Member Info for expatbrat

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)

The facts are the attributes of the site. And these attributes are, amongst others, holding up progress. Due Diligence is far from binary. There's detailed diligence, or diligence on a shoestring. Its pretty obvious which one applies here.

To correct your statement, i wrote that i suspect a bare minimum of DD was undertaken not, non atall.
To use your own narrative, do you seriously suggest that if these issues were known prior to declaring the site as their own, they would have chosen it? I doubt it. Again, this implies basic diligence to get the project moving and secure funding - finding needed to hire the consultants and support the payroll.

I strongly suspect that none of these issues were clearly visible to VLS prior to commencing the project. As you move through the planning process, several topics normally pop up that you were previously aware of - this is pretty normal. The issue with this site is that it was hastily selected and secured by VLS in order to qualify for F4C funding. It was probable very cheap for a reason. VLS have an option on the land, but no obligation, so i suspect the bare minimum of DD was carried out prior to signing.
The flood plain issue, whilst being referenced in a previous application, will not have been fully thought through as a new and updated flood risk assessment was needed and this would not be done until you're in the thick of the PP submission.
3rd party investors, ie not BA and Shell.

Nicely put Stokey. Aside from the Planning aspects, lets not forget that the site is a on a Cat 3 floodplain. Flood mitigation for this site includes, dedicated flood defenses, raised platforms, raised work levels for process equipment. All these will add a huge amount to the cost of building the plant and will most likely, put off an 3rd party investors due to the percivd risk of a total flood.
So, not the best site due diligence performed by the Velocys team..

I am being nice. That’s the irony.

What a profound and earth shattering response. Not.

you two need to get a room. Its cringe worthy!

There is little to no benefit of selling at this rock bottom price. The II's are now stuck with this - they've probably written it off!

If I did work for EQTEC, I hope I wouldn’t be silly enough to use them as a reference case. So yes, fanciful indeed.
This is about comms, or lack of. It’s a continual theme for VLS that does not do them any favours in regards to reputation or management style. They operate their comms like a private company which should not be tolerated by their trusted investors.

What utter tosh you occasionally spout. Have you ever thought why a company like EQT has such an impressive legacy? It’s a company that clearly considers its investors in times of stress and concern.
This is yet another example of why VLS continually struggles to raise capital - it’s a not a well rounded company and doesn’t instill the confidence needed to get investors in board. It’s another string missing in the ‘investment grade’ bow.

Look at this considerate RNS from EQT. This is they type of comms we should be getting from VLS:

Given the uncertainty and rapidly changing nature of the situation, the Company is working to protect its cash resources by pro-actively managing its capital expenditure and working capital, as well as identifying opportunities for expenditure savings that will not impact on the long-term success of the Company.



Despite the current challenging circumstances, we are seeking to maintain momentum following the increase in commercial enquires and the addition of strategic partnerships in our core geographies. We are continuing to advance our commercial pipeline in the US and more recently in Greece, as well as advancing discussions with parties that have expressed interest in EQTEC becoming their advanced gasification technology partner.



Green economy provisions featured heavily, in the recent Budget from the UK Chancellor, with multi-million-pound spending pots promised for low-carbon transport and renewable energy. These announcements continue to affirm the opportunities in the market for proven technology solutions, such as EQTEC's advanced gasification, which will be essential to the new infrastructure required for energy transition. Whilst it is very hard to predict the full impact of COVID-19 on our business at this stage, we believe we are well placed to capitalise on this new reality once the adversity of the current situation reduces.

....and before anyone tries to shoot me down, Im not talking about the health and safety of staff - thats a given. Im talking about how they plan to preserve cash, keep suppliers engaged etc etc.

As per usual, the comms department is non existent.
Given the current situation, it would be prudent for VLS to update their shareholders on how they dealing with the current situation and how they plan to mitigate going forward. Many other small cap companies, AIM or not, have issued statements to reassure (or not) shareholders. VLS are terrible at this and reflects badly on them as a business.

Who said NE was an NGO ?

Yawn. Just go bury your head in the sand. Before you do so, go check my success rate of predictions thus far.

Planners will not ignore NE period. That would set off a whole raft of NGO objections and complaints about due process.

I wouldn't say the effluent issue has* been addressed by any stretch

I wouldn't say the effluent issue hasn't been addressed by any stretch. The sharing of services doesn't address the issue regarding the composition of the effluent, which is still a big unknown and a cause of concern for NE. The service sharing may only bring cost benefits, which wont affect planning/permitting.

It is a short term view, but a view which mirrors the actions of industry today - preserving cash and reducing operating costs to the bare minimum. Projects such as VLS are high risk flutters for the likes of BA and Shell when the money is rolling in. All of a sudden the money stops rolling in and every pound is being used to keep the lights and assure its future.
I don't for a second believe either party will lose interest in the green agenda, especially IAG, but less so Shell (who i think are only in this for this PR), its just how long the cash preservation will last and how this aligns with the cash burn of Velocys.