The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
Agreed. Apart from the last bit. A punt on getting PP secured is in play. From then on, it’s a downward spiral (but that’s just my opinion)
XPB; You have expressed your views. I have expressed mine. I see little point in arguing further until such times as the project is either canned or goes forward. I'm betting on the latter. You, apparently are not betting at all.
Are you still here....
You’ve avoided all my previous points. Bravo. Good luck going forward.
XPB: Oh please! I am not a complete idiot. You are still spouting unsubstantiated costings and refusing to countenance any argument with your point of view. As a long term investor in Velocys ( I first bought at over £2!), I could hardly fail to appreciate the problems they have encountered, nor their financial state. Nor, I would venture to suggest, can the IIs who hold >70% of the share capital. You are apparently convinced that the Immingham project is doomed and will not accept any argument against that view. I accept that the big "if" in the project is the planning permission, which has already put a 6 month delay on progress. When that is resolved it might be possible to move on from our current impasse as I am sure that Velocys will, if the application is agreed, provide us with further information as to its plans which will resolve some of the issues you continue to postulate with little foundation.
Id receive a cheers from two people who can't see the wood for the trees. I'll be staying and speaking the truth. Thanks anyway.
If you move on EXB...you will recieve a huge cheer from many on this board. I intend to stick with this. However you will probably disappoint us!
IM, ref your post 41. That's fine with me. You're the one spouting profanities. Might be worth you moving on too.
ref post 219. Im struggling to find the motivation to respond to your rebuttal as you still don't get the basic understanding of how these projects are financed, or indeed how the technology that VLS have been working on for so many years without any commercial success, fits with the project we are talking about.
The FEED is probably in the order of 10m pounds. The project costs 700 million. 10m is firmly in the punt category for BA and Shell, but the equity and debt needed to build the thing is another level all together. This isnt insider knowledge - its basic principles of project development.
As for the technology being proven claim that you are now referecing, for the 100th time, the FT is only part of it! VLS need to integrate a whole host of other pieces of technology to make the project work and become a viable and ultimately financiable opportunity.
With respect, you're getting somewhat out of your depth on this, so might be time to move on.
XPB; From your original reference:
"The contribution from British Airways and Shell of £2.8 million in total covers the final stage of the pre-FEED, planning permission and commercial pre-contracting of the Altalto Immingham Project, means no further net contribution will be required to be made by the Company until the first quarter of 2020 for the full FEED work. Further funding will be required at that stage to execute the full FEED work, being the next stage on both the Mississippi Biorefinery Project and the Altalto Immingham Project. However, it is expected that the large majority of this further funding will be provided by further commitments from strategic partners."
Not only are you implying that you have inside knowledge of VLS, you are now making the same inference with regard to Shell and BA.
BTW, also from the same source:
ENVIA: commercial scale Fisher-Tropsch reactor demonstration completed
In September 2016, construction of the first demonstration plant incorporating the Company's Fisher- Tropsch technology was completed and commercial scale catalyst loading was proven.
That hardly accords with your unproven technology claim.
Expattwa* you dont half talk a load of *******s...give up trying to undermine a company you have not financial interests in other than to continually short it with your comments... I take no notice of your continued conjecture.
Thurgarton. Ref you 216 post.
Unfortunately, your attempt to shun my post is fruitless. Costs are costs, however you cut it. This is not about VLS funding the project - how can they?! This is about financing risks, both actual and perceived for the party/ies that will be footing the bill.
Lets unpick the similarites between the US and UK projects;
- the Natchez and Immingham plants are the same scale.
- the Natchez and Immingham plants use the same process technology
- the Natchez and Immingham plants are both looking at CCS
- the Natchez and Immingham plants use the same basic engineering design.
The main difference is addition of the waste processing facility for the UK, which will add significant costs.
As for BA and Shell funding the total project, thats the most ridiculous things Ive read from one of your posts and demonstrates you lack of understanding of project financing. BA and Shell, assuming they get over the risks themselves, might fund around 20-30% of the total (lets say pf the 700m), so around 70-100m each, with the balance from the finance markets. Finding an outfit to underwrite a half billion pound investment on an unproven technology, being developed by a technology company with not development experience will be virtually impossible.
Is it starting to sink in yet?
XPB: Once again you have quoted selectively to support your arguments. To quote precisely from the 15 Jul 19 RNS:
"The Company estimates total costs of the project as $910 million, broken down as $576 million of core capital expenditure, $76 million of construction costs, $148 million of other costs and $110 million of financing costs. The Company does not expect to contribute to such project costs which are expected to be funded by strategic partners."
Two things to note, the statement refers to the Nachez project not Immingham and VLS does not expect to contribute to project costs. There is a detailed description of the UK project but without any costings and it is noted that Shell & BA put up £2.8m to fund the planning application. That rather torpedoes the basis for your estimated cost.
It would not be unreasonable to presume, given VLS known finances, that they would, of necessity, need to have the project funded by their strategic partners (Shell & BA). The fact that those partners have already stumped up for the planning application would suggest that they are prepared to fund the total project and have so indicated to VLS. Given that VLS is talking of profit margins around 12% it is not hard to see why.
The Company estimates total costs of the project as $910 million,.
As per July RNS.
So all of a sudden, my estimate of 600m GBP is way too low. Try 700m.
Not a chance!
To clarify, VLS have previosuly published figures for its US plants.
The technical pathways are the same so it is very reasonable to compare like for like. The only difference between them is that RR use waste wood, whereas VLS use mixed waste. Therefore the VLS project would need additional gas cleaning equipment which will increase CAPEX....oh and the feedstock prep facility, which is more CAPEX again.
Shell has a light touch on this as we all know and BA will have other issues to deal with for the next 9 months. Funding will not be forthcoming for a long time imho.
XPB: I'm not sure why I am bothering to write this as it is a bit like arguing with a speak your weight machine! I agree that other projects have published figures, however VLS, as I said in my last post, have not. Therefore any figure you postulate can only be conjecture. Moreover arguing that because Red Rock (a USA project) cost around £350m and is half the capacity of the VLS project in UK, a cost of almost double is reasonable is questionable. You are not comparing like with like. I don't know what experience you have in this field (you have never said) but I agree that you need access to the funds needed to undertake the project from a reliable and experienced source. I assume that this is why VLS are in partnership with Shell and BA, both of whom have the funds (and in Shell's case the experience) to cover the potential costs. I think we can safely ignore the current short term crisis when considering the funding issue as the demand for both fuel and flights is certain to recover very quickly once it is over.
Other waste to fuel projects have published figures. Red Rock for example, is around 350million, which is half the capacity of the VLS project. 600m is a reasonable figure for the VLS project, given all the additional work needed to build flood defenses etc. In my own experience, its tough to finance and build even a traditional waste to energy plant, unless you have a healthy balance sheet and proven track record of development. Unfortunately, VLS has neither and are attempting to finance an untested technology.
XPB: I was actually pointing out a couple of developments in the immediate area of the Velocys site that appeared to contradict your assertion regarding the site. As usual when challenged you have attempted to move the goalposts. As to your latest offering, I was not aware that VLS had published any cost estimates, nor have they disclosed what test data they hold. This being the case, it follows that your assertions as to costs and test data are pure speculation based on your own conjecture and are consequently valueless, or do you have an inside track on the VLS position. Since neither NE nor VLS have made comment since February, the Council aver than discussions are ongoing, and the decision date is rapidly approaching, it is likely that we will find out the true position within the month. I have always tried to base my posts on verifiable information, be it good or bad for VLS; I do wish you would do the same.
I admire your google regurgitation.
You're comparing moving grate technology, complete with readily available (read, emissions) process data, with a project that hasn't even been demonstrated at bench scale. VLS simply don't have the test data available to appease NE. They might get away with an onerous condition if they're lucky.
Its also less than half the price (the SHB WtE station itself is less than 300m).
I strongly believe in the waste to fuels pathway; but VLS should be doing a better job as its clear they are lacking in many areas. Happy to be proven wrong by the queue of investors at the front door. Hold on, there isn't a queue, probably for the reasons I harp on about relentlessly.
XPB: Just over the road from the velocys site is a power station, the South Humber Bank Power Station, a 1,365 MW gas-fired power station on South Marsh Road at Stallingborough. Moreover, a year ago the North East Lincolnshire Council gave approval for a development on land next to the South Humber Bank Power Station for the EP South Humber Bank Energy Centre. The energy centre would be powered by 620,000 tonnes of refuse derived fuel a year and will generate 49.9MW of electrical power, enough to power 500,000 homes. Developers EP UK Investments Ltd, said the plant comes as part of a £300 million investment. Now what were you claiming about development size and CAPEX? The rest of your post is purely reiteration of your previous unsubstantiated comments. I realise that you are trying to convince other readers of this board that the project is doomed. I strongly suspect your motives for so doing. If you don't believe in the project, don't invest and don't waste your time posting nugatory arguments.
As always just ramble based on conjecture....
This is a 600 million GBP project - meant to be built on a cat 3 floodplain. It really inst going to happen. IT'll never be financed due to such risks. Other developments in the area don't even compare in terms of CAPEX, and are therefore a very different proposition. The subterranean pipelines will be a headache and may need to be relocated at great expense, futher adding the the costs of the project.
These two issues, whilst not directly affecting PP, will affect the ability to finance the project.
Natural England have the bit between their teeth on the effluent discharge issue and is currently the pacing item. In order to placate them, VLS will need to carry out some more engineering activity to get a better handle on the data and I doubt they have the funds to to this at this time.
Other developments in the area had PP granted quite quickly (relatively), probably due to lower complexity and therefore known impacts. VLS need to do better quality work, simple as that.
An example in the immediate vicinity of a submission turn around:
Humber Bank Waste to Energy: Submitted Dec 18 > Granted April 19 = 4 months
Alt Alto: Submitted: Submitted Aug 19> Granted TBA (Currently 8 months and counting)
EXPB BANG!