Nerves of steel and taking the long view are useful attributes of energy groups

As if the technical challenges of managing oil and gasfields, nuclear power stations and electricity grid systems were not enough, recent events in Europe and the Middle East have pushed political risk to the top of the agenda for energy suppliers.

This week, Christophe de Margerie, chief executive of Total, the French oil group, repeated his warning that escalating tensions between western powers and Russia over Moscow's support for separatists in Ukraine could threaten gas supplies across Europe this winter.

In Iraq, meanwhile, the IS insurgency has prompted temporary withdrawals and the redeployment of staff by companies such as Hess of the US, London-listed Genel and Norway's DNO, which are backing the autonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq in attempts to deliver recent oil and gas discoveries to market.

But the latest geopolitical upsets also demonstrate some of the tactics used by energy companies to ensure that life goes on as normally as possible in times of heightened risk for themselves, their customers and their investors.

The crucial strategy is to avoid taking sides in public to minimise offence to each party to a conflict while engaging with protagonists and ensuring contingency plans are in place.

French-owned EDF Energy stressed in a highly diplomatic message to staff this month that it had no recommendation to workers at its two nuclear power stations in Scotland on the issue of independence. Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive, added that detailed discussions had taken place with both sides about where the company might stand, depending on the vote's outcome.

He revealed he had met Scotland's first minister Alex Salmond twice in previous months to seek assurances on the future operation of its Hunterston and Torness plants in the light of a "yes" vote, while meetings had also taken place with leaders of the Better Together campaign, including Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown.

EDF's aim was, according to Mr Rivaz, to be "ready to be fully engaged in a constructive way to tackle [uncertainties] in the interests of our business".

Total, one of the North Sea's biggest operators, also declined to be drawn into the Scottish independence debate. But following the vote, Mr de Margerie said the group had remained perfectly willing to commit billions of dollars to new offshore developments. "We never said anything about the referendum," he said last week. "Did we think it was something that would change our decision to invest in the North Sea? No."

Such remarks demonstrate a steely attitude among global leaders of energy companies well-versed in assessing, but not being daunted by, political risk.

The global oil and gas industry, in particular, is notable for the extreme swings in its sale prices, the constant threat of tax rises or outright expropriation by sometimes hostile regimes, and a history of multibillion-dollar over-runs that have wrecked the economics of highly complex projects.

Set against these factors, the outcome of a well-flagged democratic vote over Scottish independence does not appear to have impinged on spending decisions in a mature oil basin where, in spite of declining output, new investment hit a high of £14bn last year.

Most attention on political risk facing western energy groups continues to focus on the impact that US and EU sanctions may have on investments already committed within Russia, and Russian leverage over European energy supplies.

Ακολουθήστε το Euro2day.gr στο Google News!Παρακολουθήστε τις εξελίξεις με την υπογραφη εγκυρότητας του Euro2day.gr

FOLLOW USΑκολουθήστε τη σελίδα του Euro2day.gr στο Linkedin

ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Total and Royal Dutch Shell have interests in Russia that are threatened by further sanctions against the country, prompted by its annexation of Crimea and support for insurgents in eastern Ukraine.

This month, ExxonMobil said it was winding down its drilling programme in the Russian Arctic in response to recent sanctions. But analysts point to BP as being most at risk of souring relations with Moscow, because of its 20 per cent stake in Rosneft, the Russian oil group.

In July, BP became the first big western company to state that sanctions against Russia could have a material adverse impact on its business.

Bob Dudley, its chief executive, called for investors to hold their nerve and view its exposure to the world's largest oil- and gas-producing country "through a 30 year window".

Meanwhile, bosses of Russian state nuclear power company Rosatom insist that life is proceeding as normal in its sector, undisturbed by political crises.

Board member Kirill Komarov, who was in London this month for an industry conference, said that realpolitik had so far prevented nuclear energy becoming embroiled in industrial or diplomatic clashes over Ukraine.

Amid interruptions to gas supplies to Ukraine, Rosatom was keen to portray itself as a reliable supplier. While Russian gas would normally account for 8 per cent of Ukraine's energy supply, nuclear plants installed by Russia account for 50 per cent of its power needs, according to Mr Komarov.

"We have never stopped any shipment of fuel to Ukraine's power plants," he says.

© The Financial Times Limited 2014. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation