attitude. These idiots should be spared no pain or punishment.

    Invest in the survival of mankind not your flipping wallet.

  • Report this Comment On June 17, 2010, at 7:40 PM, TheRockInEgg wrote:

    My first question (provoked by the headline) was "Is this sick or just cynical?"

    And I actually had to think for a while. Are we here for "short profit taking" or do we have other goals?

    As one of the first persons to ever "decontaminate" sea birds covered in oil (Tampa Bay, 1970) and bearing the scars from the cormorants and egrets on my arms yet, I ask all of you, where is the future of human movement?

    European governments realized the "predicament" long ago and began to lay the infrastructure for mass transit; while the US dismantled theirs.

    Oil - grimy stuff - an addiction...

    One of the fastest rising budget items in the US Government's budget is "fuel costs".

    What is the common thread of this discussion?

    Oil - grimy stuff - an addiction

    that may ruin all of us....

    Invest wisely

  • Report this Comment On June 17, 2010, at 7:42 PM, cbtroup wrote:

    You can't invest in the survival of mankind without something in the wallet.

  • Report this Comment On June 17, 2010, at 8:03 PM, FinnMcCoolIRA wrote:

    For BP the outlook is very likely much worse than civil fines and more regulation.

    With Obama/Holder spouting 'CRIMINAL Investigation' it is likely that these politicians will use the threat of criminal indictments and recision of U.S. drilling rights to extort more 'cooperation' from BP and the other oil companies (if possible).

    In the case of BP, I believe that Obama/Holder will buypass the spill itself and come up with some quasi-legal reason (like they've never done that before!) to raise a criminal indictment of 'negligent homocide' for the death of the 11 platform workers.

    Scare ... but to be expected, unfortunately.

  • Report this Comment On June 17, 2010, at 8:05 PM, polenium wrote:

    It's not a debacle, it's an environmental and health castastrophe. It's proof positive that our government is so broken that it cannot even protect its own citizens.

    There's a word for people that profit from tragedy.


  • Report this Comment On June 17, 2010, at 8:21 PM, foorpool wrote:

    Let's face it. We are oil-babies. Our "comfort and amusement" lifestyles would not be possible without the cheap energy available to us for more than a century. I don't see people scaling back anytime soon. Besides, I *deserve* my wide screen TV since I've worked so hard (sarcasm alert). Obama likened our ability to find an alternative to oil to that of the production of armaments in WWII. Humans need a *real* crisis to make *real* progress. A real crisis will have to infringe on our "comfort and amusement". Like a drunk, most only make progress after hitting rock bottom. Now the question becomes, should I invest in oil so that I can maintain my comfort and amusement longer than my *stupid* neighbor who didn't invest in oil?

  • Report this Comment On June 17, 2010, at 10:29 PM, xuincherguixe wrote:

    Oil isn't going away any time soon. Unfortunately.

    But there's no rule saying you can't use oil profits to invest in alternative energy.

  • Report this Comment On June 17, 2010, at 10:54 PM, sagittaep wrote:

    No world left to live in = no profit left either.

    Maybe we should use a bit of wisdom than trodding on old used worn out paths? Let's be inventive and invest in exciting new technology. It might turn out to be way more profitable than the old poisonous stuff.

    Right now development of other ways of getting energy have been hindered by stagnated thinking for years.

    It's time to change and shareholders DO have responsibility to speak up. Or are we all single, no family, no children, no future, and only think of how we might amuse ourselves to death in the most fun way?

  • Report this Comment On June 17, 2010, at 11:03 PM, jfrankh57 wrote:

    You make an assumption that since 60% of the world population is in Asia and they only use 30% of current oil consumption that there is a lot of room for growth. That doesn't sound like someone is researching the demographics of the multiple societies in that area of the world. The idea of a peasant class is alive and well there. Many people in China live a day to day existence in agricultural communities. Blangladesh and Pakistan export a lot of its work force to other countries. I recent;y returned from contracr work in the UAE where the labor force would typically earn 700 to 1000 Dirhams (AED 1 = $0.27) plus room and board each month. These were the well to do from there part of there world because they sent home more money out of that paltry amount then men in their home towns earned in three months on average. There are still many places where cheap labor is the norm and that will not change anytime soon. You have many people in that part of the world who can't even afford the relatively new TATA econo box selling for about $2000. On top of these concerns, you have many governments that subside fuel prices to keep them in range of affordability for the current driving public of their nations. This is another issue that would become unsustainable for an ever growing driving public.

  • Report this Comment On June 18, 2010, at 12:31 AM, wjcoffman wrote:

    "But we do know the world's not ending, . . .". Really? How do you know? I'm not doubting the statement but am quite interested in how you KNOW. You can't tell what stocks are going to go up or go down but you KNOW the world's not ending.

  • Report this Comment On June 18, 2010, at 2:12 AM, MyDonkey wrote:

    We shouldn't let this catastrophe go to waste.

    Americans need to develop the "Solar Grand Plan" that was published in the December 2007 issue of Scientific American, and available in PDF here:

    The article describes how solar energy could supply 69 percent of US electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by the year 2050.

    The authors further predict that renewable resources could supply 100 percent of US electricity and over 90 percent of total energy by 2100. Solar power would comprise over 85 percent of this total, with the remainder coming from wind power and smaller amounts of geothermal energy and biomass-based fuels. The numbers assume a one percent annual increase in energy demand, and no new technological innovations after 2020.

    The total cost is estimated at $420 billion ($10.5 billion per year for 40 years), ending in 2050. The money would be generated by a carbon tax of 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, raising the cost of electricity (currently 6-10 cents per kWh) to 6.5-10.5 cents per kWh. The annual expense would be less than the current US Farm Price Support program. It would also be less than the tax subsidies responsible for building the country’s high-speed telecommunications infrastructure over the past 35 years.

    Solar power is the only renewable resource capable of satisfying such large-scale demands for energy. To learn the details, read the SCIAM article (linked to above) and then read its 716 comments (including many responses by the authors) beginning here:

  • Report this Comment On June 18, 2010, at 2:21 AM, thidmark wrote:

    This morality BS cracks me up. Do any of you have a clue what other products are derived from petroleum??

  • Report this Comment On June 18, 2010, at 7:13 AM, TheRockInEgg wrote:

    There are many products that are derived from petroleum, including plastics, dyes, and medicines.

    Duh, that's why using it to propel vehicles isn't its best use.

    What's so "moral" about using resources wisely?

  • Report this Comment On June 18, 2010, at 7:54 AM, EBerg13 wrote:

    It's estimated in my region that over 22% of cars can run on E85. I know of one E85 station here in Milwaukee and it sells the stuff at the same price as regular gas (and it gets far worse mileage). If we want to end at least partial dependence the government could end the petroleum tax on E85 and give some sort of incentive for distributing it.

    That's the first step. Second, is to get trucks and mass transit running on natural gas or biodiesel. How hard it this? Why does everything have to be so complicated?

    And for a pure play in energy, pick pipelines. DPM pays around 9% and ships both oil and natural gas. It's a safer alternative to oil.

  • Report this Comment On June 18, 2010, at 9:29 AM, alwayslong100 wrote:

    There is plenty of blame to go around. Yes, we can blame BP. But, we must also place blame on the environmentalist, congress and the administration. Drilling is not permitted in the shallow water. Some studies indicate that there is more oil in the continental U.S. than all of the Middle East, but no drilling is permitted because of the environmentalist. The Department of Energy was created to solve our energy problems and has been burning millions of taxpayers’ dollars - what have they provided us with? As long as we need electricity and transportation with the current mindset in this country, the need for oil is not going to disappear anytime soon. So, if we want someone to blame we could also look in the mirror.

  • Report this Comment On June 19, 2010, at 3:17 PM, bozomonkey wrote:

    Excellent comments from everyone

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 1:20 AM, jdshaver wrote:

    To who it may concern,

    This is a financial web service, not a Green Peace forum. While some of us may even agree with you please stick to fundamentals and dollars and cents in this forum and check your holier than thou attitudes and preaching to yourselves. If you feel so inclined, there are plenty of appropriate forums in which to vent to those that are likely like minded and care o hear it.

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Pandorabelle wrote:

    My fundamentals take the environment into consideration. This is a pivotal time where we can refuse to support companies that destroy the planet for the sake of making a buck and demand making profit from more evolved values.

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 1:18 PM, rtichy wrote:

    Did anyone else watch Gasland on HBO? I'm not sure that BP's spill is even the worst thing happening to the lower midwest. If the things represented in Gasland are true, then a lot of natural gas producers are going to answer for their actions in the future, too. The spill might be an obvious disaster, but if Dallas/Fort Worth is breathing benzene all the time, then that is a disaster, too.

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 1:25 PM, scrivener1 wrote:

    derjazzpa1 said, "Invest in the survival of mankind not your flipping wallet."

    VERY, VERY, TRUE. I 100% support spending time in prayer with our Savior, Jesus Christ.

    In the mean time, I would like to provide for myself, my church, and my family. So, my dilemma is whether to invest in BP that will no doubt rebound and support a good dividend or NOV which Motley Fool, just in its last newsletter, has said in no uncertain terms BUY, BUY, BUY!!!

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 2:11 PM, MrBimble wrote:

    to jdshaver (to who is not concerned)

    While your comment has merit (this IS a financial website) it should also be noted that where financial minds come to meet and exchange ideas are the IDEAL platforms for /financial experts/ to share their moral intents as well. Money and integrity are /not/ mutually exclusive, regardless of what you may think.

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 2:42 PM, EELNIVEK wrote:

    How do we get off OIL when no one wants alternative energy in their back yard???

    In December, this coalition found itself outflanked by a small Southern California group called the Wildlands Conservancy that persuaded U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein to introduce legislation banning renewable energy development on more than a million acres of the Mojave — including the land on which PG&E and others had set their sights. While hundreds of thousands of acres remain in the Mojave for potential solar farms, the area targeted by the Feinstein legislation had been particularly valued by developers for its proximity to transmission lines and the huge Southern California market.

    Elsewhere in California’s deserts, solar power plant projects have become bogged down as grassroots advocates challenge their impact on water resources, desert tortoises, and other rare animals and plants that inhabit a fragile arid ecosystem. For some, the desert is iconic and untouchable; for others it’s a vast resource to be tapped.

    When Feinstein, a California Democrat, first indicated she favored walling off a large swath of the desert from renewable energy development, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger growled, “If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don’t know where the hell we can put it.”

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 2:46 PM, jfenlon wrote:

    For those of you who think natural gas is a viable solution see the HBO documentary "Gasland". T.Boone Pickens refused to be interviewed by the producer, along with Halliburton.

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 3:53 PM, TheRockInEgg wrote:

    to jdshaver

    Ah, I see. Your viewpoints are based in the antiquated view of shareholder value, instead of the more modern "stakeholder" value theory that actually considers that the actions that a corporation takes may damage other stakeholders (communities, the environment, the economy, its employees, etc.)

    Can you state with certainty what BP's final liability will be in the end?

    Will it continue to be a "going concern" in light of the recent disclosures regarding its violation of numerous regulations?

    What will BP's capacity be for continuing to pay dividends?

    If one can answer these questions, then one could determine the risk of investing in BP. Sadly, I know no one who can answer them.

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Beagle2Mars wrote:

    How much did Chevron pay out to the British and Scottish for the spill they had in the North Sea? Did they pay for environmental clean-up? Don't think so. Did they have limitless fines? No, they're still in business.

    Good to see that most intelligent people aren't slamming the British just because the buck stopped with a British company. BP is 6% of UK GDP, it's a global force and it has stepped up to do everything it can to stop the leak. I'm buying BP, long, contrarian, maverick and fingers crossed.

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 4:16 PM, sean0sullivan wrote:

    If we knew with any certainty what BP's liability would ultimately be, whether it would be a "going concern", or continue to pay dividends, we would know exactly how to price it and there would be absolutely no risk. The fact that we don't know is what makes it risky.

    For full disclosure, I recently purchased some shares of BP since I am impressed with their customer service during the crisis. Yes, they botched the oil well, but they have been working damn hard to fix it. Odds are they will have it capped in a few months, with another ship helping to suck up additional oil in the next few weeks. In a few years, they'll be back to normal, their stock value will be in line with the other oil giants, and I'll have made some money off of my investment in the company.

    I could be very wrong, and BP could go out of business. If they do, there's not much money left to pay for fixing the problems the disaster will cause and I lose my investment. It's not a gamble, but it is risky.

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 4:48 PM, dmiles2 wrote:

    Oil leaking from the well is not as big an environmental disaster as some of you apparently think. Oil leaks from the ocean bed 24/7 every day of the year. It is a local tragedy, but not a global one. Even the local effects are not permanent, though they can seem long-lasting to us humans (and wildlife).

    Everybody seems to have forgotten the huge Mexican oil spill years ago. Where are its effects now?

    People were certain that ash from Mount Saint Helens would destroy the ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest. I visited there ten years ago and could not tell that anything had happened outside the blast area.

    What puny perspective we have.

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 4:50 PM, dmiles2 wrote:

    I failed to make clear that I consider the damaged BP well a local tragedy, not the oil that leaks from the ocean bed.

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 4:56 PM, TonyBritten wrote:

    Reagan once said "you aint seen nothing yet" and then later "the buck stops here".

    So all of you out there who think BP are a good play now you do need to consider what Obama may very well do. He could seize control of all the USA holdings in BP; he could force an issue where the Directors are sacked. It's all like a submarine that's deep underneath . . . . you just cannot be sure of the outcome . . . there are many more stocks that pay good divs and don't carry the risk.

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 5:14 PM, jdshaver wrote:

    To MrBimble,

    Despite what you may think, your or any other financial expert's "moral intent" has no bearing on my financial decisions, but they are an entertaining and inevitable distraction from the rest of the sound financial exchange going on. I realized prior to it's posting that my statement would drum up lots of responses from the zealots out there. Thanks for keeping it interesting.

    To TheRockInEgg,

    Please don't let your concern for the environment get in the way of your interpretation of my statement. No where did I say anything about my values nor about BP's soundness or lack thereof as an investment.

    No, I cannot provide the information you requested, if I could I wouldn't be in this forum reading it for financial advise, but rather, I'd be getting paid for my financial expertise.

    There ARE however, several resources, even many stories here on the Motley Fool forum, which attempt to make educated guesses towards answering the questions you posed. Feel free to check them out.

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 5:58 PM, TheRockInEgg wrote:

    Dear Mr. jdshaver,

    My "concern for the environment" is only one small factor in the equation. I was taught that the value of any resource should be determined by its "best use". Using petrochemicals to propel vehicles is one of the worst uses. As I wrote before, petroleum can be used to manufacture dyes, plastics, and medicines (oops, I forgot fertilizer) and a myriad of other products.

    And there are SERIOUS questions about the wisdom of investing in BP. A good indicator would be to see whether there is "insider" trading by the executives and directors of BP.

    Are they exercising their options?

    Are they selling their shares?

    This all must be disclosed......

    Of course, they must worry about the "insider information" clause. But, exercising options and buying more shares would be a good indication of their sentiment.

    As Deep Throat said, "Follow the money."

  • Report this Comment On June 25, 2010, at 10:45 PM, srmd22 wrote:

    I agree with jdshaver

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2010, at 12:24 AM, moretoons wrote:

    This article is quite frankly, obscene. I appreciate that we all want to make money, but at what cost? The destruction of beautiful natural habitats? Or the rampant criminal abuses of Goldman and other large banks? I'm sorry, but there is more to life than money. I'm here to invest in reasonable companies that don't harm people or the environment. If ALL you care about is money regardless of the cost to the environment or other humans, you are sick indeed.

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2010, at 4:40 PM, dbaeder wrote:

    How many of you decrying the obsenity of this article are driving around in cars with internal combustion engines? You've put your money where your mouth is! The hypocrisy is overwhelming!

  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2010, at 12:06 AM, thisislabor wrote:

    On June 25, 2010, at 1:25 PM, scrivener1 wrote:

    derjazzpa1 said, "Invest in the survival of mankind not your flipping wallet."

    VERY, VERY, TRUE. I 100% support spending time in prayer with our Savior, Jesus Christ.

    In the mean time, I would like to provide for myself, my church, and my family. So, my dilemma is whether to invest in BP that will no doubt rebound and support a good dividend or NOV which Motley Fool, just in its last newsletter, has said in no uncertain terms BUY, BUY, BUY!!!

    I personally totally agree!

  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2010, at 2:32 AM, AirForceFool wrote:

    It really boils down to this...

    I'd rather you don't try to assert your values onto me. Personally I sold my shares of big MO after my mother died of lung cancer from smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years (she died at the ripe old age of 53... yeah, she started that early... had to work up up to the two packs a day... hard for a 13 year old get nick that many). But the risks of smoking are well known... I'm not going to tell people they shouldn't buy stock in MO... that's their choice... it's a very well run company... so people don't like what smoking does to people... so they enact legislation to tax the heck out of tobacco... seems fair enough... but folks on this thread that are preaching about change need to quit being lazy, and realize that all they're doing is venting... they aren't really affecting any change... if you want to affect change, then look to boycott some of the things you use every day.

    Fuel... to include natural gas... how many homes use gas to heat?

    Asphalt for driving on... much more convenient then dirt roads...

    Plastics: Ouch... that covers just about everthing.

    Candles: and I was planning on using those when I shut off the electricity to reduce oil consumption... The U.S. only gets 3% of our electricity from oil... but someone is going to have to call Hawaii up and tell them the bad news... roughly 75% of their electricity comes from oil... ouch...

    Clothes: Double ouch... now i have to check every fabric composition to determine which clothes I can't buy... sigh... (hint: polyester, nylon)

    Hand lotions, petroleum jelly, perfume, dishwashing liquids, ink, bubble gums, car tires...

    The list goes on and on of course but you get the picture.

    So let's get the government to subsidize ethanol so we can get off oil... but is everyone ready for the higher taxes that come with this.... some certainly will raise their hands... but it's not a large percentage... so let's build huge solar farms in the California desert... oh wait... some environmentalists want to pretect the fragile desert... something's got to give here folks... people will vote for something until it's an inconvenience to them, then it's a different story...

    Don't own any BP shares... I think they could go significantly lower... which seems crazy... for those of you that want to protect the planet and clean up this mess should be hoping that BP is highly profitable for the next several years so they can pay for all the work that needs to be done... AND at the same time working to affect legislative changes that will make oil less necessary. Not decrying how other investors have lost their "moral compass" while you put on your "makeup" or drink out of a "plastic" coffee cup as you drive to work with new "tires" on the recently repaved "highway" on your way to your childs soccer"ball" game stoked that they will be so proud to try on their new uniform (clothes) that you just picked up...


  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2010, at 9:41 AM, courtneTHEgreat wrote:

    This is a big SCAM! BP wants to suck oil off the top of the water instead of fixing this mess. How much is BP making per day? BP stock is slipping to where the exec's want it. They will buy the shares and be in fat city once they stop the leak and the focus is off of this issue. Do we remember BOA??

    I say BUY BP at $25 and 20 and 15 and 10.... like the big guys. Hold this for as long as you can then sell to rack in your profit. My buy order is in at $20 to $1.... Then I will wait for the stock to go back to $40.... Option plays are bad news.... They will play the news-market and the option will expire worthless, call OR puts. So, buy the stock, unless you think oil is worthless....

    But then there is the magnetocaloric process.... This explains why the big oil hogs must act quickly.


  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2010, at 11:45 AM, sevenofseven wrote:

    my donkey, it's been cloudy and rainy here for the past week. Thank God I don't have to rely on solar panels for electricity.

    Oil is not used for electrical generation anyway, or very sparingly.

    Why is using oil the worst way to power autos?

    As for destroying the environment, just take a look at Lake Erie now as compared to 20-30 years ago. Why assume that a particular environment can not repair itself over time as have been evidenced over and over again. Of course, damage should be avoided, but it's not as if it will be wrecked forever as the wacko environmentailist would have everyone believe.

    As for the birds caught in the oil, I read that to clean each bird came to some astronomical $ amount per animal, and that most did not survive anyway. What about all the birds that get killed by windmills?

    airforcefool is correct.

  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Gezzer80 wrote:

    The US has greater oil reserves than the far east has according to the US energy dept and restated by the former Pres of Shell oil last week..We have shale oil and oilshale in Colorado and other western states The Bakken formation in the Dakotas and more of the same in Canada we have shallow water oil reserves off Florida and the West coast..All could be available to us if permits were allowed....The statement that we have less natural resouces than the rest of the world is untrue and is used only as politically expedient..We have the ability to become totally independent of foreign sources of oil if the Government and the environmentalists would allow it..If a major airliner had crashed would we halt all air travel..NO..A coal mine accident kills several men..Do we stop all mining..No.. In any major industrial activity mining..steel production..Air Travel .Accidents occur..We should resolve the current problem and move on..There are no absolute gurantees..Even in Life as we are all terminal..Lets solve this problem and move on..Rmart

  • Report this Comment On June 29, 2010, at 12:35 PM, matthew2219 wrote:

    Having BP stock (and actually contemplating buying more) I read the thread on this subject quite avidly. I agree with the writers who worry, rightfully, about the "moral" implications in investing in a polluting industry; and the pragmatists who take the world as it is and want to make money on oil to invest in alternative energy companies. But what are those companies and do they make investment "sense" now?

    If there is such a "play" out there share it with those of us who are torn between the two sides of this debate.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1211617, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/21/2016 9:22:20 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 12 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,162.35 -40.27 0.00%
S&P 500 2,141.34 -2.95 0.00%
NASD 5,241.83 0.00 0.00%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

10/20/2016 4:00 PM
BP $36.05 Down +0.00 +0.00%
BP CAPS Rating: ****
DO $17.90 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Diamond Offshore D… CAPS Rating: ***
NOV $37.19 Down +0.00 +0.00%
National Oilwell V… CAPS Rating: *****
RIG $10.59 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Transocean CAPS Rating: ****
SLB $82.99 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Schlumberger CAPS Rating: ****
VDE $97.84 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Vanguard Energy ET… CAPS Rating: *****