Member Info for expatbrat

here*

Shell bailed because of conflicting interests. This we now know.
So who will move in? My take:
BP - They do not have any assets in the UK and are already in bed with Fulcrum over in the US.
Exxon - Don't seem to be doing much in the renewables space
PetroIneos - Part Chinese venture. Ineos big in chemicals. Potential
Philipps66 - Close to AltAlto. Has a pipeline to airport. Probably knows AltAlto well. High potential
Total Lindsey - Close to AltAlto. Total doing lots of things in EU. May not have appetite for more risk.
Essar Stanlow - Good refinery. Family owned company (rich!) Recent commitment to low carbon hydrogen. High potential.

So in order:
1) Philipps66
2) Essar
3) PetroIneos.

you heard it hear first..

Will VLS get another mention on the 27th?

https://www.weforum.org/events/the-davos-agenda-2021/sessions/building-a-path-to-net-zero-aviation-de3779a246

Jimmy, im curious to know who these big players are you mention, entering the sector. Are you talking in a UK context? Who is it?

you just need to truck it to a nearby refinery. Then it can go where it needs to go.

I have a sneaky feeling that the next tranche of F4C money to VLS could now be warming up. Due to the prolific nature of this project in the context of the Governments 10 point Plan, I think the ministers will use the Shell exit as an opportunity to pump some funding into the project. The F4C is an easy way to do this (despite the conditions not being met)

I have it on reasonably good authority that the 'enormous hole', is considerably smaller that the Shell logo may have lead you to believe. Other than a potential offtake of a bit of road fuel, Shell had virtually zero input into the project. This would have become very clear when the project went looking for financing. Misleading is probably how it would have been perceived - ie, 'i talked to you because you have Shell, but it appears Shell aren't contributing anything material to the project'.

I wouldn’t go that far Donatron. Just providing some balance to the board by way of fact. Despite my overall skepticism, some of the recent commentary is either incorrect or ill informed and I hate bull****ters.
Facts only please.

You should have got in yesterday and made 10% Jimmy.
You may have missed the Biden train.

From a latter dated October:

https://www.drax.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/200917-NE-coalition-letter-to-SoS-v05-logos1.pdf

Note the reference to BA, but no reference to Shell? Maybe this recent departure has been cooking for a while.

Sense, it’s buried within the 2019 AGM circular. It also has Bayou in there too.

An example of poor reporting from the Guardian. Seems like the author is on this board.
Enerkem produce methanol/ethanol which has around half the energy context of jet fuel. Therefore assuming the same amount of energy going in in both systems, you’ll produce more lower energy content product, than higher energy content product.
In addition, the 500k tons of waste for VLS is unsorted whereas the Enerkem figures are post sorted.
The yield on a mass balance basis is almost the same for both plants. Also, jet fuel is about twice the price of methanol so it all balances out.

Velocys plc (VLS.L) announces that, by mutual consent of the parties, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited (“Shell”) has withdrawn from the Altalto Joint Development Agreement.

Mutual consent suggests that both sides are in agreement. Id argue this is a not a 'major blow', but more of a change in circumstance that both parties agree on.

Ignore Jimmy Saville. Theres no evidence to suggest that the reason Shell pulled out was because of viability. Maybe their investment horizons changed and the AltAlto project no longer fits. Not everyone who sells their house does so because its not viable anymore - there are many reasons.
There was a JDA extension signed last year between VLS, BA and Shell. Maybe its up for renewal and Shell's criteria is different than it was before.

Look at EQT. Its share price dropped from a recent high of 3.2 down to 1.8 in about a week - for no apparent reason. Its now back up to around 2.9.

This share may take a bit of time to stablise, but once the first nugget positve news comes in, the market will be desperate for it and the sp will rocket. I'll be on that news rocket.

I’m a well regarded VLS deramper (apparently) but even I think that’s a load of *******s Jimmy.
As is alluded to in the news release, this is all about FT technology conflicts.
As you will see, Shell have put some money in another waste to fuel project in Canada and have stated their desire to install their own FT equipment.
This new focus for Shell to develop their own equipment creates a conflict of interest. It’s important for VLS to use AltAlto to demonstrate their FT tech and with Shell sniffing around, would struggle to deliver.

'mate'. The only things that has changed since Friday is the withdrawal of Shell. All your other points, right or wrong, were already factored into the sp.
Shell were never fully committed to this project. Ive been saying that since they joined the party 3 years ago.
Id also debate the 'financial clout' of Shell at this point. I suspect there is another investor in the wings, working on taking the place of Shell before the middle of the year.

Sense,

here are the figures for AltAlto:

The Altalto Immingham Project will produce an output of 20
million gallons per year. The yield adjusted revenue per gallon is expected to be distributed as follows: $1.20 from jet, $0.48 from naphtha, $4.67 from gate fees, $0.04 from carbon credits and $6.68 from development fuel Renewable
Transport Fuel credits and, of that, $3.07 is expected to be attributable to cost of goods sold, $2.47 is
expected to be attributable to operating expenditure, and $7.52 is expected to be gross margin.
So $7.52 gross margin, per gallon * 20 million = $150 million gross margin per year for Immingham alone.

Putting that into GBP is 110 million per year gross margin.

siturgalot. Thats a very ill informed post.
The Project Revenue results in $150 million gross margin per year.
Putting that into GBP is 110 million per year gross margin.

Now, this assumes all is well with the technology (another discussion for another day), but even with a heavy discount, that margin is attractive.

This is why BA cannot pull out of the VLS project. They would never live it down. The tried waste to jet fuel before, only to withdraw to the supplier going bankrupt and the Gov policy not being in place.

https://bioenergyinternational.com/biofuels-oils/ba-mothballs-greensky-jet-fuel-project

My take on this comes down to competing technologies. Shell are ramping up their own FT systems and i suspect trying to develop a project with another FT system provider would simply be too hard. It wouldn't surprise me if VLS also shared the same concern over their own IP, and its trade secrets ending up in a Shell FT module.

A positive of this departure is the removal of a negative association with a large oil company. Investors want green opportunities, not projects being pitched as green but have polluting partners.
Obviously, you'll never hear such commentary from VLS, so only time will tell if Shell is replaced with another partner that does not carry such skeletons in the closet as Shell.