Last wheat delivered to largest bioethanol plant under threat after trade deal
Vivergo Fuels, near Hull, has said it is facing closure within weeks following the decision to end the 19% tariff on American bioethanol imports as part of the recent UK-US trade deal.
The plant buys more than a million tonnes of British wheat each year from more than 4,000 farms and says it has purchased from 12,000 individual farms over the past decade.
Managing director Ben Hackett wrote to growers earlier this year explaining that the plant will only be able to honour existing contractual obligations for wheat purchases while uncertainty continues.
Mr Hackett said the last scheduled load arrived at the plant on Friday.
Last month, Vivergo, which is owned by Associated British Foods (ABF), said it is was beginning consultation with staff to wind down the plant, which employs more than 160 people, due to the uncertain situation – a process which could see production stop before September 13, if support is not provided.
It said Britain's two largest bioethanol producers – Vivergo and Ensus in Teesside – are now in urgent negotiations with the Government.
The firms say the UK-US trade deal and regulatory constraints on the industry have made it impossible to compete with heavily subsidised American products.
Mr Hackett said on Friday: 'We have a choice of going down a path of stagnation, decline, unemployment, economy shrinking, or we have a choice of going towards a path of investment, growth, prosperity, job creation, and that's why it's crucially important that the Government comes to a decision quickly, and comes to a decision in favour of supporting the UK bioethanol industry.'
Farmer Matt Pickering, of Pickering and Sons, near Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, sold the last load of wheat to Vivergo.
Mr Pickering said: 'We struggle with the quality of our land type, so we tend to go for out-and-out bulk volume shed fillers. Vivergo has been a fantastic home for us to sell feed wheat into.'
Mike Green, owner of haulage company AgHaul, who transported the last load to the plant, said: 'We're in the dark. We don't know where we're going.
'It's very uncertain, uncharted waters, and it's worrying as we've already seen a decline in work.'
The landmark came as Meld Energy said the uncertainty over the plant is putting its plans for a 'world-class' green jet fuel project on the Humber in jeopardy.
Earlier this year, Meld Energy signed a £1.25 billion agreement with Vivergo Fuels to anchor a Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) facility at Saltend Chemicals Park in Hull.
Meld Energy chief executive and founder Chris Smith said: 'We're excited about the potential to bring our sustainable aviation fuel project to the Humber – one of the UK's most important industrial and energy hubs.
'But, for projects like ours to succeed and the flow of vital investment to be forthcoming, we need a strong and integrated low-carbon ecosystem.
'A bioethanol plant on site at Saltend is a critical part of that mix. Without it, we'd have to consider alternative locations overseas where that infrastructure is already in place.'
A Government spokesperson said: 'We recognise this is a concerning time for workers and their families which is why we entered into formal discussions with the company on potential financial support last month.
'We will continue to take proactive steps to address the long-standing challenges the company faces and remain committed to working closely with them throughout this period to present a plan for a way forward that protects supply chains, jobs and livelihoods.'
The Government said officials and ministers have met with Vivergo and Ensus consistently over the last few months to discuss options to address 'significant challenges' that the bioethanol industry has been facing for some time.
It said engagement with the companies 'continues at pace' and external consultants have been brought in to help.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
5 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Trump, Carney to speak in coming days, Canadian official says
US President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney will likely talk "over the next number of days" after the U.S. imposed a 35 per cent tariff on goods not covered by the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, a Canadian official said on Sunday. Dominic LeBlanc, the federal cabinet minister in charge of U.S.-Canada trade, also told CBS News' "Face the Nation" that he was "encouraged" by recent discussions and believed a deal to bring down tariffs remained an option. Advertisement "We're encouraged by the conversations with Secretary Lutnick and Ambassador Greer, but we're not yet where we need to go to get the deal that's in the best interest of the two economies," LeBlanc said, referring to U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The trade minister said he expected Carney and Trump to speak "over the next number of days." "We think there is an option of striking a deal that will bring down some of these tariffs provide greater certainty to investment," LeBlanc said. Washington linked Friday's tariff announcement in part to what it said was Canada's failure to stop fentanyl smuggling. It was the latest blow in a months-long tariff war which Trump initiated shortly after returning to power this year. Carney says Canada accounts for just 1 per cent of U.S. fentanyl imports and has been working intensively to further reduce the volumes.
The Guardian
5 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on car finance scandal redress: mis-sold loans demand action, not excuses or spin
With its ruling in the car finance case, the UK supreme court sent a clear message: some motorists purchased vehicles with deals that were indeed unfair, but it's not the judiciary's job to redraw the boundaries of consumer protection law. That burden, the justices suggested, rests with regulators and elected governments. This reasoning is in line with a major speech in June by the court's president, Lord Reed, who argued that judges aren't policymakers – and shouldn't be. He led a bench that nonetheless upheld a finding of unfairness in the case of the factory supervisor Marcus Johnson. The court flagged the danger, defined the threshold – but stopped short of imposing redress itself. Now, the baton has been passed. Millions could get payouts if the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) follows the court ruling with its proposed redress scheme, now out for consultation. The regulator admits what courts and campaigners have long suggested: that hidden commissions and opaque contracts were endemic, and that consumers were misled on a large scale. It may be 2025, but the roots of this scandal stretch back decades. More than 90% of new car purchases are financed, and for years, buyers weren't offered the best deal – just the one that earned the broker the biggest cut. Last October, the court of appeal saw hidden commissions as tantamount to bribes – secret incentives to push pricier loans. Banks had been on the hook for potentially £40bn in compensation had that view prevailed. But the supreme court disagreed. Dealers aren't fiduciaries, it said. They're not priests or doctors. They're salespeople and everyone knows it. The Treasury had tried, and failed, to intervene on behalf of banks that feared big payouts. The supreme court dismissed that petition with waspish brevity. Rachel Reeves may argue she was guarding financial stability, but it is not a good look to be siding with lenders over misled consumers, especially when there is a strong case to suggest regulators had been asleep at the wheel. The FCA now admits that many firms broke the rules. It plans a compensation scheme covering loans dating back to 2007, including both discretionary and some non-discretionary commission arrangements. The potential bill? At least £9bn, and possibly double that. Most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. The court's refusal to stretch the law to encompass issues of trust wasn't a shrug; it was a signal. The law allows unfairness to be addressed. But the heavy lifting must be done by the state. This episode lays bare a deeper malaise. Britain's credit system often runs on skewed incentives and asymmetric information. Brokers pose as advisers but act as commission-driven salespeople. In Mr Johnson's case a £1,650 hidden commission – a quarter of the car's price – went undisclosed. That's not a quirk; it's economics' classic lemons problem. In car finance, consumers didn't know how much brokers were pocketing or how that skewed the deal. Without trust or clarity, quality suffers – and everyone overpays for 'lemons' (duds). The court of appeal did focus minds; and failing to interpret the law robustly in the face of clear wrongdoing is itself a judicial choice. The supreme court smartly redirected the narrative. The regulator is stirring. Ministers must now support a consumer-facing system of redress and not shield the City from the consequences of its own mis‑selling. The public will be watching.
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A fair price to the public for water nationalisation
The environment secretary, Steve Reed, claims that water cannot be put into public ownership because it would cost £100bn, and that the government would have to raid the NHS budget to fund it ('Broken' water industry in England and Wales faces tighter controls under new watchdog, 21 July). This is inaccurate. The People's Commission on the Water Sector has investigated the £100bn figure in detail and found that the costs are based on biased evidence and have no basis in law. We have also found that any temporary funds needed to refinance the water sector would be through ringfenced bonds and would not affect the NHS budget. The environment secretary should not use figures that are clearly misleading and have no bearing on the actual costs of public ownership. The £100bn figure is the regulatory capital value (RCV) of the water companies, used by Ofwat and calculated using the market value of water companies in 1989, adding capital spending and depreciation since, multiplied by the retail prices index. Two water companies listed on the stock exchange have market values around half their RCV. KKR merely offered £4bn in its takeover bid for Thames Water, which has an RCV of £21bn, before it pulled out in June. RCV bears no resemblance to the market value of the company and should not be used as the cost of public ownership. Market value is also not the correct way to value a water company. In law, the government would simply need to pay a fair value, not market value, to take a company into public ownership. This would take into account the inadequate investment in the sewage infrastructure, the dividends paid, the high debts incurred which have weakened financial resilience, and the huge costs required to rectify the damage done under private ownership. The law ultimately has to ensure that a 'fair balance' has been struck in the public interest, and 'appropriate value' for secured creditors. In the case of failed water companies that have returned billions to shareholders and creditors, while leaving billions more in repair costs, this would mean paying something closer to zero for transfer into public Becky Malby, Dr Kate Bayliss, Prof Frances Cleaver, Prof Ewan McGaugheyThe People's Commission on the Water Sector Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
