Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
XPB: All we need now is an impartial judge to keep score! Pleased that you agree with my assessment of the MMO issue. I don't think that there is any way to totally satisfy NE but I do think that ENZYGO have done their best and I suspect that the Council will agree with that view. If, as we both believe, planning is approved, it will be interesting to see if F4C come up with some money given the parlous state of the UK's finances. Talking of which, what sort of bounce do you anticipate if we are right?
Glad we have reached an agreement on our respective roles. I'll continue to post, and you'll continue to attempt to nullify.
As stated prior, PP will happen and we're on the home straight toward getting it.
The only thing that remains is the concept of diluting the effluent with the nearby gas/incinerator plant. It looks to me that the MMO have missed the concept of using existing infrastructure to emit the effluent and assume that there are additional works required. There will be works, but they'll be land-side only.
Above that it remains to be seen if NE actually agree with the principles of diluting, rather than fully treating at the plant and subsequently, if the Council agrees.
XPD: I have no problem with you posting your opinions as long as it is clear they they are just that - opinions. It would be of more interest if they are backed up with some facts, which they all too rarely are. Of interest is the fact that Marine Management sent a very similar document to that posted on 9 Apr 20 on 19 Aug 19 and that the latest ENZYGO addendum posted on 8 Apr lists all the issues that have been addressed by the applicant. As I read it, ENZYGO are content that they have covered all the issues raised which would seem to support my view that the MMO letter is not an issue. BTW, in the time honoured words of Yes Minister in response to your latest post "Name six" - I refer, of course, to your comment - " I will however to continue to post my opinions and look forward to when all of my forecasts become present day reality (like a number of them have already.)" Please continue to post as it provides me with entertainment during our current lock-down.
Isn’t this this a public forum and one that entitles everyone to their own opinions ? The issues I raise, particularly around lack of commercial testing and the challenges around financing are both fact and reality. It’s you that has an issue with it.. This board would be dull without our respective exchanges and such exchanges give others a chance to form their own opinions.
You, or Investmistress, do not need to read my comments, or indeed respond to them. I will however to continue to post my opinions and look forward to when all of my forecasts become present day reality (like a number of them have already.)
Happy Easter xx
XPB: It must be the isolation that is doing it. IM is plural, or are you suggesting a split personality? Once again you have returned to your repetitive and, as yet, unsubstantiated theme regarding financing. Please give it a rest as everyone on this board who reads your posts have all seen it countless times. BTW I have no connection whatsoever with IM. My expressed views are my own based purely on my research.
It would appear from the latest documentation that the outfalls VLS intends to use already exist and presumably are licensed. Unless I have misread the documentation, the project is not now intending to use any new outfalls so there is therefore no need to apply for a licence. As an aside, it is a bit late in the planning process for this issue to be raised. I wonder why it took so long.
TG. Of course the outfalls fall below MHW.
Can be a lengthy process
Ask INFA holders
Again, another post from IM that clearly shows their lack of understanding of Project Finance. The project will NOT get financed until the conditions have been resolved. Financing of this project is already bordering on the impossible, due to new technology risks and unproven processes due to lack of testing.
It would appear that " It is down to the applicant themselves to take the necessary steps to ascertain whether their works will fall below the Mean High Water Springs mark." I would not have thought that the site falls into this category, although, given that there are other sites, including a power station, nearer to the coast, I would not foresee a major problem. Just another NGO justifying its existence IMHO.
New document on planning portal seems to suggest a marine license hasn't been applied for yet and will likely be needed.
Have I misunderstood or missed some earlier item?
Absolutely thurgarton...this mirror sun star type journalism from this twonk is very poorly investigated and even worse reported to mislead others.. disgraceful really...mind you I doubt he has many if any followers on here.
XPB: There you go again. It is pretty clear from the latest documents that ENZYGO (and by inference VLS) believe that they have answered most of the issues raised as far as this is possible with new technology. Moreover they are frank in stating that the construction process envisaged will enable them to clarify and resolve issues that, because this is a new technology which does not currently have specific regulations in place, will need to be resolved by both sides, working together, as the project progresses. The documents posted yesterday clearly suggest that any conditions imposed (and they accept that there will be conditions) as part of PP can only be resolved as the job progresses so to suggest that they have to be resolved before the project can be financed, as you suggest, is clearly not the view of ENZYGO/VLS. Careful that you don't bite your tongue.
I'll be very interested to read the conditions. Work will need to continue to remove the conditions before the project can be financed, so if the conditions require significant engineering change to address, then funds will need to appear sooner rather than alter. That said, PP remains in place for 3 years so assuming they can keep the lights on and make tea during the medium term, they should be able to clear them once the millions come flowing in (obvious that last bit is with tongue in cheek)
About time we heard a squeak from them. Suppose they need to come from under their rock after the recent press articles on the NE objection.
VLS think that's job done now
30 days to wait and see if they are right
RNS out
XPB: I pretty much agree - in fact the whole package looks like the result of discussions plus a very pointed rebuttal of the points NE made by AQC who appear to know more about the pertinent regulations than NE (see Air Quality responses ) and they have even addressed the lighting issue (apparently NE were concerned that lighting reflecting on water could upset the birds!). It would also appear that the Council are happy re Highways England issues (see NELC confirmation). Good job Shell/BA fronted up for the application costs because ENZYGO's bill is not going to be insignificant. Looks like your punt on planning approval is likely to succeed, albeit heavily conditioned.
2 key changes.
1) Air emissions have been improved by selecting better diesel generators boilers.
2) VLS Effluent will now be mixed with the adjacent power station cooling water, then discharged in the power station pipe. So in effect, diluting VLS dirty water with the power stations’ relatively clean water.
The air emissions should now be closed, however I’m not sure if diluting VLS dirty water will wash with NE. It’s an attempt to go around the NE objection, but administering and managing the effluent between the two parties is a potential nightmare. However, administration is not NE’s remit, so the onus will then be put the Permitting process.
I suspect the PP will be granted by the end of the month with a ton of conditions.
25 new documents posted on the Planning Application today! It would seem that things have been moving, hopefully in the right direction. I didn't notice anything new from NE, but that was only after a cursory perusal of the documents. Will post my opinion on developments once I have had a chance to study them.