UK's Troubled Prax Lindsey Plant Will Stop Refining Oil
The UK previously announced a liquidation order for the facility's owner, Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery Ltd., leaving the country's Insolvency Service racing to save the site. The plant recorded about £75 million ($101 million) in losses between its acquisition in 2021 and the financial year ending February 2024, Shanks previously said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Skift
3 hours ago
- Skift
MakeMyTrip Expands International Listings with Premier Inn's 900+ European Hotels
As direct competition in India is increasing and suppliers are cutting middlemen, MakeMyTrip is moving to international markets to increase supply and distinguish itself. Online travel agency MakeMyTrip has partnered with UK-based hotel chain Premier Inn. Under the partnership, more than 900 Premier Inn properties across the UK, Germany and Ireland have been added to MakeMyTrip's international hotel portfolio. For Premier Inn, the partnership with MakeMyTrip will help increase awareness of the brand in India and neighboring countries. MakeMyTrip's decision was driven by the UK being one of the most preferred destinations for Indian travelers, said Rajesh Magow, co-founder and group CEO of MakeMyTrip. The partnership is a key part of the OTA's strategy to capitalize on India's outbound surge. International Strategy: This is MakeMyTrip's latest effort to expand its international hotel supply. The company has been using a direct contracting strategy to add more hotels to its portfolio, with a focus on high-demand outbound destinations. In a statement, the company said in the past year, it has added more than 2,000 directly contracted hotels across 50 cities in 20 countries. 'These 50 cities collectively account for more than half of India's outbound travel,' MakeMyTrip's statement read. 'Over the past twelve months, we have pursued a focused strategy to deepen our international accommodation offerings across key hubs, particularly in long haul markets such as the UK, Europe, and the U.S.,' said Magow. �
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
AstraZeneca CFO talks tariffs & shifting focus to US market
AstraZeneca's (AZN) revenue hit a record high in the second quarter, driven by cancer drug sales and growth in the US market. AstraZeneca CFO Aradhana Sarin sits down with Market Catalysts host Julie Hyman and Yahoo Finance Senior Healthcare Reporter Anjalee Khemlani to discuss the company's strategy to focus on the US and the impact of tariffs. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Catalysts here. I wonder on the Obviously, the company is celebrating the fact that you hit the largest revenues reported for the quarter. That's really good news, especially as the stated goal is to grow by 2030, and half of that to be part of the US. Talk to me about that and the shift to being a quote-unquote American company now, rather than a sort of UK-based one that we've thought of all these years. Uh, so we, you know, last May, we set this ambition of achieving 80 billion in revenues by 2030, which was almost, you know, doubling our revenues from a 2023 base. Um, and, uh, the US is our our fastest growing market. Uh, when we stack, we don't stack very highly right now, uh, in the US when when you compare pharma revenues because a lot of the pharma companies in the US have much bigger sort of revenue base, but we're growing very fast and our hope is that we'll come, you know, in in in the top five and have half of our revenue. We also set an ambition to have 20 new medicines by 2030. And, um, we already have nine of them and, uh, we announced results for another five of them. So hopefully, uh, that shows that we're on track to to achieve that goal. Well, talk to me about why the US is growing that much far faster. Is it because the dynamics of the healthcare system help boost revenues with more prescribing the the way the PBM system is set up? What are the factors that are helping you grow and are helping you stay confident about achieving that goal? So, there are a bunch of different factors. Um, I think the US is still probably the the best market in the world that rewards innovation. Uh, and we are an innovation-driven company. And so, when new therapies come, you know, we we had a product for breast cancer in her two. Uh, we announced data for another breast cancer product. But as soon as new therapy comes, um, the US market is almost the first to provide access to patients for that new therapy. Uh, secondly, physicians are really, um, you know, we go to Congresses like ASCO where there's, you know, tens of thousands of oncology physicians. They're really into, um, looking at the data and making data-driven decisions. So, again, the, you know, the physicians want the best for their patients and patients are able to get access to medicines very quickly once, you know, drug is approved and so forth in the in the innovative space. In many other markets in the world, that whole process to get approval and then get access and reimbursement just takes a very long time. So that's one reason. Um, the second reason, uh, I think particularly beneficial for oncology medicines, uh, is the part D reform. Uh, so on one hand, the part D reform that was enacted hurts us because we are responsible for paying 20% in the catastrophic phase. But from a patient standpoint, if you're a patient, um, you know, in Medicare, your out of pocket is capped at $2,000. So you can get the best therapy and have no more to pay out of pocket, right? So being in that patient population and getting the best access to medicines and the best care and have your out of pocket limited, uh, is is also great for patients. Um, so I think it's it's where physicians and patients and innovation is rewarded. And that's why it's growing faster given our portfolio is all innovative medicines. So, so let's turn then to the manufacturing base rate and the investment that you're making in the US. And I have to ask about tariffs because we even as we discussed it this morning, this new EU sort of framework agreement, it's still sort of unclear. Are pharmaceuticals coming from the EU exempt? Are they not exempt? It seems a little unclear. So how under what assumption are you operating and how do you operate in that kind of environment? Um, yeah, so you know, I would say this is not a tariff is obviously new, but how we've been thinking about our strategic manufacturing, um, is probably goes back three, four years. So post COVID, we made a strategic decision because we're such a global company that we needed to have segregated supply chains. Um, so for example, uh, in in China and in the emerging markets, we supply a lot of that product from China. Um, in the US, majority of the product is supplied from the US and and so forth in Europe. There is, uh, you know, small minority of product, handful of products actually that we still import from Europe into the US. But we do have excess capacity in the US to manufacture those products. Uh, so what we're, you know, we have 11 manufacturing sites in in the US. So our intention once the tariffs, etc. were were announced and there was talks of tariffs, uh, in the short term was just manage through inventory, so build more inventory in in the US. Um, but we've also started tech transfers for those products which we do import and that those tech transfers would be completed, you know, within a within a year or so, so that we can be fully, you know, not just have the majority, but 100% of it being manufactured in in the US. Um, this new facility that we announced, uh, was part of the plan anyway, but that's a separate has nothing to do with tariffs. It's actually based on the demand that we see potentially for our cardiovascular for new cardiovascular medicine. So, um, but you know, you're right, I think there is a little bit of confusion on when the tariffs are going to be implemented. Um, there is from what I've heard, it is a 15%, but there's also talk that that's the cap. Uh, and, uh, the administration is sort of going to wait for the 232 investigation to actually put them into effect or decide. So, uh, in either case, I think we're very well prepared and and we probably have less exposure than than many companies. Related Videos Market's 'fuel' for further P/E expansion is 'nearing empty' Nvidia's TSMC order, Eli Lilly & Novo Nordisk sink, JPMorgan & Apple card Royal Caribbean, Merck, FuboTV: Trending Tickers Why Spotify stock is sinking double digits on Q2 earnings Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
13 hours ago
- The Hill
What critics don't understand about Trump's energy policies
A recent New York Times article made some alarming claims: China is racing ahead in clean energy, while America under Trump clings to fossil fuels. Beijing is supposedly building wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles for a decarbonized world, while Washington is instead doubling down on obsolete oil, gas and coal. The contrast is stark and seemingly damning — the U.S., the article suggests, is losing the future. But this story is misleading. What the article misses is the deeper logic shaping the Trump administration's energy policy. It has little to do with nostalgia or climate skepticism, and everything to do with the demands of artificial intelligence. Trump's energy agenda is being guided by a different kind of technological revolution. Massive AI models, sprawling data centers and next-generation chip foundries demand vast, uninterrupted flows of energy. However clean or cheap they may be, wind and solar, by their intermittent nature, cannot deliver the stable, high-density power these systems require. That distinction, between intermittent and dispatchable energy, is the real dividing line in global energy strategy today. And it's why Trump's policy may be more forward-looking than critics realize. If you want to understand the real rationale, look to Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. In a recent interview, he stated, 'To achieve Nvidia's and America's dream to win the AI race, we've got to produce a lot more electricity.' Wright's position is blunt but accurate. Natural gas, followed by nuclear and coal, is what now powers most of America's electricity, and it is these sources that will fuel the AI boom. 'Expanded natural gas electricity production … that'll be the workhorse of winning the AI race,' Wright explained. Thus, in Wright's view, the Trump administration policy isn't to reject the future but rather to win it by unleashing American energy production to support the backbone of tomorrow's economy: AI chips, training clusters and data centers. Contrast that with the Biden administration's approach. The Inflation Reduction Act was a landmark in climate legislation, pouring hundreds of billions into renewables, clean tech and place-based development incentives. It was designed to build solar farms, wind capacity and green manufacturing hubs, especially in disadvantaged communities. But for all its strengths, the law was designed in a pre-ChatGPT world. A 2023 Treasury Department fact sheet on the law goes on at length about electric heat pumps, rooftop solar and tax credits for underserved areas. It says nothing about AI, chip fabrication or crypto foundries. The Biden plan focused on equity and emissions, while Trump's plan focuses on watts and AI's electricity demands. That contrast became even sharper with Trump's second-term executive orders. Within days of taking office, Trump moved to dismantle the regulatory infrastructure supporting Biden's climate agenda. He ordered agencies to fast-track fossil fuel development and streamline the permitting of pipelines and power stations. Biden-era climate councils and carbon accounting models were scrapped. Electric vehicle mandates were rolled back. Furthermore, Trump's executive orders on nuclear power called for 300 new gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050. Advanced reactors are to be deployed at AI data centers and military bases within two years. Uranium enrichment, the revival of shuttered nuclear plants and fuel recycling are all being ramped up under the banner of national security. From liquefied natural gas exports to uranium enrichment, the Trump message is consistent: deregulate, drill, and build. Trump's coalition is not anti-technology — in fact, it is aggressively trying to corner the energy inputs required for technological supremacy, even if it means tearing up climate policy to get there. That brings us back to the New York Times's climate article's core claims. The piece frames the global energy race as a contest between a clean-energy China and a fossil-fueled America, casting the U.S. as the laggard. But that reading confuses the form of energy with its function. The future won't be won by whoever builds the most solar panels. It will be won by the country best positioned to power the technologies that drive tomorrow's economy. And right now, that technology is artificial intelligence. AI isn't just another app layer. It's a foundational shift in computing, manufacturing, defense and global finance. It demands enormous, stable, always-on energy loads. That means natural gas, nuclear and dispatchable capacity, not just wind and sun. By this logic, it may be China — not the U.S. — that's making the bigger strategic misstep. Beijing is doubling down on renewables, but those technologies weren't built to power the AI revolution. Meanwhile, Washington, under Trump, is retooling its energy policy to meet precisely that demand.
