Connect with us

News

Italy’s biggest refinery in crisis three years after sale by Russia’s Lukoil

Published

on

Italy’s biggest refinery in crisis three years after sale by Russia’s Lukoil

Italy’s largest refinery, which was sold by Moscow-based Lukoil after EU sanctions cut it off from Russian oil, is in crisis as the Greek billionaire who is now its majority investor and commodity giant Trafigura clash over the terms of a crude supply arrangement.

GOI Energy bought the ISAB plant in the Sicilian town of Priolo in 2023 with support from Trafigura in a last-minute deal that Franco-Israeli mining tycoon Beny Steinmetz helped arrange. The sale was approved by the Italian government but shrouded in mystery, with neither the buyer nor Rome disclosing the identity of its shareholders.

Documents seen by the Financial Times show that the largest investor in GOI’s controlling fund, Argus, at the time of the transaction was George Economou, a tycoon whose TMS Tankers was one of the biggest seaborne transporters of Russian oil following the 2022 full-blown invasion of Ukraine.

GOI and Trafigura gazumped a bid by rival trading house Vitol and US private equity group Crossbridge Energy Partners, and secured the deal despite opposition from the US government.

Economou invested in the refinery alongside Steinmetz and former Trafigura executive Michael Bobrov, according to the documents. Relations between the three men have since soured over money and the terms of a 10-year oil supply and marketing agreement signed with Trafigura, according to six people familiar with the situation.

Advertisement

Economou has argued that Trafigura is to blame for the refinery’s problems, complaining in meetings that the supply and offtake deal is overly favourable to the trading group, allowing it to protect its profits while the facility operates at a loss. Trafigura has said the refinery requires more investment to upgrade operations amid difficult market conditions.

Increased refinery operating costs resulting from higher prices of gas and carbon offsets are weighing on margins across Europe, making it difficult for all but the most efficient refineries to break even.

Moscow-based Lukoil sold the refinery in Sicily after EU sanctions cut it off from Russian oil © Natalia Kolesnikova/AFP/Getty Images

The infighting could threaten the survival of a facility that provides a fifth of Italy’s refining capacity, employs about 1,000 people directly and supports another 8,500 jobs in the local area.

It has also led to criticism of the Italian government, which approved the sale to GOI even though its largest investors had no experience of owning or operating refineries.

“These capital-intensive businesses require heavy investments, but they suffer volatile cash flow so the financial soundness of the buyer is a key element,” said Alan Gelder, vice-president of refining, chemicals and oil markets at Wood Mackenzie.

Advertisement

“In hindsight one could say the Italian government should have chosen another alternative than selling to [GOI Energy].”

Under the terms of the deal, GOI acquired the refinery while Trafigura agreed to provide working capital to fund its operations and, according to two people familiar with the agreement, paid GOI an upfront €30mn fee to supply the plant with crude oil and sell the refined product it produces for 10 years.

“Trafigura’s commercial arrangements with ISAB are at arm’s length and on market-based terms, in line with similar commercial agreements around the world,” Trafigura said in a statement to the FT.

“In difficult market conditions, the Priolo refinery needs substantial performance improvements and further investment to remain competitive. We have offered our assistance to ISAB and the Italian government to help secure a sustainable future for this important asset.”

ISAB lodged an application this year with Sicilian authorities to restructure the business through an out-of-court “negotiated settlement of a business crisis”.

Advertisement

Economou hopes to use the process to force a renegotiation or cancellation of the contract with Trafigura, according to two people familiar with the matter. Economou has also considered selling the refinery but the supply agreement has proved a major sticking point in conversations with prospective buyers, according to people familiar with the conversations.

At the time of the acquisition, Economou was presented to the Italian government as the ultimate beneficial owner of a Cypriot entity that held 52 per cent of the Argus Fund subunit, which controlled 70 per cent of GOI, according to the documents seen by the FT.

The rest of Argus Fund subunit was owned by an entity controlled by two foundations whose beneficiaries included Steinmetz’s children, the documents show.

Steinmetz’s connection to the refinery and his role in negotiating the deal with Italian authorities was revealed by the FT in 2023. 

In 2023 Economou decided to loan money to GOI Energy so it could repay an outstanding debt with Lukoil. In January last year, after GOI failed to repay the loan, he opted to convert it into equity and dilute the other shareholders, the documents show. The 71-year-old now controls 99 per cent of GOI’s shares through a complex fund structure.

Advertisement

GOI paid about €180mn for the plant, significantly outbidding Vitol and Crossbridge, which had offered roughly €55mn, according to two people familiar with the terms of the bids. They estimate that it also paid several hundred million euros for the oil on site at the time of the acquisition.

The Italian government approved the investment under the so-called gold power rule, which gives it the right to veto deals or impose requirements over the purchase of strategic assets.

At the time, Italian officials said they were reassured by the involvement of Trafigura and Bobrov, who is also an investor, alongside Steinmetz’s son-in-law, in Israel’s largest refinery. GOI had also offered reassurances about maintaining jobs and production levels, they said at the time.

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending