©Dreamstime The turmoil in Turkey has implications for global oil markets, because of the country’s strategic position on energy trade routes from the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia to European markets. About 2.9m barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum products, roughly 3 per cent of world supplies, were carried on tankers through the Turkish straits between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean in 2013, according to US government statistics. More On this topic IN Europe Turkey also has two important oil pipelines, one from Azerbaijan and another from Iraq, which both end at the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean. They have a combined capacity of 2.7m b/d, but actual flows have been less than that, in part because of attacks on the pipelines and in part because of declining production from Azerbaijan. One Kurdish government official said the Turkey-Kurdistan border was still open and that there was so far no impact on crude oil flows. Azerbaijan’s oil exports through Turkey averaged 720,000 b/d last year, while Iraq’s, from the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan in the north of the country, reached a peak of about 600,000 b/d when not interrupted by attacks. Turkey is also intended to be an increasingly important route for gas supplies to reach the EU. In 2013 BP and partner companies agreed to build two pipelines to carry gas from Azerbaijan to Italy, creating what has been called the Southern Gas Corridor, with first gas deliveries to Europe on that route scheduled for late 2019. The route would carry 16bn cubic metres of gas per year from Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz field. The Turkish government and companies had also been in talks about taking gas from Israel’s giant Leviathan field. Jason Bordoff of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy said Turkey was a “hugely important transport hub” for oil and gas flows. “If there is disruption to supplies, that could have a material impact on the oil market,” he said. The US has in recent years backed plans to increase gas supplies to the EU flowing through Turkey, and the use of the country’s pipelines as export routes for Iraqi oil. Mr Bordoff said the turmoil in Turkey was a reminder of the importance for all energy consumers of having a wide range of suppliers. “Expanding diversity of supply provides increased energy security for when unexpected events happen,” he said. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2016. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web. Source link

Republican front-runner’s policy void and attacks on Ted Cruz for taking oil donations alarms sector ©EPA Donald Trump is stoking anxiety in the US oil industry as it watches Republicans drive towards nominating a presidential candidate who has offered the sector little affection and few concrete policy proposals. US oil companies are already being crushed by low crude prices and their woes are being compounded by the spectre of a usually steadfast ally — the Republican party — becoming a vehicle for Mr Trump’s unpredictable candidacy. More On this topic IN US Election 2016 The real estate mogul has alarmed the industry with the few statements he has made on oil and gas — including repeated attacks on Ted Cruz, his main challenger, for taking millions of dollars of campaign donations from “big oil”. But executives and lobbyists say they are equally worried about the uncertainty stemming from the void left by Mr Trump’s apparent lack of policies. “We don’t really know where he is on a lot of different issues because he doesn’t really give specifics on a lot of different issues,” says Doug Flanders, policy director at the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, a trade group in a state where the shale energy revolution took off. Similar concerns are voiced privately in a variety of sectors, but they are acute in oil and gas because the industry’s environmental impact and role in energy supply leave it uniquely vulnerable to government regulation. Kim Hatfield, president of Crawley Petroleum, an Oklahoma oil and gas producer, says: “I’m not sure that the oil and gas industry is necessarily one of [Mr Trump’s] areas of expertise. As he surrounds himself with advisers and gets more into the issues, I would hope that he’d come to a more balanced understanding of the contributions to the economy.” The shale revolution unleashed by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling has revived the US as an energy superpower and remains the industry’s main animating force, even though the crude glut it created has cut prices by two-thirds since mid-2014 and led to thousands of oil job losses. Most Republican politicians are still eager to celebrate fracking for delivering cheap petrol, lower electricity bills and reduced reliance on foreign oil. Mr Trump’s rivals — Mr Cruz, a senator from oil-heavy Texas, and Ohio governor John Kasich — have both embraced it and speak from a similar script. Mr Trump, however, has paid no heed to that orthodoxy. One of his few acknowledgments of the shale boom turned into a jibe. That was in a November debate when Mr Trump said of Mr Kasich: “John got lucky with a thing called fracking, OK? He hit oil. He got lucky with fracking.” In little-noticed remarks in March, he took a more oil-friendly stance by criticising New York state for banning fracking. But he has not addressed the make-or-break issue of how shale production should be regulated. Mr Cruz and Mr Kasich have vowed to roll back federal rules targeting fracking’s potential impact on air and groundwater, while the Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has vowed to impose tough rules to curtail it. Louis Finkel, who talks to presidential campaigns on behalf of the oil industry for the American Petroleum Institute, was asked at a media briefing last week about Mr Trump’s views on natural gas, which the US produces in greater volumes than anywhere else. “I’m not sure exactly what Trump has been saying about natural gas,” he replied. A super-Pac fund backing Mr Cruz, Keep The Promise, received $15m from the billionaire brothers Dan and Farris Wilks When the New York tycoon does touch on policy, it is often not to the industry’s liking. Oil companies would like to see federal shackles cast off public land to enable more drilling, but the Trump campaign stressed the need to consider “the aesthetics of the land” as well as revenue in comments last week to the American Energy Alliance, a conservative group. Mr Trump also supports a federal mandate hated by the oil industry, the renewable fuel standard, which requires the mixing of ethanol into petrol.  While Mr Trump boasts about not taking money from special interest groups, the largesse of oil industry donors has flowed elsewhere. A super-Pac fund backing Mr Cruz, Keep The Promise, received $15m from the billionaire brothers Dan and Farris Wilks, who made a fortune in the Texas fracking boom and are the biggest of a handful of oil donors in a Center for Responsive Politics list of the top 100 funders. Three other oil donors gave to a fund backing Jeb Bush’s ill-fated campaign — Trevor Rees-Jones, founder of Chief Oil & Gas; Richard Morgan, co-founder of Kinder Morgan, a pipeline company; and Douglas Foshee, former chief executive of El Paso, now part of Kinder Morgan. The donors declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment. On one issue — climate change — Mr Trump has staked out positions more in harmony with many in the oil industry. He is sceptical about the existence of human-induced climate change and his campaign says President Barack Obama’s plan to regulate carbon emissions from the power sector is an “over reach”. Mr Trump got a rare boost from the oil industry last month thanks to Harold Hamm, chief executive of the shale pioneer Continental Resources. Mr Hamm did not offer comment on the candidate’s views on oil or anything else, but said: “He is unstoppable and the Republican Party must unify to help him.” @barneyjopson Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2016. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web. Source link

Foodles Production (UK) Ltd has today pleaded guilty to failing to protect actors and workers following an incident in which actor Harrison Ford was seriously injured during the filming of Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Foodles Production (UK) Ltd is based in Queen Caroline Street, London, and appeared at Milton Keynes Magistrates Court today, 26 July, pleading guilty to two charges. The case has now been transferred to Aylesbury Crown Court, date to be confirmed. Mr Ford suffered a broken leg and other injuries when he was struck by a metal door on the set of the Millennium Falcon. The incident happened on 12 June 2014 at Pinewood Studios. A spokesman for HSE said: “During the filming of Star Wars Episode Seven: The Force Awakens, the actor Harrison Ford was badly injured after he became trapped under a rapidly closing metal-framed door. The power of the door’s drive system was comparable to the weight of a small car. “This was a foreseeable incident. Foodles Production (UK) Ltd has accepted it failed to protect actors and staff and HSE welcomes the firm’s guilty plea. “Every employer in every industry has a legal duty to manage risks in the workplace. Risks are part and parcel of everyday life, and this is acknowledged by health and safety law – but they still need to be identified and managed in a proportionate way. “The British film industry has a world renowned reputation for making exceptional films. Managing on-set risks in a sensible and proportionate way for all actors and staff – regardless of their celebrity status – is vital to protecting both on-screen and off-screen talent, as well as protecting the reputation of the industry.” Notes to Editors In Great Britain there is a duty on employers to protect their workers and those who may be affected by their work under health and safety law. If companies are found to have breached that duty they can face criminal prosecution. If found guilty there are a number of sanctions and penalties and this are determined by the British Court of law rather than HSE. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/jurisdictions/criminal-jurisdiction/ The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. hse.gov.uk The two breaches are: Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which states: “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.” Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, which states: “It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.” Criminal proceedings are ongoing and your attention is drawn to the fact that the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act apply to this matter. You will understand that it is not appropriate for HSE to give media interviews until court proceedings are concluded. You are advised to check the time and date of the hearing with the Court nearer the time to ensure that the case has not been put back. The Code for Crown Prosecutors sets out the principles for prosecutors to follow when they make enforcement decisions. (ends) Source link

Specialist demolition firm Keltbray is thought to be in advanced discussions to buy part of the Dunne Group. Last month, the concrete frame company Dunne lost 524 jobs after it fell into administration and administrator FRP Advisory has been in talks with several parties over the sale of assets. A source close to the company said: “A lot of people were interested but it seems the offer from Keltbray is the most serious.” Keltbray employs more than 1,000 people and has a turnover of £270 million. On the projects Dunne was working on at the time of its collapse, the company has now been replaces on many of these major contracts. Byrne Bros has been brought in by Brookfield at One Blackfriars and 100 Bishopsgate, while Getjar is to complete the concrete frame at Mace’s Newington Butts site. Mace said: “We have been working with the administrators and have negotiated the purchase of available materials and hire plant currently on site. “Discussions continue between the administrators and various parties regarding items of plant on site.” The company added that site operations experienced an element of downtime, though all cranes were working and material deliveries were quickly recommended. Mace is now finishing its final negotiations with Getjar to complete the concrete frame, while Keltbray and FRP were not available to comment. The Dunne Group was a Scottish firm that worked on several of London’s skyscrapers and its collapse has left hundreds more subcontractors facing an uncertain future. It is understood that the group bid aggressively for major, long term contracts after the financial crisis of 2008 and has since struggled to keep costs low enough to stay in profit. Hospitals in Scotland were among the unprofitable contracts and the group had been in a cash crisis for a number of weeks before the decision was made to call in administrators.