Could this be the oil industry's Libor?

Shell, BP, Statoil and pricing agency Platts investigated for price manipulation.

The offices of several European oil companies, including Shell, BP, Statoil and pricing agency Platts, were yesterday raided by investigators from the European Commission, who are looking into the potential price manipulation of oil, refined products and biofuel, dating back more than a decade.

A Commission statement confirmed they were examining the possibility that; “the companies may have colluded in reporting distorted prices to a price reporting agency to manipulate the published prices for a number of oil and biofuel products."

"Furthermore, the commission has concerns that the companies may have prevented others from participating in the price assessment process, with a view to distorting published prices," it said.

It also made clear that although investigations were ongoing, it did not mean the companies involved are guilty of any wrongdoing.

The four companies all confirmed that the Commission had made what it called “unannounced inspections” yesterday, and that each was cooperating fully with both EU and national anti-competition authorities over the matter, with Statoil adding the suspected collusion could go back as far as 2002.

Even slight distortions in the assessed prices of oil products can have a massive impact on the price end-users pay. Echoing the recent Libor rigging scandal, which saw Barclays and UBS heavily fined by UK and US authorities over the fixing of the London Interbank Offered Rate, this investigation is the latest in a series of such probes around the world, signalling increased scrutiny on financial benchmarks across a range of markets.

If the allegations are proven to be true, it could prove to be another PR disaster for Britain’s beleaguered oil companies, particularly BP, whose reputation, and balance sheet, has not yet fully recovered from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010; recently receiving a record $17.6 billion fine in the US, having already spent billions on the clean-up operation in the Gulf of Mexico.

Photograph: Getty Images

Mark Brierley is a group editor at Global Trade Media

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.