Talk:Trafigura/Archives/2016

2015 figures

Hi – the infobox could be updated with the latest figures in the annual report, namely the revenue ($97.2bn), net income ($1.1bn) and number of employees (5,248). HOgilvy (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Intro & Activities

@CorporateM: would you mind having a look at the following changes/additions to a) the intro and b) the Activities section?

Intro

• There’s some inconsistency between this and the History section (500 staff is incorrect, it’s 700, and there were more founding partners than just Claude Dauphin and Eric de Turckheim)

 Not done Determining who the founders are is sometimes tricky business - we need secondary sources for this. CorporateM (Talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• There's also some duplication (81 offices in 56 countries, Dauphin’s 20% stake)

 Not done The Lede is suppose to summarize the article and is therefore repetitive with some aspects of it. However, I removed the employee/office count as I typically prefer to avoid repetition with the infobox. Another editor could reasonably feel differently. CorporateM (Talk) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Also Marc Rich isn’t mentioned anywhere else in the article so not sure why that should be in the lede.

 Not done Marc Rich has a prominent place in the source in a manner that suggests his management of the Group was a significant enough element of Trafigura's history to warrant inclusion. The problem is that it is omitted from the body, not that it is included in the Lede.. CorporateM (Talk) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Activities

• You took out some detail on Trafigura’s refined oil products which I don’t see a reason not to include. After “…2.4 million barrels of physical oil per day”, might I suggest: “Aside from crude oil, refined products traded by Trafigura include fuel oil, gasoline, bio diesel and liquefied natural gas.”

 Not done Some primary sources are acceptable for mundane aspects of company operations not reported in an up-to-date manner by the press, but this comes off as too much detail to me for a primary source. Something like "as well as other oil products" might be ok. An editor with expertise in the subject might be able to better judge if the refined products are significant enough to include based on an understanding of the total body of literature on the company. However, based on my limited knowledge, I will not make the edit, nor will I oppose if someone else does. CorporateM (Talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Similarly for Trafigura’s non-ferrous and bulk customers – after “The group traded 32.9 million metric tons of non-ferrous and bulk commodities during 2013”, perhaps: “Trafigura’s customers for these commodities include mining companies, smelters and refined metals retailers.” (Also the bond prospectus, which is also the source for the 32.9 million metric tons sentence)

 Not done It is almost always promotional to describe the industries/customers/etc. unless there is really something very specific to say about it and usually with a secondary source. CorporateM (Talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I know you’re reluctant to use the primary source and I get the removal of the more inaccessible content on derivatives etc. but I think this is relevant info.

The reference for “In 2013 Trafigura's fleet of chartered tonnage consisted of between 50 and 60 tankers and 30 to 40 bulkers at any given time.” is this from Trade Winds

The structure section is pretty out of date and I’ll come back to you on that at a later date if that’s okay.

Let me know what you make of these suggestions, thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Trade of toxic diesel to Africa

The company's response to this investigation appeared in several French-language newspapers. Suggest the following as a second paragraph in this section:

In response, Trafigura stated that pollution in African cities is a global concern requiring an intergovernmental approach, with the primary responsibility on the African governments which set fuel specifications. The company added that it is actively raising the issue with African governments, the European Commission and the OECD.

As stated on my userpage, I have a COI in that Trafigura is my client. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The above paragraph looks fine: I have inserted it. Dormskirk (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This is just PR added to the article at the behest of their PR organisation. It might be verifiable, but that's not the way to write a neutral article. I've copy edited the whole section and removed the fluffy "global concern requiring an intergovernmental approach" "actively raising the issue" etc. SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, broadly agree on the fluff – it was paraphrasing the company's statement which is only just short of quoting it directly so I get that – but I'm not sure you're justified in removing everything to do with what Trafigura has said about its engagement with various bodies on this issue. Why would a second sentence – "It also said it was raising the issue of pollution in African cities with African governments, the European Commission and the OECD" – be irrelevant puff? HOgilvy (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Smartse: interested to hear your view on my point above. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)