In the case of an oil company, fire is not exactly something you look upon favorably. But when it's the stock, you have to get excited. One of my stock picks for 2007 was PetroChina Co Ltd ADR (NYSE: PTR) and for the past two weeks it has been on fire.

Before I go further I must disclose we own PTR in three portfolios, buying in at $44, $55 and most recently at $120 this year. Today as I write this post it is over $180 per share so for a multitude of reasons it is making me look good.

I have been questioned numerous times about this stock holding given that "my pal Warren" -- Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) has been selling. According to the story he sold at an average price of $147 per share most recently. What few fail to mention is that he kept 90% of his shares. There are any number of reasons he took this action and those have not been shared.

In the meantime I have sold nothing. I did not buy it because Buffett bought it and I am not selling it just because he is reducing his shares. One pressure on Berkshire is that political ramifications of PetroChina doing business with the government of Somalia (and Darfur) has put questions into some shareholders' minds about whether it was immoral to hold PTR given the documented human rights violations in the region.

But how many oil producing nations today can be looked upon favorably? Almost none in the Middle East, given the standing of women, non-Muslims, political opposition, freedom of speech and many more severe atrocities. How about our friends the Russians or the Chinese? Would anyone nominate them for a congeniality award or glowing examples of democracy? No way! So the world is complex and sometimes you can do more by working from the inside with a whisper, then you can screaming from the outside.

While Warren Buffett has come under fire for declining to part with his company's stake in PetroChina (NYSE: PTR) in light of its parent company's ties with the Sudan, Claymore Securities has stepped forward with an ETF for investors looking to avoid the region. The Claymore/KLD Sudan Free Large-Cap Core (AMEX: KSF) debuted last week with an expense ratio of 0.5% -- higher than a comparable index fund, but low enough that it shouldn't hurt your returns too much if you're looking to avoid the region in your investments. The fund also has traditional social responsibility screens in place, and does not invest in companies associated with the alcohol, tobacco, gambling and firearms industries. According to the fund manager's press release accompanying its debut, the fund screens out any company that:

• Owns or controls property or assets in Sudan

• Has employees or facilities in Sudan

• Provides goods or services to companies domiciled in Sudan

• Obtains goods or services from Sudan

• Has distribution agreements with companies domiciled in Sudan

• Issues credits or loans to companies domiciled in Sudan

• Purchases goods or commercial paper issued by the Government of Sudan

With outrage over the crisis in the Sudan increasing daily, this fund should perform quite well, and it looks like a good option for socially conscious investors.

I'm just about as big of a Warren Buffett fan as you'll find, but I found myself somewhat disillusioned when he declined to divest Berkshire Hathaway's (NYSE: BRK.A) stake in PetroChina (NYSE: PTR), after critics proposed such a move because of the company's ties to Darfur. Fidelity Investments recently sold its share of PetroChina for just that reason.

Buffett defended the investment by saying that it was Chinese state oil company CNPC, the parent of PetroChina that was involved with Darfur. But in a piece on TheStreet.com, Brett Arends points out just how closely the companies are linked. He discusses the numerous insiders at PetroChina who also work for or did work for CNPC; PetroChina's Chairman, Chen Geng, was General Manager at CNPC until last November.

Over at the Motley Fool, Emil Lee opined that Buffett should go ahead and sell the shares: "Both sides of the divestment argument are entitled to their own opinions, but I think that Berkshire should divest, not because it will help save Darfur victims -- the problems go much, much deeper than who owns PetroChina's shares -- but more because Berkshire has always been a beacon of light for investors everywhere, and it would be a tragedy for that light to be clouded, regardless of whether the reasoning was even slightly correct."

Lee summed it up perfectly. Berkshire's investment in PetroChina just smells bad, even if the company really isn't to blame. The arguments for divestiture were powerful enough to sway Fidelity, and I just really wish Berkshire would go ahead and sell the shares, if only to preserve its squeaky clean image.

Warren Buffett spent an unpleasant part of last weekend's Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) stockholder party defending the company's investment in PetroChina Co Ltd ADR (NYSE: PTR), and its support of the repressive Sudan government. While he made the reasonable argument that in China, influence runs down from the ruling committee, not up to it, the pressure to divest holdings of companies that support the Darfur genocide is sure to continue.

But which companies are these? One often quoted source for suspect companies is the Sudan Divestment Task Force, a group formed in 2005 by college students concerned about the issue. They have compiled a comprehensive list of firms they believe support in some way the Sudan government. In partnership with Invested Interests, they have used this list to develop a screening tool that allows investors to check their stocks and mutual funds for such companies.

A complication to the issue might arise as Buffett makes good on his promise to donate most of his Berkshire Hathaway stock to the Gates Foundation. Given the Foundation's strong involvement in Africa and with the poor, as it begins to accumulate BH stock I'd expect it to ask hard questions about the PetroChina holdings. Ironically, it could be from this board that renewed pressure will be brought on the company to divest itself of PetroChina.

Addendum: after reviewing SDTF's Sudan Company Report which they shared with me, I can report that no U.S. based companies appear in it. The worst offenders include Petronas of Malaysia and several Middle-east based oil production firms.

Activists should leave Warren Buffett out of the debate over the genocide in Sudan's Darfur region.

Following Buffett's suggestion, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s (NYSE: BRK.A) shareholders on Saturday defeated a proposal requiring the company to divest its holdings in PetroChina Co. (NYSE: PTR) because of the ties of its parent company to Sudan.

Though I share the outrage over the Darfur genocide, people who are trying to pressure Buffett are misguided. Though he is the largest shareholder in PetroChina, his influence is dwarfed by the the Chinese government, the real bosses of the company's management.

Why would the Chinese government listen to Buffett? Shouldn't the U.S. government and the UN be pressuring the Chinese to pressure the Sudanese?

Maybe Buffett could send a message by selling PetroChina's shares. But for every seller, there is a buyer. All Buffett would do is wind up making someone else rich, negating any message he was trying to send.

If you want to express your political views in your portfolio, invest in one of the many socially conscious mutual funds, including Citizens Funds or Domini Social investments. Investment News says that this category is the fastest growing segment of managed money.

But trying to separate the good companies from the bad ones isn't always easy.

"The pressure on social investing portfolios to achieve a beta comparable with those of such popular benchmarks as the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index means that social funds include companies that are involved tangentially in socially conscious activities," according to Investment News.