Talk:Puma Energy

New Article

Hi there - I've drafted an expanded and more detailed article for Puma Energy, located in my user space.

I think this new version would be of benefit - if someone could review it and offer their feedback that would be much appreciated.

In the interests of transparency I am declaring that Puma Energy/Trafigura is my client. I hope to work with other editors to ensure that this Wikipedia article is accurate.

Many thanks HOgilvy (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you preparing the draft. The current article is in bad shape and it needs to be rewritten. I will review your proposal and respond here by the end of this week. I did not have a time to study the proposal in details but my first impression is that there may be some potential issues. I will give more4 detailed feedback when I have studied your proposal more carefully. To make the process transparent I propose that comments would be added at this talk page here.

I would like to to ask your permission to fix some formatting issues related to WP:MOS (capital letters, spaces, infobox fields etc) in your draft. As the draft is placed at your talk page I hesitate to do this without your permission but it will take more time to describe then than to fix them. This concerns only formatting issues, not substantial issues.

I appreciate that you have made the COI declaration at your talk page and here. Taking account the recent controversy concerning the editor related to BP (although he followed all guidelines), I strongly recommend that you will leave this notice and request also at the COI notice board. Beagel (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. I have posted on the COI notice board as you suggest and have flagged that you're looking at the article. Feel free to make edits on my talk page. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments to the proposed draft by user Beagel

Structure

• I recommend to change the structure to reflect the standard structure of the company articles. Right now historical and current activities information is spread over the 'Activities by region' section. I suggest to create a separate 'History' section, which should include all historical information (including acquisitions) and the 'Operations' or 'Operations by region' section including only information about the current operations.
• There may be also 'Corporate issues' section which should include information about headquarters, ownership, key personnel etc. Not sure at the moment if this needed but may be it worth to be considered.
• There is no sections about critics, environmental issues or other controversies. I don't know if there is any critics about the company activities, but if yes, it should be added.
• Although the Baltic region is mention ed in the lead, there is nothing said about the activities n that region.
• The ownership structure is hidden in the 'Africa' subsection. The fact of selling 20% would be better placed in the 'History' section and the current shareholders structure should probably fit better in the potential 'Corporate issues' section, if created.
• 'Mooted IPO' section suits probably in the 'Corporate issues' section, if created.

Body text and tone

• Puma Energy currently owns and operates... Propose to remove currently or replace it with more concrete date (e.g. As of April 2013).
• Acquisition of BP's assets says when the acquisition was announced but not when it was completed.
• As Botswana's largest fuel retailer, Puma Energy is looking to partner with the government to invest in facilities for import, supply and distribution. This sentence gives no information other than the company is looking for ways to invest; however, there is no certain project or investment plan. As a speculation about the future, it does not belongs here per WP:CRYSTAL.
• Responding to regional supply chain issues, in 2012 Puma Energy began a strategic drive for greater import capacity, acquiring two 5,000 cubic metres (180,000 cu ft) import terminals for liquefied petroleum gas in Benin and Senegal. This is typical corporate speaking which does not belong to Wikipeadia. In 2012 Puma Energy acquired two 5,000 cubic metres (180,000 cu ft) import terminals for liquefied petroleum gas in Benin and Senegal. would be more encyclopaedic.
• As of 2012 the firm is aiming to break into the East African retail market with a special focus on Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia and Burundi. Again, e.g. the company plans to enter into the East African retail market, including Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia and Burundi seems less promotional.
• Puma Energy's growth in Central America gathered momentum from 2010 with the formation of its regional subsidiary, Puma Energy Caribe, which bought Caribbean Petroleum Corporation's fire-damaged fuel depot in Puerto Rico along with 147 Gulf-branded service stations. Maybe In 2010, Puma Energy formed its regional subsidiary, Puma Energy Caribe, which bought Caribbean Petroleum Corporation's fire-damaged fuel depot in Puerto Rico along with 147 Gulf-branded service stations would be more neutral wording.
• The firm is particularly strong in Nicaragua where it has 40% of the retail market as well as an oil refinery in Managua, also acquired from Exxon, with a capacity of 19,500 barrels per day (3,100 m3/d). More neutral would be In Nicaragua the company has 40% of the retail market as well as an oil refinery in Managua, acquired from Exxon, with a capacity of 19,500 barrels per day (3,100 m3/d).
• In January 2013 Puma Energy signed a seven-year $300 million financing facility for its Central American operations, the first of its kind for the region. I am not sure if this should be added. Companies have different financing schemes but usually they have no encyclopaedic value.
• Building on their existing tie-up in Africa, Puma Energy and Castrol announced a new partnership in February 2013 to market Castrol lubricants in all six of Puma Energy's Central American markets as well as in Paraguay. Again, the less promotional tone would be In February 2013, Puma Energy and Castrol started a partnership to market Castrol lubricants in all six of Puma Energy's Central American markets as well as in Paraguay.
• In July 2012 Puma Energy announced that it was set to buy Singapore-based Chevron Kuo Pte, owner of a 70% share of Chevron Bitumen Vietnam – an importer and distributor of asphalt for infrastructure projects in Vietnam. The purchase of Chevron Kuo signalled Puma Energy's intent to expand its footprint as a global marketer of bitumen, seeking to double its capacity from 100,000 to 200,000 tons over the next five years. This says when the deal was announced but not when it was closed. Maybe less promotional wording would be: In July 2012 Puma Energy announced acquisition of the Singapore-based Chevron Kuo Pte, owner of a 70% share of Chevron Bitumen Vietnam, an importer and distributor of asphalt for infrastructure projects in Vietnam. Through this purchase Puma Energy expanded its activities into the global bitumen market.
• Instead of the The following month and Also in February, more precise time (which month, which year) is needed.

Categories

• As company articles are categorized among others 'by country categories', I propose to add Category:Oil and gas companies of Singapore per its headquarters.

Beagel (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. The text and tone rewrites are good. Regarding structure, I appreciate your point about a 'History' section but the difficulty is that the bulk of the available information is historical and the company's current operations are implicit within that. Aside from the introduction and the content concerning ownership and the possibility of an IPO the majority of the relevant information concerns Puma's recent and rapid growth in several regions, which is why I broke it down that way. Would you be open to renaming 'Activities by region' to 'Growth by region'? If not then how would you recommend structuring a history section given that it would account for most of the article? Regarding ownership, IPO etc, I would suggest expanding 'Mooted IPO' to form a section simply titled 'Ownership'. HOgilvy (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This was just one option for the structure. If you think that it is not the time to split information between 'History' and 'Operations' sections, I think that also the current proposal by region is ok. In this case I just propose to rename the section 'Operations by region' and to remove the subsection title 'BP divestment and further expansion' as it still talks about Africa. Expanding 'Mooted IPO' into the 'Ownership' section is a good idea. Beagel (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting back. That sounds fine - regarding 'BP divestment and further expansion', that's my mistake as I had intended it to be a subsection of the Africa section, as it is now on my user space. Hope that makes more sense. I will rework what's on that page according to your suggestions and drop you another line here. Thanks again. HOgilvy (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I've now made those edits as agreed. On your second bullet on structure - I think headquarters, ownership and key personnel are now adequately dealt with by the intro, infobox and ownership section. Regarding critics, environmental issues etc, there are no controversies surrounding this company as far as I can see. I take your point on the Baltics operations - the problem I have is that while there isn't any adequate third party information on those activities it is well documented that they have operations in the Baltics and a regional hub in Tallinn. I have however removed North America from list of regions, as there doesn't appear to be any news coverage or other content on any business activities there. I have made all the rewrites you suggested with the exception of your first bullet point, 'Puma Energy currently owns and operates...' which I've simply changed to 'Puma owns and operates...' as the 1,500 service stations is a more recent stat than 3.8 million cubic tons of storage and 5,000 employees so I can't specify a date for all three. The most up-to-date figures for the latter two are in fact 4.5 million and 6,000 but they can only be found on the company website. I've added the other category as you proposed. I hope these changes and suggestions are along the right lines and thanks by the way for your earlier formatting work - very helpful. HOgilvy (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi - just to let you know that Tiggerjay has reviewed this draft and has posted on the COI notice board. I'll drop you a line on your talk page as well. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked Anthony Appleyard to move the draft to the article's space. Beagel (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Adjustments

It still needs some adjustments, mainly for style,and I've made them. Since we're an encyclopedia we write like an encyclopedia, not a press release: We normally summarize things in the infobox; we normally write in paragraphs, not single disconnected sentences; we avoid repeating the name of the company too often; we don't link common things like names of countries. . This needs to read like an encyclopedia article--that's part of avoiding promotionalism, not just removing inappropriate content. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Update to Ownership section

Hi – there has been a further divestment of Puma Energy to Sonangol. In light of this, I propose the following to be added to the end of the current Ownership section:

In November 2013 Trafigura announced that it had reduced its stake in Puma Energy to less than 49 per cent as a result of a capital increase and a sale of shares to existing minority shareholders. Sonangol Holdings, Angola’s state oil company, paid $500 million to increase its stake in Puma to 30 per cent. Private investors own the remainder of the company. The transaction values Puma at around $5 billion.

If someone could review this and feedback that would be much appreciated. I should remind editors here that I have a COI as a PR representative of Puma Energy, working at Bell Pottinger. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I used these references to update that section. However, instead of adding the new paragraph, I trimmed and updated the existing text.Beagel (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Beagel – just a couple of things, could it be adjusted slightly to say: "Trafigura is Puma Energy’s majority shareholder, with a 49% stake. Sonangol Holdings, a subsidiary of Angola's state-owned oil company, owns 30% of the company while the remaining minority shares are owned by private shareholders. The latest transaction in November 2013 valued Puma at around $5 billion." Would you be happy to make those changes? Many thanks indeed. HOgilvy (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done As these edits are just copyediting of style and grammar, I don't see any problem with them. Beagel (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That's great, thanks very much Beagel. HOgilvy (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, new stats

Hi @Beagel:, any chance you could take a quick look at this? Thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Beagel:, thanks for taking the time to look at this – I've realised I said replace Australia with Asia-Pacific but obviously I should have said combine Southeast Asia and the old Australia section under Asia-Pacific. Don't you think? Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about this but decided let it stay in the separate sections. However, no problem to merge these sections. Beagel (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Beagel – no-go with the $220m Napa refinery investment or should we be waiting until the 'intention' becomes reality? Also the no of employees in the infobox needs to be updated. HOgilvy (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the planned investments, I prefer to be quite careful to avoid the company's promotion. In the context of the Napa Napa refinery my opinion is that it would be better to wait until the investment is done (and even in that case I am not sure if we should report the amount of invested money or just the new capacity would be enough). I updated the number of employees in the infobox. Beagel (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks again. HOgilvy (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi – there’s some new information to be added:

Puma Energy has made its first investment in Papua New Guinea and has opened a new bitumen storage terminal in Malaysia. It has also become an official sponsor of the 2015 Pacific Games.

There are some stats to be updated as well.

I propose renaming the Australia subsection ‘Asia-Pacific’ and adding the following to the end of it:

In June 2014 Puma Energy made its first investment in Papua New Guinea, acquiring InterOil Corp (IOC)’s Napa Napa oil refinery, 52 service stations and 30 fuel depots, terminal and aviation sites for $526 million. In November that year the company announced its intention to invest $220m in the Napa Napa refinery, an upgrade that will increase production capacity from 25,000 to 42,000 barrels per day.

Also in November 2014, Puma Energy opened the Langsat Bitumen Terminal, a 74,000-tonne bitumen storage facility in Johor, Malaysia.

Puma Energy has also become a sponsor of the 2015 Pacific Games – I suggest the following, added to the end of the Sports sponsorships section:

In September 2014 Puma Energy became an official sponsor of the 2015 Pacific Games.

Finally, some of the stats are out of date. This article on Petrol Plaza gives us more up-to-date ones, specifically: Puma is active in 45 countries, employs 7,500 and has a global network of 1,850 service stations. It also has a regional hub in Brisbane. In addition, the figure for Puma’s total storage capacity worldwide is 5.6 million cubic metres – the only source I have for that is the website. I appreciate this is a primary source but it hasn’t been published anywhere as yet. Let me know if it's reasonable to include that or not.

Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Beagel (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Save Combustibles, Milford Haven, stats

Hi @Beagel:, sorry to bother you again, just wondering if there's any chance you could take a look at these suggestions. Thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi – Puma Energy recently entered both the Colombian and UK markets. Could I propose the following sentences:

For Colombia:

In March 2015 Puma Energy purchased all the assets of the Colombian fuel storage and distribution firm Save Combustibles SAS, including 135 service stations. The deal was the company’s first acquisition in Colombia.

And for the UK:

In March 2015 Puma Energy made its first acquisition in the United Kingdom, purchasing the Milford Haven oil refinery in Wales from Murphy Oil subsidiary Murco Petroleum for use as a fuel storage site.

As for where these can go, perhaps ‘Central America and the Caribbean’ could be renamed ‘Latin America’, with the Colombian acquisition added to the end of it, and for the UK acquisition maybe a new subsection titled ‘Europe’ could be added to the bottom of the Activities by region section.

Also Puma’s 2014 revenue figures were reported on Swissinfo.ch. Could the following be added to the infobox?

Revenue: US$ 13.4 billion (2014)

There are a number of stats here that are out of date – operations in 40 countries (actually 45), 5.6 million cubic metres of storage capacity (actually 7 million), and 1,850 service stations (actually 2,000+) – but for which we don’t have secondary sources. Page 12 of this corporate brochure is where these up-to-date figures are. Understand if this is no good as a source but for info like this, I thought it worth putting out there for someone to make a judgement call.

Finally, just a reminder of my COI – as per my user page I am a PR representative and Puma Energy is my client. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've added those three pieces of information for you -- they seemed to be neutral statements to me, so no problem in adding them. As for the slightly out-of-date stats, I think that's fairly normal for Wikipedia, one just has to be relaxed about it. :) Pasicles (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pasicles, sure no problem, thanks very much for taking a look at this. HOgilvy (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)