European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Irresponsible - and false - scaremongering on the FT's front page

by Jerome a Paris
Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 04:24:20 AM EST

The Financial Times goes for stupid - and false - scaremongering on its front page. It is shameful.

Transneft warns of cut in Europe’s gas supplies
Russia’s oil pipeline monopoly said on Monday that deliveries to Europe would be cut and prices for Russian crude would rise once the country built a planned pipeline to Asia, in another indication of mounting global competition for energy resources.

The oil pipeline monopoly makes a comment about oil pipelines. How does that become a threat to Europe's gas supplies, a business in which it is NOT involved?

That's blatant disregard of the facts, ignorance, or wilful scaremongering. Following in the footsteps of the press campaign against Gazprom, which from all available information, originates with the Blair government, desperately looking for an external scapegoat for its failing energy policy and the accompanying gas shortages in the UK, this is highly suspicious.

But this is based on manifest error, and the FT only hurts its credibility by printing such trip - and on its front page no less.

The comments from Semyon Vainshtok, chief executive of Transneft, came days after Gazprom, Russia’s gas giant, warned it might shift its focus to fast-growing markets such as China if its ambitions to expand in Europe were blocked.
Mr Vainshtok said in an interview with Russia’s Nezavisimaya Gazeta that building a pipeline to China would reduce the discount of about $5-a-barrel that Russia’s Urals blend crude sells at to West Texas Intermediate and Brent crude.
“We have oversupplied Europe with oil. And every economics manual says when there is excess supply the price falls,” he said. “But we can’t reduce supplies – all our exports are directed to Europe. As soon as we turn towards China, South Korea, Australia, Japan, that will take away part of our oil from our European colleagues.”
Mr Vainshtok and other oil executives have made similar statements before and the discount for Urals blend is a bugbear of Russia’s oil industry.
But his comments take on new resonance after Gazprom warned that blocking its plans in Europe would “not lead to good results”, and noted it was “actively developing” markets such as China and North America.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Irresponsible - and false - scaremongering on the FT's front page | 56 comments (56 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Irresponsible - and false - scaremongering (none / 1)

It looks like they took two different stories, put them in a blender and whizzed for a few moments. Very strange.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 04:27:54 AM EST

Oh no. (4.00 / 3)

It's one story: a threat by the oil guys to divert attention to China for future oil exports. (Essentially the same threat as made by Gazprom a week ago).

It's a real story, but it's ONLY about oil.

The title is meant, as far as I can see, to link to earlier GAS stories, because these take special resonance in the UK these days.

A pipeline is a pipeline, after all. Oil, gas, what's the difference? Most people don't KNOW that there is a difference.

The FT should know better. This is either wilful manipulation or massive incompetence.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 04:31:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh no. (4.00 / 2)

That's what I mean - it's like they took bits of stories from the last few weeks and sort of threw them in with today's news for the hell of it. It doesn't even make sense as a story.

Or maybe my six months working in the oil industry made me more aware of the differences between different things that go in pipelines.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 04:34:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's what it looks like (4.00 / 2)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 04:28:36 AM EST

Re: Here's what it looks like (none / 0)

What is this? I can't understand it.

Oil is traded on a global market, yes? How would rerouting oil from Europe to China change prices?

If we were talking about gas (like in Gazprom) I would understand what this is all about, but oil?

What do they mean?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 07:37:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's what it looks like (none / 0)

It's the Financial Times, purveyors of fine bullshit. Unless the oil in question is supplied under a long-term contract under current market prices (but at the market prices prevailing just a couple of years ago), it's just fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Maybe we should rename the FT the FudT.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 07:46:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (none / 0)

Which is why their headline is horrible.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 08:12:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly (none / 0)

Are they simply doing "oil = petrol(UK) = gas(US) = (nat)gas" in their head?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 08:16:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny (4.00 / 2)

From EU Observer:

Russia should cut oil supplies to "overfed" Europe, the chief of Russian
pipeline monopolist Transneft has said, while the US is pressing Greece to resist Russian participation in a planned gas pipeline to Turkey.

And I thought, could there be more of Russia on European news?

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government -- Edward Abbey

by serik berik (serik[dot]berik on Gmail) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 04:34:13 AM EST

False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Well, it is certainly false scaremongering but necessary IMO. Given another 10 years the way we are going the Russians will have achieved what the Soviets never could - having western europe over a barrel.
(groan)
Given the amount of xenophobia, mafia, ex-KGP and just plain old corruption in the upper echelons of power over there, I wouldn't want to see my country reliant on Russia for its energy supplies. The more scaremongering the better - maybe it will help prompt some serious investment in alternative energy supplies.

by Mike A on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:04:10 AM EST

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Well then, title it "Transneft warns Asian pipe will divert oil from Europe"

Except that this makes little sense to scaremonger as oil is globally traded (whereas gas is not).

This is just propaganda.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:12:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)

Jerome, it's about time we started hashing out ideas for Energizing Europe — towards European Energy Independence, because being hostage to gas and oil suppliers seems like a losing proposition.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:18:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Yes please do. I remember reading somewhere about a week or two ago that the UK government was taking public submissions with regards to energy policy... I'll see if I can find a link.

by Mike A on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

The FT's story is probable part of the media blitz to convince Britons of the need to go nuclear after squandering their North-sea fossil fuel wealth in record time.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:25:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)

The FT's story is probable part of the media blitz to convince Britons of the need to go nuclear after squandering their North-sea fossil fuel wealth in record time.

EXACTLY !!!

Tony has been convinced (ie "loans" discreetly banked - allegedly) by his rich mates to order nuclear power stations. Big fat contracts all round. so they have to do a softening up exercise to convince us that black is white.

The fact that they can't be done in time, everybody with any knowledge of the subject says it's a stupid idea and the rest of us think Chernobyl, Sellafield and Harrisburg and go "Atomkraft - nein danke" is meaningless. Especially when the money's already being spent on Cherie's hair.

Of course it helps that there has been no serious investigation of alternative energy in this country for 30 years.

Sorry if this all sounds snarky and ranting, but I am so outraged by a PM who has already said he's not going to do anything in the face of peak oil and global warming. It might impact british lifestyles and that would cost votes. And doing nothing will have no impact either - gah !!!!

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:40:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Like others around here, I am afraid nuclear has to be part of the mix. But given that the State has to accept the civil liability for nuclear power plants, they shouldn't be operated for profit by private interests. PFI/PPP is a lesser evil.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:46:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nucleaire - non merci (none / 1)

Like others around here, I am afraid nuclear has to be part of the mix. But given that the State has to accept the civil liability for nuclear power plants, they shouldn't be operated for profit by private interests. PFI/PPP is a lesser evil.

Possibly you are right. But given the complete lack of planning or thought that has gone into non-fossil fuel futures who could really predict if that's actually true ?

Specifically, I think we need a lot more investment in energy conservation. Housing and building standards have to be changed to reduce energy expenditure, especially domestically. We need more work done in bringing existing housing stock into an energy-deficient 21st century.

That would end Prescot's ticky tacky boxes on the Thames Gateway cos proper building standards would kill that silliness stone-dead.

No more glass office block monstrosities that are expensive to cool in summer and fearsome to heat in winter. It shouldn't matter if it wins awards for architects. Dammit, the nation can't afford such indulgence.

and that's before we even consider electricity generation.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:55:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nucleaire - non merci (none / 1)

Forget about skyscrapers and focus on the abysmal home building and insulation standards. The flat I rent has double-glazed window panes but gale-force winds seep in through cracks around the window frames.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 07:08:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Conservation (none / 0)

You are, of course, completely right. It was, however, pointed out to me last Saturday that conservation simply won't cut it, as the demand is still on the rise. The projections are that we can't cut away enough to feed the demand - even with increased efficiency.

And that's the one word I wanted to flag in this post: efficiency. Framing is key to marketing, marketing is everything. Bush almost literally burst his tongue on the word "conservation". It doesn't fly in the dominant spend-spend mentality of today. I don't think you can get away with a plan tagged conservation on top of it.

The message should be: energy efficiency. It's the (kcurie's?) doctrine of two definitions: the one you use to sell the package, and the one you use to talk about with people who know about what you talk about and don't need prodding.

And I also need to do some correcting work on the "glass monstrosities" you seem to revile. There's a good use for them in energy efficiencies.

But enough for now... /off mini-rant

by Nomad on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 07:15:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Conservation (none / 1)

It's the (kcurie's?) doctrine of two definitions: the one you use to sell the package, and the one you use to talk about with people who know about what you talk about and don't need prodding.

Francois in Paris made a very similar point describing how the Republicans operate:

[Barak Obama] completely misses that the debate always happen at two levels, the general public and the base, and the terms are very different. The Republicans understand that very well and have played it for years with the outward message of "compassionate conservatism" or whatever to the general voters and the paranoid discourse to the base, "Christianity under attack" and all that crap.

If you can't pay the bills, it's not sustainable.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 08:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good catch in a terrific diary (none / 0)

Exactly what I meant. BTW, I observe that cross-contamination of themes happen at ET at a faster pace...

Perhaps progressives are just too honest, or too idealistic in thinking that the progressive message should be understood by everyone, without diluting the language by catch phrases... Food for thought for someone who always thought that one type of language would be sufficient. Progressive Doublespeak seems needed.

by Nomad on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 09:26:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Especially when the money's already being spent on Cherie's hair.

Har har har!

Sorry if this all sounds snarky and ranting, but I am so outraged by a PM who has already said he's not going to do anything in the face of peak oil and global warming. It might impact british lifestyles and that would cost votes. And doing nothing will have no impact either - gah !!!!

Repeat after me (to the Bee Gee's famous tune...)

head in the sand
head in the sand

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:49:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

CRAP. Missed the boat in the UK. I'm annoyed at myself for not posting about this review here when I first read about it in the paper, and others for not thinking about it either. A submission from eurotrib would have been nice.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/review/

The twelve week consultation period for the Energy Review closed on 14th April 2006. During that time we sought views on the measures that are needed by 2020 and beyond to tackle climate change, and ensure secure and affordable energy supplies in the UK. We consulted stakeholders through a written consultation exercise and a series of seminars held across the UK. We received over 2,000 written responses from individuals, businesses, academia, NGOs and other organisations.
Although the consultation has finished the Energy Review is still underway. We are now analysing the consultation responses and will publish a summary of the views expressed within three months of the end of the consultation period. A statement on energy policy will be made in early summer.

by Mike A on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:57:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)

CRAP. Missed the boat in the UK.

Don't worry too much. The govt is only really interested in finding out what the industry wants to sell it anyway. They have no interst in our views whatsoever.

"Yes Minister" still defines govt attitudes 25 years on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/y/yesminister_7777145.shtml

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:59:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As it were (none / 0)

I see the gas relationship with Gazprom as a stable and mutually beneficial co-dependency.

Both sides, but the EU (prodded by Blair) first need to stop their needless provocations that weaken the relationship.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:30:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As it were (none / 0)

"stable ande mutually beneficial" for now. but how long will it be before we hit "peak (Russian) gas" as well as peak oil? at that point, wouldn't it be preferable for Europe to have made significant strides to achieving "energy independence", as Migeru puts it?

what is the difference between advocating weaning the United States off of oil with Energize America, and advocating weaning Europe off of gas (and oil)? are Europe's sources of gas and oil that much larger and more secure than the U.S.'s?

If you can't pay the bills, it's not sustainable.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 08:03:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Given the amount of xenophobia, mafia, ex-KGP and just plain old corruption in the upper echelons of power over there, I wouldn't want to see my country reliant on Russia for its energy supplies.

Yes, you're only happy when Russia is supplying "cheap" energy to you, aren't you? When the price goes up (according to the free market, which you hold so dear), all of a sudden Russia is "xenophobic, just plain old corrupt".

by slaboymni on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:04:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

No, but when Gazprom threatened EU gas supply stability as a result of the Centrica bush with the UK, I thought to myself that we should think of the existing long-term gas contracts as buying the EU time to wean itself off gas.

Without making any judgements about Russia or the Russians, Russia is a distinct [neighbouring, related] geostrategic pole from the EU and is beginning to use gas and oil for political leverage.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:09:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

No, but when Gazprom threatened EU gas supply stability as a result of the Centrica bush with the UK

This threat was mainly the result of Gazprom's frustration, as I believe Jerome has already mentioned, of the UK not playing by the rules.

That's my main point here at ET - there seems to be a different set of rules applied to Russia. And these rules appear to change magically, and abruptly, to suit Europe's interests at the time.

The EU uses trade for political leverage. How is using one's natural resources any different or worse, as you seem to imply?

by slaboymni on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 08:51:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

So the EU found itself in the crossfire between Russia and the UK, which is exactly what my comment was about. And I'm not saying Russia using its resources for political leverage is wrong, I'm just saying that I'm not sure the EU wants to be on the receiving end of that leverage.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 09:01:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)

(a) Don't be personally offended mate, I've had many colleagues who have worked in oilfields in Russia found the officaldom to be very xenophobic. They don't want foreigners working their, period, because they don't like foreigners. I'm mainly refering to the government not necessarily the people.
(b) I don't hold the free market dear
(c) I think oil & gas are still "too cheap" to be valued properly by the market and indivuals, so I have no problem with them being more expensive
(d) My problem is with security of supply, not the cost of that supply. Would you be happy if, say, Russia was dependent on China for its energy supplies?

by Mike A on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:11:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)

I'm not personally offended :-)

However, have you thought that perhaps the Russians are not really xenophobic, but resent the fact that your expat friends are being paid 20000% more than they are for the same work?

Why exactly do you believe that Russia is not a reliable energy supplier? Jerome oftens states that Gazprom has been extremely reliable for the past 30 years.

All I'm asking is that you don't fall into the anti-Russian propaganda trap so easily...

by slaboymni on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:21:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)

Well said slaboymni,

I think a lot of us occasionally fall back on reflex (Cold War) anti-Russian (or anti-American) responses. It's a human failing. As long as there are people to point out the fallacy, all's well. Besides which it's a very easy political point for western leaders to score, and fear seems to be the political currency of choice in the UK at present. This does not make for a well informed, rational debate about the choices that country faces, and the media are doing precisely nothing to improve the level of debate - as regularly demonstrated here.

Your comments on expats (I am one) struck a chord: how is it possible, and efficient for these pay differentials to exist? Is local labour so completely disadvantaged in the wage bargaining process, and why does the same not apply to expats doing the same jobs?

I will eventually get round to writing a diary on the analogous situation in Azerbaijan, where labour unrest has started to become a prominent factor in the oil extraction business.

by GreatGame2 (fishy_logic_at_yahoo.co.uk) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:01:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

The expat bonus is (supposedly) what you need to pay people to compensate them for the inconvenience of expatriating. Which means the number of expats should be really, really small and the need for expats restricted to managing roles. Not that it's like that in reality.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:12:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Good points, but people described (derogatorily, unfortunately) as economic migrants do not receive a similar bonus.

by GreatGame2 (fishy_logic_at_yahoo.co.uk) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:37:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Economic migrants have the least bargaining power because they are the most desperate for a job, while expats are sent abroad to fulfill the needs of the employer so they command a bonus. It's not the fact that you're abroad, but why and how you're abroad.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:43:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

Thanks, GG2 -

I've always wondered what justification a company could possibly have to expatriate someone from the home office in the U.S. to Russia, for example.

I can't think of a single area of expertise in America that is not present in Russia, and at a lower price.

Are you in Azerbaijan? I had two roommates in Russia. One was from there and the other was Russian, but of Armenian heritage. They got along great, though.

by slaboymni on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:35:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

The only thing that it makes economic sense to expatriate from the US to Russia (or any other place with an educated workforce) is managers [including engineers as project managers or for training local engineers to work with specific American technology]. Anything else I'd attribute to cultural factors.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:46:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

I would agree about expatriating managers back in the early 90's when Russia had no managers with, for example, significant retail experience.

But now, there are many highly qualified and experienced local managers.

Besides, we all know managers don't do anything ;-)

I still cannot understand why a company that would prosecute you for stealing a $10 stapler would willingly pay someone 10x more than they would have to pay a local.

by slaboymni on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:50:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 1)

What expatriates have which has real value is trust by the management in the head office, and knowledge, to some extent, of the politics of that office.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:55:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

If you want to establish a new branch office or production facility it makes sense to send at least one of your own people to manage it who is familiar with your procedures. Then you can hire local managers if you need more than one manager. Or you can repatriate your expat after a few years.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 11:57:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False - but necessary scaremongering? (none / 0)

It would seem to make more sense to recruit a local in the target country, bring them to the home country for extensive training, then send them back to the target country. If necessary, a manager from the home country could visit on a regular basis to provide oversight/mentoring.

Being familiar with your company's procedures is absolutely useless abroad, as these procedures are based on the customs, laws, and best practices of the home country - none of which are the same in the target country.

Being an expat just seems to be a way to provide an employee with perks and compensation that would not be tolerated by shareholders in the home country. My belief of this is reinforced by reading sites like www.expat.ru, as well as other country-specific sites.

by slaboymni on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 12:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Letter sent to the FT (4.00 / 4)

On your front page today, you write, under the title 'Transneft warns of cut in Europe's gas supplies' (or 'Transneft warns Asia pipe will divert gas from Europe' in your European paper edition) that "Russia's oil pipeline monopoly said on Monday that deliveries to Europe would be cut and prices for Russian crude would rise once the country built a planned pipeline to Asia, in another indication of mounting global competition for energy resources."
This regretably confuses oil and gas. Transneft, as your article points out, is the oil pipeline monopoly, and the article refers to oil pipelines and oil exports. Why did you decide to make an incorrect reference to 'gas' in your headline, which has a highly visible spot on the front page? This reflects either total ignorance of the oil & gas business, where oil and gas are quite separate matters, especially on the pipeline side of the business, or wilful misrepresentation. In any case, that headline is false, misleading, and highly inflammatory in a context of tense relations on the energy side between Russians and Europeans.
Gazprom's similar recent declarations on the gas side, which are referred to in the above article, have been used for political gain by the Blair government, which appears to be seeking foreign culprits for the grave imbalances in the UK gas market in recent weeks, imbalances that can fairly be blamed on the lack of foresight of the government in the face of sharply declining, but widely expected, domestic North Sea production. European "protectionists" have been extensively lambasted in past months, and now Gazprom seems to be the new target of the government's ire.
Such blame shifting by politicians is understandable, but it is shameful to see the FT participate in such a campaign, and it directly inpugns on your credibility to do so via headlines that are blatantly false. I hope that you will correct the record on your front page in a forthcoming edition.
Best Regards,
Jérôme Guillet
Editor, European Tribune (www.eurotrib.com)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:34:25 AM EST

Re: Letter sent to the FT (none / 1)

Spot on!

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:45:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Letter sent to the FT (none / 1)

Damn. FT had no idea what they were getting into.

If you can't pay the bills, it's not sustainable.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 05:55:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Letter sent to the FT (none / 1)

nice letter but shouldn't it be "iMpugn"

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:08:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hit and run, hit and run... (4.00 / 2)

Damn, you're fast and you come out swingin'.

Good work.

by Nomad on Tue Apr 25th, 2006 at 06:41:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The FT replies to me (none / 1)

De : corrections@ft.com
Objet : Correction - Transneft
Date : 26 avril 2006 01:35:03 HAEC
À : jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr
Dear Jérôme Guillet,
Thank you for your email regarding the Transneft headline. This was indeed a regrettable error that slipped through despite our rigorous editing and checking procedures. We will be publishing a correction.
Best regards,
(name)
Night News Editor

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Apr 26th, 2006 at 03:05:21 AM EST

Re: The FT replies to me (4.00 / 2)

I've seen the correction in their letter/editorials page. It goes:

The headline of an article on April 25 stated "Transneft warns Asia pipe will divert gas from Europe". This should have said oil.

Not really enough, but better than nothing.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Apr 26th, 2006 at 04:34:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The FT replies to me (none / 1)

Maybe they'll be more careful next time. You never know.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Apr 26th, 2006 at 04:35:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The FT replies to me (none / 1)

Well done Jerome!

Maybe FT should start offering you a salary as a consulting editor? ;)

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed Apr 26th, 2006 at 06:28:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The FT replies to me (4.00 / 2)

How rigorous can their editing really be if they confuse oil and gas?

Mikhail from SF

by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Wed Apr 26th, 2006 at 12:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The FT replies to me (4.00 / 2)

It was an American who thinks oil is a synonym for gasoline. See? They weren't even wrong really.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Apr 26th, 2006 at 12:44:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The FT replies to me (none / 1)

Even if that's what they meant they were still wrong. The pipelines transport oil, not gasoline.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed Apr 26th, 2006 at 01:00:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The FT replies to me (none / 1)

It's just a cop-out, clearly. Jerome demanded a retraction on the front page and they don't seem to have published his LTE.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Apr 26th, 2006 at 12:54:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The FT replies to me (none / 1)

Ha! I always love it when they describe their "editing and checking procedures" (notice how these two are separated?) as "rigorous"!

Cracks me up every time!

When having spotted something false in the FT, you ought to always assume first that it's a mistake due to ignorance--unless it's inconceivable that any human being, even a reporter for the FT, could be that ignorant. Then you may proceed to postulate that the "error" is due to malice, deliberate or inadvertent.

By the way, just a minor point, Jérôme:

it ought to be "tripe" rather than "trip"--

"But this is based on manifest error, and the FT only hurts its credibility by printing such trip - and on its front page no less."

I almost wrote that, "There's little chance that they won't have understood your meaning--" but stopped there. You can't afford to allow such a error--it could confuse the FT editor --though goodness knows she or he ought to be familiar with the word "tripe"; or, they could take up the habit of writing "trip" for "tripe" as a newishly trendy thing to do. And one mustn't encourage them in that.

;^)

"In the interest of democracy, repressive actions were taken; In order to preserve democracy, repressive actions were taken"

by proximity1 (proximity1-at-free-dot-fr---end-o'adresss) on Wed Apr 26th, 2006 at 02:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Irresponsible - and false - scaremongering on the FT's front page | 56 comments (56 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]