Scottish refinery closure spells trouble for green transition
When he was growing up, working at Grangemouth refinery meant you "had a job for life".
But last month "everything changed", Petersen told AFP near the refinery, its giant cooling towers looming in the background.
On April 29, owner Petroineos announced it had ended operations at the refinery after more than a century, triggering the first of a phased wave of redundancies, including Petersen's.
The closure of the UK's oldest and Scotland's only refinery will result in more than 400 job cuts, which locals say the impoverished adjoining town of Grangemouth can ill afford.
Petroineos -- a joint venture of British chemical giant Ineos and the Chinese state-owned PetroChina -– says the refinery was losing around $500,000 (£376,600) a day as a result of changing market conditions and carbon-cutting measures.
It will be replaced by an import terminal, employing just 65 of the workforce including Chris Hamilton, who currently works as a refinery operator.
Since Petroineos announced its intention to wind down operations in 2023, workers like Petersen and Hamilton who are members of the Unite trade union have been campaigning to "Keep Grangemouth Working".
The campaign was not against ending polluting refinery work, but sought to "future-proof" the site and transition to low-carbon options such as Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) without job losses, explained Hamilton.
However, Petroineos told AFP the "existing regulatory, policy and fiscal framework did not support low-carbon manufacturing" at Grangemouth, or any of the UK's other industrial clusters.
A recent report by Scotland's Just Transition Commission (JTC) concluded that Grangemouth had seen an "accountability breakdown" on the part of the government and Petroineos.
As a result, for the last six months, Petersen and his colleagues have been shutting down the refinery's units one-by-one.
"It was really tough," said Petersen. "You got the feeling you're almost digging your own grave."
Just transition
Located between Glasgow and Edinburgh on the Firth of Forth, the refinery, which first opened in 1924, is part of a sprawling industrial site.
Petroineos and the UK government this year published Project Willow, a feasibility study into low-carbon futures for the site.
However, its suggestions -- including SAF production or plastic recycling -- would take years to implement and billions of pounds of investment.
And £200 million pledged by the UK government for the site is contingent on private investment, which is not yet forthcoming.
"With the refinery closing... workers can't wait a decade," Grangemouth's Westminster MP Brian Leishman told AFP.
"A real, proper, just transition means that you take the workers and their communities along with you," he added.
JTC commissioner Richard Hardy told AFP that the refinery's "car crash" closure was a "litmus test for just transition".
He argued that the UK and devolved Scottish governments needed to do more to bridge the gap between shuttering polluting industries and the transition to greener energy -- which will accelerate closer to Britain's 2050 net zero target.
Just last month, the UK had to step in to save hundreds of jobs at a British Steel plant after its Chinese owners decided to shut down the furnaces.
Leishman had called for the government to do the same for Grangemouth.
One of the UK's six remaining crude refineries, Grangemouth was the primary supplier of aviation fuel to Scotland's main airports and a major petrol and diesel supplier in the central belt.
"Being in charge of our own destiny, for me, that's just plain common sense," said Leishman.
'Ghost town'
Built around the refinery and once known as Scotland's "boomtown", Grangemouth has seen a steady decline in recent years.
The population has fallen in the last decade to about 16,000 residents, with more expected to leave with the refinery's closure.
Petersen said he would likely move elsewhere, and had even considered the Middle East.
There are options there, he said: "But just not here.
"It's going to turn into a ghost town," he added.
In the run-down town centre dotted with half-shuttered shop fronts, the local butcher Robert Anderson said he was already losing business.
"We don't see them anymore", he said of the workers in their high-visibility vests.
Hannah Barclay, a homelessness support worker, told AFP that the refinery employed many of her friends.
For a "lot of people here, uni and college and further education, it is not an option," said the 19-year-old.
The refinery closing is "taking away so much opportunity for people", and leaving behind an "uncertain" future.
"It's just quite disheartening to see all these young people who should be really excited for the future, who are just scared."
© 2025 AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
11 hours ago
- Euronews
Can the EU lower the cap on Russian oil without the US?
The European Union is readying a new round of sanctions against Russia to pile extra pressure on the Kremlin and pressure it to agree to a 30-day unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine, a step that Western allies consider indispensable for serious peace negotiations. Ursula von der Leyen has already provided an outline of what that package, the 18th since February 2022, is supposed to target: Russia's financial sector, the "shadow fleet" and the Nord Stream pipelines, which are currently non-operational. On top of that, the president of the European Commission has pitched a downward revision of the price cap on Russian oil to further squeeze profits from worldwide sales, a crucial cash flow to sustain the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. "We need a real ceasefire, we need Russia at the negotiating table, and we need to end this war. Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else," von der Leyen said earlier this week after meeting with US Senator Lindsey Graham. But there's a catch: unlike other sanctions the bloc has imposed on Russia, such as the multiple export and import bans, the price cap has a political and practical dimension that exceeds the institutional sphere of Brussels and stretches across the ocean. More specifically, to Washington, DC. The price cap on Russian oil was introduced in December 2022 by the Group of Seven (G7) under the initiative of the Joe Biden administration. It was hailed as an ingenious, ground-breaking mechanism to mobilise the collective power of Western allies and cripple Russia's high-intensity war machine. As part of the plan, the G7, together with Australia, passed laws prohibiting their domestic companies from providing services, such as insurance, financing and flagging, to Russian tankers that sold seaborne crude oil above a predetermined price. The secret lay in market power: for decades, Western firms, particularly British ones, have dominated the sector of Protection and Indemnity (P&I), a type of insurance that gives shipowners broad protection and allows them to cover potentially huge costs from any accidental harm caused to the crew, their property or the environment. Due to the inherent risks of moving oil in high waters, P&I is today considered the norm in maritime trade and a must-have to be accepted in a foreign port. By leveraging their leading firms, the G7 intended to create an extraterritorial effect that would cap the price of Russian oil not only within their jurisdictions but all around the world. Following intense behind-the-scenes talks, the cap was set at $60 per barrel, a compromise between hard-line and cautious member states. The strategy only worked up to a point however. Although the price of Russian Urals oil gradually decreased, it consistently remained above the $60 mark, often exceeding the $70 threshold. The blatant circumvention was attributed to the "shadow fleet" that Russia deployed at high sea. These tankers are so old and poorly kept that they fall outside P&I standards and rely on alternative, obscure insurance systems that escape G7 surveillance. By the time the cap entered into force, Moscow "had spent months building a 'shadow fleet' of tankers, finding new buyers like India and China, and creating new payment systems, to the point that its oil does not need to be greatly discounted to sell," Luis Caricano, a professor at the London School of Economics, wrote in a recent analysis. "What should have been a blow became a manageable problem," Caricano said. With few sectors in the Russian economy left to sanction, Brussels has turned its sight to the cap as a means to tighten the screws on the Kremlin and secure a ceasefire in Ukraine. The Commission has reportedly pitched a revision between $50 and $45 per barrel, which the UK and Canada are believed to support. However, the US has so far refrained from endorsing a lower price cap, raising the stakes ahead of crunch talks at the G7 summit in Alberta, scheduled for mid-June. Now, a tough question emerges: Can the EU dare, and afford, to go it alone? In the strictest legalistic sense, the EU could, indeed, establish a lower price cap on its own. After all, the G7, as an organisation, lacks regulatory powers: each ally amends its laws individually to fulfil a collective mission. In this case, the EU introduced new legislation to prohibit EU companies – rather than, say, American or British companies – from servicing Russian tankers that bypassed the $60-per-barrel cap. Similarly, the bloc could now change the text to adjust that prohibition to a tighter price without waiting for other allies to reciprocate. Here appears the first roadblock: any change to sanctions must be approved by a unanimous vote among member states. It is highly unlikely that all 27 countries would choose to move forward with a lower cap without having an explicit guarantee that Washington will follow suit. Hungary, in particular, has fully aligned itself with the Trump administration and could veto any proposal opposed by the White House. Even if the bloc managed to overcome internal differences and agreed to a lower cap on its own, more formidable obstacles could impede its success. The bloc's revised cap would have to co-exist with America's existing cap. This means that one side of the Atlantic Ocean would apply a $50-per-barrel limit while the other side would apply a $60-per-barrel limit, creating a cacophony for all actors involved. "Different price caps across G7 countries could confuse maritime service providers and weaken overall enforcement," Petras Katinas, an energy analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), told Euronews. "A solo move by the EU could cause friction within the Price Cap Coalition, damaging trust and coordination, both of which are crucial for keeping pressure on Russian oil revenues," Katinas added, warning the project could be rendered "largely symbolic". The legislative chaos would immediately benefit the Kremlin, which has long sought to exploit loopholes to evade and undermine international sanctions. Moscow, though, would also face hurdles: the continued crackdown on "shadow fleet" vessels has forced the country to increase its reliance on G7 insurance, which, in theory, could make it easier for the EU to apply the revised measure. "If the EU alone decides to tighten the screws on the cap, it's an additional constraint on Russia's oil exports but not as tight as with a whole of G7 approach," said Elisabetta Cornago, a senior researcher at the Centre for European Reform (CER). Besides practical snags and legal matters, there is geopolitics to consider. One of the reasons why the G7 initiative has fallen short of expectations is that, as the name suggests, it has remained a G7-exclusive plan. Countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa have refused to play along and join the coalition. China and India openly buy Russian crude oil, sometimes to refine it and resell it under a different label. Having the EU and the US go separate ways would further destabilise the Western alliance and create the impression of a transatlantic break-up. But for many, that is already a reality: the "Coalition of the Willing", born after Donald Trump unilaterally launched negotiations with Vladimir Putin, bears testament to the political divide. "The price cap was a G7 + EU initiative, and so in its current form, I do not see any pathway in which the EU could adjust the cap without the support of the broader coalition, including the US," said Ben McWilliams, an affiliate fellow with Bruegel. "That said, the EU is free to implement whatever measures it wants on its own domestic ships and insurance companies, which it could likely encourage the UK to join," McWilliams added. "So the EU can still move ahead – it would just need to be under a different institutional format than currently exists." This week we are joined by Mika Aaltola, a Finnish MEP representing the centre-right European People's Party, Dorota Bawolek, a seasoned EU correspondent for Polish broadcaster TVP and Ian Lesser, Vice President of the German Marshall Fund, the transatlantic think tank. US President Donald Trump's renewed trade offensive has left Brussels rather stressed with sweeping tariffs hitting European steel, aluminium, and car exports — and threats of more to come. European Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is trying to defuse the crisis, warning that retaliatory EU measures could kick in as early as July 14. MEP Mika Aaltola blasted the US approach as 'unfair treatment'. The OECD also warned this week that Trump's tariffs are dragging global growth to its weakest levels since the COVID-19 pandemic. In a very tight presidential race, Poland elected conservative Karol Nawrocki, a nationalist and eurosceptic, narrowly defeating pro-EU candidate and Warsaw mayor Rafał Trzaskowski. The result marks a blow for Prime Minister Donald Tusk who has called for a vote of confidence in his government early next week. Nawrocki's rhetoric — emphasizing national sovereignty, anti-migrant policies, and a rejection of 'Brussels diktats' — has alarmed Europhiles. However, his nationalist platform resonated with a rather divided electorate. "He's not very presidential", Dorota Bawolek told the panel adding that history shows Poles prefer an 'ordinary guy'. Finally, the panel discuss the Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez' diplomatic setback after the EU Council rejected his proposal to make Catalan, Basque, and Galician official EU languages. The move, promised to Catalan separatists in exchange for political support, was rejected by member states over fears of a domino effect involving other regional languages. Watch the full episode in the player above.
LeMonde
16 hours ago
- LeMonde
Trump says he's focusing on Russia, China, Iran and 'not thinking about Elon Musk': 'I just wish him well'
US President Donald Trump said Friday, June 6, that Elon Musk had "lost his mind" but insisted he wanted to move on from the fiery split with his billionaire former ally. The blistering public break-up between the world's richest person and the world's most powerful is fraught with political and economic risks all around. Trump had scrapped the idea of a call with Musk and was even thinking of ditching the red Tesla he bought at the height of their bromance, White House officials told AFP. "Honestly I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran... I'm not thinking about Elon Musk, I just wish him well," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to his New Jersey golf club late Friday. Earlier, Trump told US broadcasters that he now wanted to focus instead on passing his "big, beautiful" mega-bill before Congress – Musk's harsh criticism of which had sparked their break-up. But the 78-year-old Republican could not stop himself from taking aim at his South African-born friend-turned-enemy. "You mean the man who has lost his mind?" Trump said in a call with ABC when asked about Musk, adding that he was "not particularly" interested in talking to the tycoon. Trump later told Fox News that Musk had "lost it." Just a week ago Trump gave Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) after four months working there. 'Very disappointed' While there had been reports of tensions, the sheer speed at which their relationship imploded stunned Washington. After Musk called Trump's spending bill an "abomination" on Tuesday, Trump hit back in an Oval Office diatribe on Thursday in which he said he was "very disappointed" by the entrepreneur. Trump's spending bill faces a difficult path through Congress as it will raise the US deficit, while critics say it will cut health care for millions of the poorest Americans. The row then went nuclear, with Musk slinging insults at Trump and accusing him without evidence of being in government files on disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump hit back with the power of the US government behind him, saying he could cancel the SpaceX boss's multi-billion-dollar rocket and satellite contracts. Trump struck a milder tone late Friday when asked how seriously he is considering cutting Musk's contracts. "It's a lot of money, it's a lot of subsidy, so we'll take a look – only if it's fair. Only if it's to be fair for him and the country," he said. Musk apparently also tried to de-escalate social media hostilities. The right-wing tech baron rowed back on a threat to scrap his company's Dragon spacecraft – vital for ferrying NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station. And on Friday, the usually garrulous poster kept a low social media profile on his X social network. But the White House denied reports that they would talk. "The president does not intend to speak to Musk today," a senior White House official told AFP. A second official said Musk had requested a call. Tesla giveaway? Tesla stocks tanked more than 14% on Thursday amid the row, losing some $100 billion of the company's market value, but recovered partly on Friday. Trump is now considering either selling or giving away the cherry red Tesla S that he announced he had bought from Musk's firm in March. The electric vehicle was still parked on the White House grounds on Friday. "He's thinking about it, yes," a senior White House official told AFP when asked if Trump would sell or give it away. Trump and Musk had posed inside the car at a bizarre event in March, when the president turned the White House into a pop-up Tesla showroom after viral protests against Musk's DOGE role. But while Trump appeared to hold many of the cards, Musk also has some to play. His wealth allowed him to be the biggest donor to Trump's 2024 campaign, to the tune of nearly $300 million. Any further support for the 2026 midterm election now appears in doubt –while Musk could also use his money to undermine Trump's support on the right.
LeMonde
17 hours ago
- LeMonde
LVMH hit by cognac crisis and champagne slump
The luxury group LVMH has long prided itself on owning some of the world's most prestigious wine and spirits brands. The cognac Hennessy, champagnes Moët & Chandon, Veuve Clicquot, Krug, and Dom Pérignon, as well as, more recently, the rosé from Provence Minuty, are the jewels of its Moët Hennessy division. These brands have cemented its position as the global leader in both cognac and champagne. While this was once a source of pride as bottles flew off the shelves, the division has become a source of tension as the cognac crisis and champagne slowdown have upended forecasts. After an initial slowdown in 2023, Moët Hennessy – 34% owned by British group Diageo, the world's leading spirits company – reported 2024 revenue of €5.9 billion, down 11%. The trend continued into the first quarter of 2025, with another 9% decline in sales to €1.3 billion. At first glance, the wines and spirits division might seem like a small contributor to the group led by Bernard Arnault. It accounts for just about 7% of total sales, far behind the fashion and leather goods powerhouse, and trailing distribution, watches and jewelry, and perfumes and cosmetics. But its share of operating profit is significant. Thanks to their high margins, cognac and champagne fit seamlessly into the world of luxury.
