Grangemouth dispute: Ineos says petrochemical plant will close

grizzly1911

Article on the news last night suggest that 70+% of refined fuels, petro, diesel, "avgas" for Scotland and the Northof England is supplied via Grangemouth.

Apparently there is massive over capacity in petrol both here and across Europe. It was suggested that 10 sites across Europe could be shut before capacity was optimised. Around 50% of "avgas" and diesel is imported already.

There is bigger issue at play here and the middle and far east are investing in in modern up to date infrastructure. They are being built by state backed business to provide security of supply.

China hold a major stake in Grangemouth brought for knowledge acquisition rather than profit.

The company was knocked sideways during the GFC.

Never mind think of the development opportunities for housing.

molerat

Emperor Alex is doing sixpence - half a crown as he sees his dreamed of banana republic's self sufficient fuel production industry disappearing before his eyes. Is he going to put our money where his mouth is and buy it, along with its baggage and pension scheme, so we can be forever held to ransom by the unions ?

Loughton_Monkey

Looks like the Salmon boy is on the case:

Alex Salmond has said he is not prepared to accept the closure of part of the Grangemouth petrochemical and refinery plant.

The first minister told BBC Scotland: "I am not accepting that Grangemouth is going to close. I can't accept that because it is too important."

Workers at the site had earlier been told by site owners Ineos that the petrochemical plant will close.

Talks are ongoing over the future of the refinery.

A bit like him winning his "Independence" vote, and Cameron turning round and saying "I'm not prepared to accept that".

Maybe the Sturgeon woman will be sent to have a word with Ineos and frighten them into re-opening. Sure as hell she frightens me. Wouldn't want to meet her on a dark night.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

A bit like him winning his "Independence" vote, and Cameron turning round and saying "I'm not prepared to accept that".

Vote and vote again until they agree to stay. If that doesn't work change the question and vote again.

Thrugelmir

BlondeHeadOn wrote: »

As Graham_D says, the politics are intense.

Current generation of politicians have no comprehension as to how business operates. Totally clueless.........

The world has changed in the past 20 years. Grangemouth's closure is a sign of the declining and more expensive North Sea output.

Loughton_Monkey

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Current generation of politicians have no comprehension as to how business operates. Totally clueless.........

The world has changed in the past 20 years. Grangemouth's closure is a sign of the declining and more expensive North Sea output.

As I understand it, the refinery stays (for the moment anyway). It's only the Chemical plant closing. They're into "olefins" which are of course made from oil - producing types of synthetic rubber, ethylene, propylene etc.

Ineos are, apparently, the 4th largest chemical company in the world. They can probably shift production to somewhere else in the world.

zagubov

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Current generation of politicians have no comprehension as to how business operates. Totally clueless.........

The world has changed in the past 20 years. Grangemouth's closure is a sign of the declining and more expensive North Sea output.

This is all mouthmusic for the voters. Salmond's an oil economist so he'll hardly be unaware of whether the set-up's viable or salvagable.

He'll be paying lip-service to the job-losses at the moment while pointing and grumbling at the Labour numpties running the Grangemouth area (and the Labour-linked unions) and their Westminster bosses where the energy policy powers are held. Another chunk of Labour Scotland discovering the union dividend; Labour are worthless and Westminster just wring thier hands while saying "isn't the free market great for Scotland".

chris_m

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Ineos are, apparently, the 4th largest chemical company in the world. They can probably shift production to somewhere else in the world.

Little doubt about that - their plans, had agreement been reached, involved importing ethene (IIRC) from the US because the North Sea oil coming ashore now doesn't provide enough for the petrochemical plant.

If they can bring it across from the US in ships they can just as easily send it somewhere else instead.

Still, it looks like Unite have changed their tack and are hoping to get the stable door closed before the horse gets too far out of it.

MFW_ASAP

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Blimey, are there still people out there who think that final salary pensions (and the Grangemouth one is gold plated) are anything other than ruinously expensive.

You are asking companies to sign a blank, unlimited cheque for each member.

Unions (and their members) are about to be taught a painful lesson, one that will eventually be taught to the public sector.

Pity you didn't get a response to this important point. I guess not even Devon can argue against it.

I do wonder when we will reach the point that the only defined benefit pensions are available in the public sector and whether this will be a catalyst for the government to say 'Enough, industry can't afford then, neither can the taxpayer'.

What is especially galling is that most of the public sector pension payments will be paid for by taxpayers who were not even employed when the (retired) public servant was serving the public. Some may not have even been born.

Thrugelmir

zagubov wrote: »

Salmond's an oil economist so he'll hardly be unaware of whether the set-up's viable or salvagable.

Vince Cable is also an economist. Yet his business understanding at times appears negligble. Salmond doesn't the information to make an informed decision. Without access to the books no one does. The Unions no longer hold the power as the products Grangemouth supplies can be sourced globally.