U.S government officials are estimating that up to 60,000 barrels of oil are still pouring into the Gulf of Mexico daily since the tragic oil rig explosion on April 20, with little that can be done about it until relief wells are completed in August. Independent experts believe this amount could be greater, resulting in one of the greatest human-induced environmental calamities in history.
There are four publicly-traded corporations involved with this rig--BP, Transocean (RIG), Halliburton (HAL) and Cameron International (CAM)-- with BP taking the lion's share of the blame. According to survivors of the explosion and internal BP documents obtained by numerous media sources, corners were cut when testing the safety of this rig and the equipment aimed at preventing this type of blowout, and that there was negligence in addressing potential problems that had already been discovered. These sources also claim BP urged that processes be sped up to unsafe levels to expedite the profitability of this well.
At a rental cost of $500,000 a day plus operational costs, managing an oil rig is an expensive venture. And any idle time with no oil production directly affects its profitability. Shutting down the operation for a week or more to fix safety concerns would have cost BP millions of dollars. So, yes, corners were cut. And the financial result of bypassing safety concerns will equate to billions of dollars in clean up costs alone. The total environmental and economic damage is immeasurable at this point, the full extent unlikely to be known for decades.
So who is responsible for this human failure of epic proportions--BP, Transocean, Halliburton, Cameron ... or you? That's right, you. Are you partly responsible for what has happened?
A viable case can be made that we're all partly responsible, given our gluttonous demand for dirty energy and our lack of political, economic and even aesthetic will to employ cleaner alternatives. But, coming from a different perspective, if through personal accounts or a workplace retirement plan, you own shares of stock or bonds issued by any of these four companies, or other investments that aren't socially screened, the likely answer is yes--you are partly responsible for this spill.
Let's consider a hypothetical situation. You are the owner of a taxi service. At your direction, the company not only cuts corners on the safety of its fleet, but has communicated to the drivers they should drive well above posted speed limits so more customers can be served. If one of your taxis were to be the cause of an accident resulting in property damage and loss of life, wouldn't you be civilly and quite possibly, criminally liable? Sure you would. I'd like to believe most people have the moral fortitude not to run a business in an unethical manner such as this.
So, why then do principled people decide to own or allow themselves through other investments to own stock in companies such as these, who have run their businesses exactly as is suggested in the hypothetical? If you own shares of these four companies, directly or not, you are an owner of these companies that skimped on safety and chose to speed up operations without regard to the financial and environmental risks.
Shareholders are supposed to have a voice in how their companies are run. They have the opportunity to vote yearly on the board of directors and bring up other issues with management at annual meetings. It's quite obvious though that the shareholders of BP, Transocean, Halliburton and Cameron International have not emphasized the importance of corporate ethics and responsible drilling to company management.
In the past twelve months, these four companies have reported combined profits of nearly $70 billion. So, those who own these stocks have personally profited from the unscrupulous behavior of these companies, at the expense of human life, wildlife, vital eco-systems and the economy of an entire region. Or have they?
While short-term traders may have made money on the fluctuations in these stocks, have long-term investors shared in those profits? I certainly can't estimate any single investor's personal gain, but BP, Transocean and Halliburton are all roughly at the same share price they were in 1997, although having paid some dividends. The only of these stocks that has maintained any longer-term gain in share price is Cameron International, which is still down roughly 20% since the accident.
If you've been a long-term owner of any of these stocks, what have you gained personally as a result of the unsafe, unethical business practices and corner-cutting of these corporations? The truth is, you likely have very little to show for it on your personal balance sheet. And people died, and people are losing jobs, and Gulf Coast businesses are folding, and our beautiful mother earth - well, she just continues to suffer.
Do you know what's in your portfolio? Are you aware of and comfortable with the ethical standards employed by the companies you've invested in? Do you blindly follow the advice of your adviser or just dump money into whichever investments have performed the best? Shouldn't your portfolio reflect the principles that you display in your personal life?
Know what you own!
Darron Stover is president and founder of Invest for Change, LLC (www.investforchange.com), a Raleigh-based socially responsible financial services firm, offering securities and investment advice through FSC Securities Corporation, a Registered Broker/Dealer and Registered Investment Advisor; Member FINRA/SIPC. Invest For Change is not affiliated with FSC Securities Corporation. The views expressed are not necessarily the opinion of FSC Securities Corporation, and should not be construed directly or indirectly, as an offer to buy or sell any securities mentioned herein. Information is based on sources believed to be reliable; however, the accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. Investing is subject to risks including loss of principal. Stover can be reached at darron@investforchange.com.
Follow Darron Stover on Twitter: www.twitter.com/InvestForChange
WE still have the SUV drivers. We need jobs, and we need renewable energy systems. Somehow we can't get the connection. We keep our thermostats at 72 degrees in the summer and winter as if we couldn't bear a tiny bit of discomfort. WE are at the crisis point now with climate change....I wonder if it will ever reach the consciousness of the American people before it is too late?
However, EVERYONE WHO DRIVES A CAR is guilty! Get bikes, people! We criticize China while they RIDE BIKES to work.
You could also say it's the car corps, but the AMERICAN people are so ignorant that they don't stand up to these corps.
Until Banks and companies are let to fail, and sued/fined to failure, and shareholders lose all of their money, they will keep investing in those entities.
This, of course, means that people would have to endure financial system problems and (in BP's case) energy problems.
But we don't have the stomach for that.
Until we do, situations which should destroy a company, will only be perceived as an opportunity to buy cheap shares.
Until we have the bells, to let a deserving company burn to the ground, we will never save the village from their destructive urges..
Too many of us are blindly investing in the funds or companies that will simply bring us the largest return possible. THEN we told "don't boycott BP, you'll be shooting yourself in the foot" because so many are invested in such ventures unknowingly. Silly really. Bad investments shouldn't be bailed out or propped up. They get what they deserve.
If you don't know what you're investing in you've really got no business being there.
See What to do (updated) at http://www.aesopinstitute.org
Ironically, moving beyond oil and other fossil fuels appears possible much more rapidly than is generally believed.
A very thin film of oil on the surface in the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans threatens to raise temperatures toward a catastrophic Tipping Point.
The White House must rapidly consider the possibility that a massive mobilization is needed to combat what might be looming if, as several qualified engineers believe, the leak cannot be capped.
An adequate response might, ironically, generate an enormous number of jobs and provide the missing economic stimulus.
Little known breakthroughs involving radically new energy technologies can supersede oil. See Moving Beyond Oil on the same Aesop Institute website.
Future cars can become power plants when parked, wirelessly selling electricity.
Within very few years, with 24/7 development, such vehicles might be able to sell sufficient power to pay their own way.
Cars and trucks would begin to cost-competitively supersede any need for gasoline and oil.
We need far more sensible steps to massively attack the oil in the Gulf and urgently reduce the danger if it flows into the Atlantic ocean.
Better understanding of the facts and bold leadership is urgently needed now!
This catastrophe is a wake up call! Time to throw every available emergency resource into action!
See Running on Water at http://www.aesopinstitute.org
The initial use of fractional Hydrogen systems will be to run hybrid engines. Existing engines can likely be modified and new ones are expected to be easier to fabricate.
Car manufacturers have a huge investment in engine plants and this allows them a way to salvage those sunken costs.
Imagine being able to drive 1,000 miles on a gallon of ordinary water!
The parallel system will use magnetic generators and room temperature Ultraconductors to replace batteries, the Achilles heel of electric cars.
Early versions of both systems may be able to provide 10 kW of Vehicle to Grid electricity. This is similar to systems already under development for V2G. The State of Delaware is leading the way. Our systems will not require a plug. When suitably parked they can power a home or sell electricity to the local utility without any wire connection.
Later, advanced magnetic generators are likely to be able to provide as much as 150 kW from a car, truck or bus. Again, no wires required.
Water fueled cells will probably have similar capability. No engine required for these later, more advanced systems. A competitor claims their version of such water fueled cells will travel 5,000 miles on a gallon of water.
This reduces the need for infrastructure and increases the markets. These vehicles will stimulate sales.