Member Info for expatbrat

Me and Sense are freinds now. I’m just waiting for Thurg to come in and tell me to get out of his pub, or for IM to claim domestic abuse.

Actually, to be fair (to me), i do occasionally say good things about VLS, mainly around their FT technology. Their project development prowess is something that needs to be demonstrated imho.
Its also pretty clear that policy is needed for this project.
So as you can see, many holes that need to be filled. I.

For me, Policy is the next milestone. If this materialises, then there is a viable business plan for the UK (well, on paper at least).

I think you've all got the wrong end of the stick. I commented on the Roy Lipski question and pasted a quote from the 'about' section of his website.

https://www.roylipski.com/about

As for shale gas, its widely known that VLS was into such antics before they decided to develop projects.

Creative idea Symbiosis. However the Roy Lipski era was about developing reactors to use stranded shale gas. Nothing to do climate change, carbon reduction etc.
ntw, I don't recall stating the board managers are not qualified. I'm sure they are all very well qualified in their respective fields.

No comment really Symbiosis. Well, other than he made a lot of people very rich. But here we are at 6p and several placings later...

Previously, I took Oxford Catalysts from a 2½ person start-up with 3 patent applications based out of the chemistry labs at the University of Oxford, through an IPO, growth and the subsequent acquisition of US-based Velocys—creating a real business, with a clear vision and a commercial offering on the cusp of major rollout. In the process, I made millionaires out of the 2 academic founders, recycled significant funds back to the university and netted the original VCs 65 times their money.

No offence taken Sense. You clearly have some passion for this and I respect that.

However I can’t sign off without a final dig - this time extracted from your recently posted link:

“Does it help that the current Government has Green credentials?
It does, this is really critical from our point of view because this type of project only works with support from Government. There are still some policies which we need to get into place, “

So I can think we can agree that AltAlto needs policy to be viable. But we can also agree that such policy will come eventually. It’ll be a waiting game for now; no investor will be willing to fund the project (construction) until policy is in place. Then it’ll be back to the fundamentals of due diligence, such as development experience, demo scale testing etc.
Given your passion, I hope the policy does come next year. Maybe then it’ll be worth a news traded punt.

Sense, yes I do believe the Policy will come. However I do have first hand experience in the Renewble Heat Incnetive and recall how long (and painful) it took to define and materialise. Everyone had to have a say and there were many different views which slowed down the process. Now, you say you can wait but can VLS? The longer they have to wait, the longer it’ll be before they can finance the plant. They could just pivot back to selling FT reactors to global punters and forget about trying to develop expensive projects.

I don't disagree with any of your listed points. The fact remains that this list of wants and needs haven't been addressed and there is no guarantee they will. Also one needs to consider that there are several ways to make SAF so whatever policy support that is considered, needs to also benefit VLS.
Without Policy, Altalto wont fly - this is was VLS keep saying, without actually saying it.

Again, thanks agreeing that there currently is no suitable policy in the UK whereas in the US, there is.
Let see if those vital (as the VLS CEO puts it) policy measures come.
For reference, the word vital means ‘absolutely essential, necessary’ so Henrick is clearly using appropriate words.

By the way, thanks for incentivising me to look into this more deeper. I didn’t actually realize the UK policy situation was that unsupportive for SAF.

Sense. Looks like your penny has finally dropped. You have correctly quoted that UK policy is not currently in place. This therefore plants are not viable. There is no guarantee that the needed policy will be in place in time, if atall. Therefore, buy deduction, the UK plant is not currently viable.

As for Bayou and why this is viable, let me mention several supportive US policies that are in place for diesel. Renewable Fuels Standard, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and the 45Q tax credit (for Carbon Capture) the latter policy support is why VLS keep going on about CCS and the agreement they have with Oxy.

If all pretty obvious when you research the facts about policy.

The worrying thing is that even with all the supportive policy you can throw a stick at, VLS still can’t seem to finance it.

From the CST report, in which VLS is a contributor..

Support SAF provision through price floors guaranteed by government during the early stages of deployment. The existence of a market for SAFs is currently limited due to the price difference between SAF and conventional jet fuel. Policy mechanisms to secure a price floor for SAF output will be crucial for making new SAF plants economically viable, especially in the early stages of deployment while regulations incentivising SAF demand (e.g. fuel mandates) are not yet in place.

Think I win this round.

Next challenge please.

It took me about 5 minutes, as the need for policy is referred to in virtually everything VLS comment on. It’s pretty obvious that this policy is needed to build these plants in the UK. It might be exactly what M1961 is inferring.
The downside is another high salary to pay, which may being the next placing closer by a month or two!! :)

Some extents to munch your humble pie with.

“Sustainable aviation fuels are essential for decarbonising this challenging sector and achieving net zero emissions by 2050. That’s why Velocys are calling on the Government to co-ordinate policy between departments to help us fund a fleet of world leading sustainable aviation fuel facilities in the UK

Velocys is working through final front end engineering design and fundraising for the venture, with strong government policy support seen as vital to unlock the finance required.

Velocys’ Altalto Immingham waste-to-jet-fuel project, the first of its kind in the UK and Europe, offers a SAF supply solution that is ready now and an example for future projects. “But this vital industry can only develop with the policy support advocated by the CST.”

Spot the theme? No policy, no plant. Policy means incentives. Incentives mean revenue. A lack of this revenue mean plants are not economically viable. Why else would they be ramming this down the Govs throat?

More nonesense. The US plant is viable because it’s diesel and renewable diesel is well supported by policy.
The UK SAF jet fuel policy is inadequate to support the VLS UK project and this has been alluded to in several of the recent press articles, in which VLS has been quoted.
Easy when you know the facts.

The Mississippi plant is commercially viable now, whereas the UK plant is not.
Maybe you are onto something.

Ok sense. Several of your facts are incorrect below, but you’re so blinkered by your position, it’s not worth the time to correct them.

That said, you state Shell has pledged billions to SAF? Really? Not last time I looked. Is this another shameless ramp, Sense?

Sense. Are you in another time zone? If not, you’re also on here on a Friday night. I feel sorry for you too.

Firstly, it’s taken you a couple of hours to Google the topic so bravo. Most people would be doing more exciting things on a Friday night....

Quote: Any new SAF has to be certified to DEF STAN 91-091 JET A1 or ASTM D1655 jet A/A1 in order to qualify for use in EXISTING aircraft engines.

WRONG.

SAF can only be certified to D1655 AFTER it been blended with regular fuel. What we are talking about here is using SAF in its unblended form. D1655 does not apply, so I suggest you go back and do more research. See you at 11pm?

FT fuel differs from oil based fuel in its purest form (before blending) hence why each had its own certification code.

VLS will not directly benefit from the testing RR is doing. I suspect RR will need to repeat this test on FT fuel, ATJ fuel (Lanzatech) and the various other versions.

Happy Friday night!

Thurg, you’re almost right. SAF can be made using several processes. In the case of the fuel being used by RR, it comes from an American company called world energy and is based on a process synthesising waste oils. It’s has a specific approval route.
VLS fuel is made from sold waste, using the FT process and has its own approval route.

FT fuel and waste oil derived fuel are different in their pure form. Once blended with regular fuel, the end result is deemed acceptable and ‘drop in’.
RR will need to do testing on 100% FT fuel in order for VLS to benefit.

Sense, you’re misinformed again. I feel for you.
If the fuel is chemically the same as regular fuel, why are they testing it? They are testing it because it’s not the same as regular fuel.

It’s only called ‘drop in’ after its been blended.

Get your facts right.

The fuel being tested at 100% is different to VLS fuel. They will need to test fuel from the VLS process in order to have any benefit.