Member Info for expatbrat

I think 3.5 years is optimistic. Remember Fulcrum did this with substantial backing and investment. Velocys can barely keep the lights on even with their ‘capital light’ operating model. What I find astonishing is that the Velocys CEO took home half a million pounds last year. At least you know where some of your placing money is going.

Meanwhile, we’re in the 4’s.

Still waiting to ‘on board’ that investor that keeps being mentioned in annual reports. At the same time, others have raised 100’s of million of dollars in investor money. How so?

Thurg: An example of a company that can deliver, rather than one that perpetually over promise and under deliver.

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/18132/fulcrum-bioenergy-completes-construction-of-sierra-biofuels-plant

Some real results from across the water.

Viability is one thing, the ability of VLS to actually develop and deliver a commercial scale project is another.
If the consultation outcome is positive, it’ll still take 2 years to enact into law. The market is slowly realising that meaningful revenue is years and years away, meaning further fund raising via placings is inevitable.

Yes they have the technology, however they are aiming to simultaneously develop two £500m projects, with no access to capital and no experience in development large scale projects. This is why the ‘imminent on boarding’ of investors has been mentioned repeatedly in annual reports but has yet, has come to nothing.

There is a clear explanation. They are not plant developers, they are technology developers. They should stick with what they are good at and stop trying to be something they are not, nor have the ability or experience to execute.

Disagree. How have several other developers managed to successfully finance and develop SAF plants in the absence of such SAF dedicated policy? Introduction of said Act will only direct more funds into those developers that have already showed the ability to deliver projects in less compelling times. VLS is not one of these.

Any notion of a VLS plant starting up in 2 years is delusional. They have no money, and no track record in raising capital. Their track record (or lack of it) in raising capital is like a house that doesn’t sell on the market, whilst others properties are selling before they hit the market. It’s seems like a stale investment that unnerves any potential suitor.

I too wonder why given all their hype around Worley, they chose not to use them for full EPC. I note that Koch are working with other SAF developers such as Gevo and Ametis. As is typical with VLS, they are following other peoples lead.

However they/you spin this, it’s a tiny amount. Meanwhile, Enerkem and Lanzatech are financing and building commercial plants.
VLS are years behind and are being left behind. How long to the next placing and your money to keep the lights on?

2,366L.

Google tells me that an A350 has a fuel capacity of 141,000L. Assuming full tanks, the VLS fuel is about 1.7% of that fuel load.

I’m sticking with the bunsen burner argument.

Yes they are. But messing about with lab scale test tubes and Bunsen burners tells you where they are with their business - ie, miles away from the £400m or whatever cost it is, commercial projects.

Thurg, I agree that VLS PR has turned up the wick. And so they should. Now is the time to be shouting about your achievements.
Unfortunately, these recent lab scale achievements don’t align with the commercial scale ambitions that the company has today.

So does the market it seems. Such massive news and here we are, down 1% on the day.
Where is the commercial plant?

Many a positive statement. People just tend to forget them!

This sentence sums up the ‘progress’ nicely.

“In 2010s, TOYO made its first achievement in a small GTL*9 demonstration conducted jointly with Velocys”

So 11 years later, we are still doing demo testing. Yawn.

Is it progress though? We know their reactors work (well, most of the time) and this Nothing more than a demo test. - which has been done before.
Where is the commercial plant?

Correction: Mississippi.

Pilot plant demonstration. Smaller scale than Natchez. PR stunt.

They left Velocys because Enerkem is better. It’s painfully obvious.