DOCSLIB.ORG

Fuel for Thought — Statoilhydro/Conocophillips (Jet) MERGER CONTROL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fuel for Thought — Statoilhydro/Conocophillips (Jet) MERGER CONTROL Competition Policy Newsletter Fuel for thought — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhillips (Jet) CONTROL MERGER Jérôme Cloarec, Dag Johansson, Philippe Redondo, Daniel Donath, Elzbieta Glowicka and Cyril Hariton (1) Introduction(1 viduals, as it is virtually impossible to access such customers with standard questionnaires, although When faced with a proposed merger, antitrust au- each individual may have a private (and sometimes thorities have to assess the likelihood and the mag- informed and documented) view of the likely ef- nitude of anticompetitive effects that may occur fects of a merger. following the removal of one of the merging par- ties as an independent force in the various markets This was the case for the Norwegian oil company affected by the transaction. These possible anticom- StatoilHydro’s acquisition of Jet petrol stations in petitive effects must then be weighed against poten- Scandinavia (67 in Denmark, 40 in Norway and 163 tial efficiency gains. To enable it to complete this in Sweden), owned by ConocoPhillips of the US task in the limited amount of time provided by the (case COMP/M.4919 — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhil- legislators, the Commission collects and contrasts lips), which was subject to an in-depth investigation information from different sources. The notifying by the Commission. (3) Therefore, in addition to party’s compulsory notification (Form CO) is the the standard market investigation that also included initial source of such information and contains a gathering evidence from internal documents, the Com- description of the industry along with more specific mission structured its market investigation around details regarding the affected markets. In addition, two pillars. First, several econometric studies that were to ensure that it has a complete understanding of based on an extensive request for data relating to the competitive landscape in each of the affected the daily running of the fuel retail businesses were markets, the Commission supplements this infor- carried out to gauge the extent to which the two mation with the views of other market participants merging parties exerted competitive constraint on such as the merging parties’ suppliers, competitors each other. Second, a customer survey was conducted and customers. (2) in selected countries to obtain insights into custom- Competitors are usually well informed about the ers’ views regarding the main questions posed dur- 4 market conditions in the affected markets and the ing the assessment of the transaction. ( ) competitive pressure that each merging party exerts on its counterpart in the transaction. However, com- This article is divided into six sections. The next two petitors’ views may be biased by their own interests. sections describe the Swedish and Norwegian retail fuel markets and discuss the role that Jet played in For example, a competitor can welcome a transac- 5 tion that removes a very competitive market player. those markets. ( ) The econometric and customer In such cases, competitors’ replies to the Commis- survey analyses are described in the fourth and fifth sion’s market investigation may support their strate- sections. The last section offers some general con- gic views of the deal rather than provide an objec- clusions and, in addition, makes some important tive assessment of the transaction. Customers, on points as to the data demands that are associated the other hand, are less likely to have strategic inter- with analysing mergers where the merging firms’ ests in the transaction and are therefore less likely customers are widely dispersed. to provide biased responses. This is particularly the case when there are numerous customers of mod- Sweden est size. Unfortunately, as a result, such customers are also less likely to have the necessary resources StatoilHydro was the largest retail supplier of motor or access to the requisite information to respond fuels in Sweden, with a total of more than 1 000 fuel meaningfully to the Commission’s questionnaires. stations at the end of 2007 and accounting for more An extreme case occurs when customers are indi- (3) Relevant documents issued by the European Commis- (1) The content of this article does not necessarily reflect the sion regarding this case, including the non-confiden- official position of the European Commission. Responsi- tial version of the final decision, can be downloaded at bility for the information and views expressed lies entirely http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/index/ with the authors. m98.html#m_4919 (2) From time to time, experts are directly appointed by the (4) The opinions of some customers’ associations were also Commission to examine certain (usually technical or eco- solicited. nomic) aspects of a transaction. The Directorate-General (5) The Commission’s final decision found that the trans- for Competition also often benefits from the technical action would not lead to competition concerns in Den- expertise of other Directorates-General. mark. Number 1 — 2009 71 Merger control than 30% of total sales. (6) Jet was the country’s sixth per litre differential if challenged by competitors. (10) largest supplier of retail motor fuels: it accounted Jet’s strategy has been highly successful: while it op- for more than 10% of total sales in 2007 and had by erates only 4.5% of all fuel stations in Sweden, its far the highest average throughput of all fuel station market share amounts to [10-20]%. networks in Sweden. Following the transaction, the The success of Jet’s strategy has also been recog- merged firm’s largest competitor, OK-Q8, would nised by its competitors. In particular, the Swedish have had a market share less than half that of the retail motor fuel market has witnessed an expansion combined entity. The second and third largest com- of the number of automated stations that today rep- petitors, Shell and Preem respectively, would be even resent more than half of all fuel stations, and cer- smaller with market shares of [10-20]% each. (7) By tain market players have shifted their pricing strat- acquiring Jet, StatoilHydro would thus further con- egy from high fuel prices at full-service stations and solidate its position as the leading service-station volume-based rebate schemes towards “net pricing” chain in the Swedish market, in which substantial schemes without rebates. (11) Related to such strategic “green-field” entry of a new competitor is unlikely repositioning, Shell initiated a nation-wide price war due to considerable entry barriers. (8) in April 2005 in order to establish its Shell Express The Jet business model is specific. First, it exclusively brand of automated stations by applying the same operates company-owned and company-operated price differential for petrol in relation to full-service stations only in densely populated areas under the stations and other automated stations that Jet (and unique Jet brand. (9) Second, Jet stations are all un- some other smaller automated networks) applied. manned, with a limited range of services compared While this price war ended in August 2006 when to traditional manned (or full-service) stations. Third, all automated chains started to apply the same SEK contrary to most of its competitors, which offer a 0.25 differential to full-service stations as Jet, it was wide range of fidelity and corporate cards that allow soon followed by a second price war that started in customers to obtain price reductions such as volume April 2007 for both petrol and diesel. ( 12) The second rebates, Jet has built a strong brand position based price war was initiated by StatoilHydro, which sought on a transparent net pricing policy that advertises net to reduce the differential between full-service sta- prices directly on the pump. The company further- tions and unmanned stations from SEK 0.25 per li- more applied a price differential with respect to com- tre to SEK 0.15 per litre. Jet (and other competitors) peting full-service station networks of SEK 0.25 per however resisted StatoilHydro’s initiative and sought litre. The combination of these elements resulted in to maintain the SEK 0.25 per litre differential. Jet becoming the most efficient retail fuel supplier in The important role of Jet as an independent com- Sweden, which allowed Jet to defend the SEK 0.25 petitor was also confirmed by the respondents to the market investigation and StatoilHydro’s internal (6) StatoilHydro operated full-service fuel stations under the Statoil and Hydro brands and automated fuel stations documents. Several respondents to the market in- under the 1-2-3, Hydro and Uno-X brands. Statoil’s own vestigation emphasised the fact that fierce competi- network consists of 562 fuel stations: 478 full-service sta- tion between the Statoil network, Jet and Shell had tions and 84 automated fuel stations branded “Statoil” or decreased the margins and eroded the profitability “1-2-3”. StatoilHydro also owns Hydro’s fuel station net- of smaller and weaker networks that were viewed work, which comprised 426 stations at the end of 2007: 376 automated fuel stations branded “Hydro” or “Uno- as too small to influence price levels in a manner X”, 45 full-service stations under the Hydro brand and similar to Jet. StatoilHydro’s internal documents 5 unbranded stations (“white pumps”). suggested that (i) Jet has a very strong brand image, (7) In addition, there are a number of smaller competitors op- and consumers perceive Jet as the cheapest supplier, erating brands such as Tanka, Din-X, Pump, Gulf, Q-star, and (ii) StatoilHydro views Jet as its most efficient St1 and ICA-Tapp. (8) The availability of suitable sites that can be used for build- competitor. ing fuel stations as well as the need to obtain permits are crucial factors for assessing barriers to entry (as well as (10) It is, however, important to note that Jet was not a mere barriers to expansion) in the fuel retail markets.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Annual Report Are Commission-Free
    Table of Contents 1 Letter to Our Shareholders 4 Financial Highlights 6 Our Businesses Midstream Chemicals Refining Marketing and Specialties 7 Our Value Chain 8 Our Strategy Operating Excellence Growth Returns Distributions High-Performing Organization 28 Board of Directors 30 Executive Leadership Team 31 Non-GAAP Reconciliations 32 Form 10-K | ON THE COVER AND TABLE OF CONTENTS Lake Charles Refinery WESTLAKE, LA In 2019, Lake Charles Manufacturing Complex achieved a sustained safety record of more than 55 months, equivalent to 7.5 million safe work hours. 2019 PHILLIPS 66 ANNUAL REPORT 1 To Our Shareholders We have the right strategy in place to create shareholder value, and our employees are executing it well. Phillips 66 achieved 34% total shareholder return during 2019, which exceeded our peer group average and the S&P 100. In 2019, we delivered earnings of $3.1 billion and earnings per share of $6.77. Adjusted earnings were $3.7 billion or $8.05 per share. During the year, we generated $4.8 billion of operating cash flow. We reinvested $3.9 billionback into the business and returned $3.2 billion of capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. We increased our quarterly dividend 12.5% and announced a $3 billion increase to our share repurchase program. Since our formation, we have returned $26 billion to shareholders through dividends, share repurchases and exchanges, reducing our initial shares outstanding by 33%. Operating excellence is our No. 1 priority and core to everything we do. Our goal is zero incidents, zero accidents and zero injuries. We believe this is attainable, and we strive for it daily.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Jet Fuel for Aviation
    Sustainable jet fuel for aviation Nordic perpectives on the use of advanced sustainable jet fuel for aviation Sustainable jet fuel for aviation Nordic perpectives on the use of advanced sustainable jet fuel for aviation Erik C. Wormslev, Jakob Louis Pedersen, Christian Eriksen, Rasmus Bugge, Nicolaj Skou, Camilla Tang, Toke Liengaard, Ras- mus Schnoor Hansen, Johannes Momme Eberhardt, Marie Katrine Rasch, Jonas Höglund, Ronja Beijer Englund, Judit Sandquist, Berta Matas Güell, Jens Jacob Kielland Haug, Päivi Luoma, Tiina Pursula and Marika Bröckl TemaNord 2016:538 Sustainable jet fuel for aviation Nordic perpectives on the use of advanced sustainable jet fuel for aviation Erik C. Wormslev, Jakob Louis Pedersen, Christian Eriksen, Rasmus Bugge, Nicolaj Skou, Camilla Tang, Toke Liengaard, Rasmus Schnoor Hansen, Johannes Momme Eberhardt, Marie Katrine Rasch, Jonas Höglund, Ronja Beijer Englund, Judit Sandquist, Berta Matas Güell, Jens Jacob Kielland Haug, Päivi Luoma, Tiina Pursula and Marika Bröckl ISBN 978-92-893-4661-0 (PRINT) ISBN 978-92-893-4662-7 (PDF) ISBN 978-92-893-4663-4 (EPUB) http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2016-538 TemaNord 2016:538 ISSN 0908-6692 © Nordic Council of Ministers 2016 Layout: Hanne Lebech Cover photo: Scanpix Print: Rosendahls-Schultz Grafisk Copies: 100 Printed in Denmark This publication has been published with financial support by the Nordic Council of Ministers. However, the contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views, policies or recom- mendations of the Nordic Council of Ministers. www.norden.org/nordpub Nordic co-operation Nordic co-operation is one of the world’s most extensive forms of regional collaboration, involv- ing Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland.
    [Show full text]
  • Investor Update February 2018
    Investor Update February 2018 NYSE: PSX www.phillips66.com Lake Charles Refinery Cautionary Statement This presentation contains certain forward-looking statements. Words and phrases such as “is anticipated,” “is estimated,” “is expected,” “is planned,” “is scheduled,” “is targeted,” “believes,” “intends,” “objectives,” “projects,” “strategies” and similar expressions are used to identify such forward-looking statements. However, the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements relating to the operations of Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP (including their respective joint venture operations) are based on management’s expectations, estimates and projections about these entities, their interests and the energy industry in general on the date this presentation was prepared. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecast in such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements can be found in filings that Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP make with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP are under no obligation (and expressly disclaim any such obligation) to update or alter these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. This presentation includes non-GAAP financial measures. You can find the reconciliations to comparable GAAP financial measures at the end of the presentation materials or in the “Investors” section of the websites of Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Partners LP.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Jp-5, Jp-8, and Jet a Fuels
    TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry March 2017 JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS ii DISCLAIMER Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Public Health Service, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS iii UPDATE STATEMENT A Toxicological Profile for JP-5, JP-8, and Jet A Fuels, Draft for Public Comment was released in February 2016. This edition supersedes any previously released draft or final profile. Toxicological profiles are revised and republished as necessary. For information regarding the update status of previously released profiles, contact ATSDR at: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences Environmental Toxicology Branch 1600 Clifton Road NE Mailstop F-57 Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027 JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS iv This page is intentionally blank. JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS v FOREWORD This toxicological profile is prepared in accordance with guidelines* developed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The original guidelines were published in the Federal Register on April 17, 1987. Each profile will be revised and republished as necessary. The ATSDR toxicological profile succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for these toxic substances described therein. Each peer-reviewed profile identifies and reviews the key literature that describes a substance's toxicologic properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Aviation Fuels Road-Map
    SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUELS ROAD-MAP Fueling the future of UK aviation sustainableaviation.co.uk Sustainable Aviation wishes to thank the following organisations for leading the work in producing this Road-Map: Sustainable Aviation (SA) believes the data forecasts and analysis of this report to be correct as at the date of publication. The opinions contained in this report, except where specifically attributed to, are those of SA, and based upon the information that was available to us at the time of publication. We are always pleased to receive updated information and opinions about any of the contents. All statements in this report (other than statements of historical facts) that address future market developments, government actions and events, may be deemed ‘forward-looking statements’. Although SA believes that the outcomes expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance: actual results or developments may differ materially, e.g. due to the emergence of new technologies and applications, changes to regulations, and unforeseen general economic, market or business conditions. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1.1 Addressing the sustainability challenge in aviation 1.2 The role of sustainable aviation fuels 1.3 The Sustainable Aviation Fuels Road-Map SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUELS 2.1 Sustainability of sustainable aviation fuels 2.2 Sustainable aviation fuels types 2.3 Production and usage of sustainable aviation fuels to date THE FUTURE FOR SUSTAINABLE
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign ICAO 3LD Additions, Deletions, and Modifications (Excluding U.S.)
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION N JO 7340.589 NOTICE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Air Traffic Organization Policy Effective Date: July 14, 2020 Cancellation Date: July 14, 2021 SUBJ: Foreign ICAO 3LD Additions, Deletions, and Modifications (excluding U.S.) 1. Purpose of This Notice. This notice modifies FAA Order J 7340.2, Contractions, Chapter 3, Sections 1, 2, and 3, ICAO Aircraft Company Three-Letter Identifier and/or Telephony Designator. This notice reflects recent changes initiated by countries other than the United States (U.S.) including new ICAO three letter designators (3LDs), deletions of defunct ICAO 3LDs, and modifications to ICAO 3LDs, associated telephonies, and companies/agencies. This Notice supplements FAA Order JO 7340.2 until the additions and modifications are incorporated into the Order. This Notice does not replace or substitute for GENOTs issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Organization (ATO) for ICAO 3LDs assigned and authorized for U.S. aircraft operators. 2. Audience. This notice applies to the following Air Traffic Organization (ATO) service units: Air Traffic Services, and System Operations Services; ATO Safety and Technical Training; and all associated air traffic control facilities. This notice is informational in nature and does not require documentation as supplemental training in FAA Form 3120-1, Training and Proficiency Record. 3. Where Can I Find This Notice? This notice is available on the MyFAA employee website at https://employees.faa.gov/tools_resources/orders_notices/ and on the air traffic publications website at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. 4. Source Document. The source document for the ICAO 3LD additions and modifications contained in this notice is ICAO Document 8585, Designators for Aircraft Operating Agencies, Aeronautical Authorities, and Services.
    [Show full text]
  • Explosion at the Conoco Humber Refinery – 16Th April 2001
    SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 151 # 2006 Crown Copyright EXPLOSION AT THE CONOCO HUMBER REFINERY – 16TH APRIL 2001 Jonathan Carter, Peter Dawson and Robert Nixon Health and Safety Executive, Hazardous Installations Directorate # Crown Copyright 2006. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland An explosion and fire occurred at the Conoco Humber Refinery on 16th April 2001, following the catastrophic failure of a 600 overhead pipe from a de-ethaniser column on the Saturate Gas Plant. Investigation revealed that the failure of the pipe was due to internal corrosion that had not been identified by the refinery pipework inspection regime. The paper describes the event and the emergency response. It also examines the immediate cause of the event, and how failures of the management of pipework inspection and management of change failed to prevent the accident occurring. The paper concludes with the lessons that can be learned from this event. THE REFINERY The Humber Refinery is located on the south bank of the estuary of the River Humber on the east coast of England, approximately 1.5 km north-west of the town of Immingham and 0.5 km east of the village of Killingholme. In 2001 Conoco Ltd owned the refinery. In August 2002 Conoco merged to form ConocoPhillips Ltd., the current owners of the refinery. The refinery was constructed between 1966 and 1969 and commissioned in 1970. The current capacity of the refinery is about 225,00 US barrels per day of crude oil, or about 11.4 million tonne per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Humber Refinery Fire and Explosion United Kingdom, 2001
    Case History Humber Refinery Fire and Explosion United Kingdom, 2001 Edna Mendez PhD Student Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering Texas A&M University Steering Committee Meeting, April 25th 2017 Outline • Background • Incident description • Consequences • Chemical and process description • Analysis • Lessons learned 2 Humber Refinery • Located 0.5 km east of the village South Killingholme • Constructed in 1969 and commissioned in 1969/1970 • Employees: 1,200 including contractors • Crude Capacity: 221,000 bbl/day http://latitude.to • Products: - Petroleum coke, propane/butane (LPG), gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel - Low sulfur oil and vacuum gas oil - Specialty graphite cokes 3 Sequence of Events • April 16th, 2001: Holiday – 185 staff onsite instead of usual 800 • Shift handover scheduled at 3:00 pm 2:20 pm: Pipe failure and release 20-30 sec later: Cloud found ignition source Massive explosion and fireball 2:35 pm: Release from adjacent pipework Additional explosion and fireball 2:50 pm: Further pipework failure Explosion and fireball Photo courtesy of Andy Trott (HSE, 2005) 3:30 pm: Fire under control 9:01 pm: Fire completely extinguished 4 Consequences • 180 tonnes of flammable liquids and gases released • Hydrogen sulfide (1/2 tonne) • 71 claims for injuries • Short-term environmental impact • Significant damage to refinery – shutdown for weeks • Damage within a 1 km radius offsite including adjacent refinery Damage to the SGP after the explosion (HSE, 2005) • Fined with £895,000
    [Show full text]
  • Faces of the Future: Conocophillips and Phillips 66 Emerge Spirit Magazine First Quarter 2012 “Energy Production Creates Jobs.”
    CONOCOPHILLIPS ConocoPhillips First Quarter 2012 Faces of the Future: ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 emerge spirit Magazine First Quarter 2012 “Energy production creates jobs.” “We need to protect the environment.” Each wants the best for our country. So how can we satisfy both — right now? At ConocoPhillips, we’re helping to power America’s economy with cleaner, affordable natural gas. And the jobs, revenue and safer energy it provides. Which helps answer both their concerns. In real time. To find out why natural gas is the right answer, visit PowerInCooperation.com © ConocoPhillips Company. 2011. All rights reserved. Sharing Insights Five years ago, I wrote the first Sharing Insights letter for the new spirit Magazine. Since then, the magazine has documented a pivotal time in our company’s history, consistently delivering news and information to a wide-ranging audience. More than 7,000 employees have appeared in its pages. Remarkably, as the magazine grew, so did the number of employees who volunteered to contribute content. When your audience is engaged enough to do that, you know you are making a difference. Now, as we approach the completion of our repositioning effort, I am writing in what will be the final issue of spirit Magazine for Jim Mulva Chairman and CEO the integrated company. I have little doubt that both ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 will continue to offer robust and engaging internal communications. But it seems fitting that this final issue includes a variety of feature articles, news stories and people profiles that reflect the broad scope of our work across upstream and downstream and the rich heritage of our history.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for JP-5, JP-8, and Jet a Fuels
    JP-5, JP-8, AND JET A FUELS 157 5. PRODUCTION, IMPORT/EXPORT, USE, AND DISPOSAL 5.1 PRODUCTION No information is available in the TRI database on facilities that manufacture or process JP-5, JP-8, and Jet A fuels because these chemicals are not required to be reported under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986) (EPA 2005). As discussed in Chapter 4, most jet fuels are derived from petroleum. During the 1970s and 1980s, shale oil had been used to manufacture jet fuels, but this is no longer economically feasible (Chevron 2006). Figure 4-1 provides a general schematic for the straight-run production of jet fuels from crude oil. Heated crude oil is introduced into an atmospheric pressure distillation unit and the liquefied petroleum gasses (propane and butane) are boiled off from the top of the distillation column and eventually recondensed by a condenser unit. Middle distillates such as kerosene and diesel are drawn off the distillation column and treated by various processes that remove or reduce undesirable components before becoming jet fuels (API 2010b; Chevron 2006). The sweetening process removes corrosive mercaptans from the kerosene fraction by the mercapton oxidation (Merox) process in which mercaptans are converted to disulfides using a catalyst and an alkaline solution. The disulfides are noncorrosive and may be left in the final product or removed by additional treatment to lower the sulfur content of the resultant jet fuel. Hydroprocessing employs hydrogen and an appropriate catalyst to remove olefins, sulfur, and nitrogen- containing compounds from the distilled kerosene.
    [Show full text]
  • Fleet Tracker Europe
    BUSINESS AVIATION FLEET TRACKER EUROPE December 2018 © Powered by JETNET for EBAA FLEET IN EUROPE December 2018 940 945 2% 26% 655 576 12% 458 26% BASED FLEET 18% 3665 91 16% Single Engine Twin Engine Light Jets Midsize Jets Heavy Jets Bizliners TOTAL Turboprop Turboprop 2 © Powered by JETNET for EBAA 01 European Fleet Aircraft Base BASED FLEET December 2018 December Single Engine Twin Engine GRAND Light Jet Midsize Jet Heavy Jet Bizliners 2018 Turboprop Turboprop TOTAL Germany 146 116 270 81 121 16 750 United Kingdom 62 102 99 81 146 14 504 France 95 104 120 52 81 8 460 Switzerland 56 27 53 7 100 13 256 Austria 24 15 45 28 78 2 192 Italy 10 61 37 23 36 3 170 Spain 8 33 51 15 38 4 149 Malta 1 5 16 6 100 5 133 Portugal 1 2 25 51 40 2 121 Belgium 31 14 19 12 27 1 104 Czech Republic 24 11 36 9 18 3 101 Luxembourg 25 12 15 6 20 7 85 Sweden 6 35 18 8 17 84 Netherlands 24 17 16 6 14 2 79 Denmark 13 6 20 10 27 1 77 Poland 14 11 16 7 13 61 4 © Powered by JETNET for EBAA BASED FLEET December 2018 December Single Engine Twin Engine GRAND Light Jet Midsize Jet Heavy Jet Bizliners 2018 Turboprop Turboprop TOTAL Norway 5 26 3 6 7 47 Greece 16 5 3 10 34 Finland 11 3 9 6 29 Ireland 4 4 2 7 11 28 Bulgaria 4 5 8 2 5 1 25 Hungary 2 6 7 4 2 21 Slovakia 1 1 9 3 1 5 20 Estonia 1 6 4 5 2 18 Romania 1 4 3 2 6 1 17 Cyprus 2 1 1 3 8 15 Slovenia 1 2 6 1 5 15 Croatia 1 4 6 1 12 Lithuania 1 6 1 3 11 Latvia 1 2 4 2 9 Albania 1 1 Others* 2 6 17 10 2 37 TOTAL 576 655 940 458 945 91 3665 5 © Powered by JETNET for EBAA * (Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosolv Dry Cleaning Fluid-Chevron Phillips
    SAFETY DATA SHEET ECOSOLV® Dry Cleaning Fluid Version 1.4 Revision Date 2014-12-15 SECTION 1: Identification of the substance/mixture and of the company/undertaking Product information Product Name : ECOSOLV® Dry Cleaning Fluid Material : 1061821, 1061242, 1079001, 1058748, 1058747, 1061171 Use : Solvent Company : Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Specialty Chemicals 10001 Six Pines Drive The Woodlands, TX 77380 Emergency telephone: Health: 866.442.9628 (North America) 1.832.813.4984 (International) Transport: North America: CHEMTREC 800.424.9300 or 703.527.3887 Asia: +800 CHEMCALL (+800 2436 2255) China:+86-21-22157316 EUROPE: BIG +32.14.584545 (phone) or +32.14583516 (telefax) South America SOS-Cotec Inside Brazil: 0800.111.767 Outside Brazil: +55.19.3467.1600 Responsible Department : Product Safety and Toxicology Group E-mail address : [email protected] Website : www.CPChem.com SECTION 2: Hazards identification Classification of the substance or mixture This product has been classified in accordance with the hazard communication standard 29 CFR 1910.1200; the SDS and labels contain all the information as required by the standard. Emergency Overview Danger Form : Liquid Physical state: Liquid Color: Colorless at room temperature Odor: mild hydrocarbon OSHA Hazards : Combustible Liquid, Aspiration hazard Classification : Flammable liquids , Category 4 Aspiration hazard , Category 1 MSDS Number:100000013944 1/13 SAFETY DATA SHEET ECOSOLV® Dry Cleaning Fluid Version 1.4 Revision Date 2014-12-15 Labeling Symbol(s) : Signal Word : Danger Hazard Statements : H227: Combustible liquid. H304: May be fatal if swallowed and enters airways. Precautionary Statements : Prevention: P210 Keep away from heat/sparks/open flames/hot surfaces. - No smoking.
    [Show full text]