Member Info for expatbrat

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.

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.

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.

Oh yes, the MP for Cleethorpes. I’m sure he carried a lot of weight. ??

I don’t think anyone does not want this to go ahead. Apart from nesting birds, which can be a compromise all both sides, the other issue is the waste water. All this needs is more study and analysis from VLS in order to appease the NE people. It’s not rocket science.

More bad news.

https://www.endswasteandbioenergy.com/article/1679446/pioneering-waste-to-jet-fuel-plant-hit-natural-england-objection

Not news to the experts (!) on this board, but negative press won’t do VLS any favours. Happy Friday everyone.

https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/green-jet-fuel-plant-household-waste-british-airways-shell-blocked-natural-england-2527231

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)

You’ve avoided all my previous points. Bravo. Good luck going forward.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

@investmaster...

https://res.cloudinary.com/www-virgin-com/virgin-com-prod/sites/virgin.com/files/Articles/Unite/1.%20NEW%20%28June%202014%20onwards%29/gettyimages/headinsand_getty_crop_nov_2014_0.png