Member Info for expatbrat

Stretchum. With respect, you're way above your station on this. That Amanti vct post is nonsense.

VLS developed a stranded gas to liquids FT process, originally aimed at monetizing hard to reach natural fossil gas, into liquid fuels. This is their core technology.
They have not developed a process to convert solid waste into liquid fuels and have only recently started to look into this space.

For the record IM, nothing i have posted is untrue. Its all fact based. The sad thing is, is that most are jumping on this wagon based on a unproven concept. May I cast your minds back to GreenSky; this was a project that had similar traits - backers included. That went south due to unproven technology and investors not willing to take the risks with a developer (Solena) with no developer experience.

Can you advise which funds are moving into which waste to fuel companies?

Thurg: March 2nd Letter from HE:

"As recently advised, Highways England are still awaiting an updated Transport Assessment,
mainly in respect of additional trips expected to the Stallingborough Employment Site when that is
operational Accordingly I need to extend our ‘non determination’ to a new deadline of April 20
2020."

So, who is doing the updated TA that HE is 'still waiting for'?

Wrong again. Enygo have not completed the revised TA, therefore the latest review cannot be completed by HE, therefore an extenstion has been requested.
Quote" However, a revised / updated TA has not been submitted as part of the planning submission,
nor the additional documentation of which the Addendum comprises. As such, it is not clear
– given the information provided at this stage – how these issues are to be addressed;
? It is evident that Enzygo have misunderstood the comment regarding the improvement at the
Stallingborough Interchange, and that the highways improvements works at this location are dependent on the Stallingborough Employment site coming forward, as the improvements
will not come forward without the development proposals being built out. As such, clarity is
required that this is understood. For completeness, justification should be provided as to why
Stallingborough Interchange as not been modelled without the improvement in place and
without the employment proposals being built out;

This is a VLS project correct? Therefore the responsibility falls on VLS or its agents to supply the requested information to allow HE to undertake its assessment. Its the same with NE and the lack of info forthcoming regarding effluent.

Lots of info being asked of VLS, but little in the way of responses.

VLS are interested in the Drax CCS project in order to help produce carbon negative fuels. Unfortunately, the Drax CCS project is very expensive (compared to other UK projects) and most likely wont happen within a timescale that will help VLS.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse

Happy Friday’s!

I hope the prospectus is more accurate!!

“Another recent investment is Velocys, a spin out from Oxford University, which has developed a process to convert solid waste into liquid fuels with a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to traditional techniques. Velocys has also developed a waste-to-energy solution for aviation fuel, which is being trialled in a consortium with British Airways and ShelL”

Biofuels out there? Where?
VLS process is unproven, unfinanced, with no permission to build. Biofuels are far from available.

Turd. Please consider context. It’s good for biofuels but bad for Velocys due to their poor performance on the NGO front. It’s not convoluted; you’re just blinkered.

...to add.
I dont think VLS can convince them without a considerable amount of rework needed to mitigate their pollutants and discharge.
Lets not forget this is supposed to be a 'green' project. Its far from that right now - just like the third runway.

In that sense, yes the judgement puts focus on the need for biofuels, to offset growth of aviation. However, it also shows that getting on-side with the environmentalists is key to this and demonstrated the power they have today. NE have set their stall out and its up to VLS to convince them otherwise.

The F4C wont support a project that has outstanding environmental emissions issues. 'Yay, lets promote a low carbon jet fuel plant that as it currently stands, increases local NOx and pollutes the Humber."

This is bad news for VLS. Shows the importance of getting the environmental impact of the project understood and correctly communicated. Cross the Greens at ones peril - starting with NE...

Mole, thanks for the first hand insight. I agree with the NoX issue, however do not overlook the effluent discharge factor in your review. This is key as VLS has not provided data to support their application. Discharge to waterways is a sensitive topic and has been highlighted by NE. This, and other areas, need additional colour adding to the justification - these will not be overlooks by the decision makers.

Thug; please don’t ride the back of other people’s posts and try and make out that you’re aligned. You’re embarrassing yourself.
I’ve read Moles post and I agree with the narrative. You’ll also note that he/she too suggests there’s a lack of detail and their partners should step up and help (I don’t think this will happen btw). You may have forgotten that I’ve been stating this lack of detail in the submission for some time, well before EA wrote their letter of objection. As Mole says, more work is needed to appease NE.
I take take comfort in knowing that you agree with my views, albeit via another poster.

I was on a VLS sabbatical, but your ignorance to the truth and lack of experience on matters that others on here are much closer to, warranted a temporary delay to my R and R.
I take offence to being quoted as posting rubbish. This is not rubbish - its fact based observation that you simply chose to gloss over. You need to go read some of the detailed technical documents; clearly the ones that NE hs read and the LPA has not.
Speaking of rubbish, maybe VLS should get hold of some and make some fuel!

As for the SP dropping on no negative news....I think a planning objection by an influential government advisory body is pretty negative imho. Its a whisker away from being a full planning objection. The clever investor knows that should a full objection materialise (which it could do at this rate), the F4C wont happen, match funding will disappear, and VLS will be on the breadline within a month.

Enygo are not impartial.
NE is impartial and its NE who have assessed the submission and found it lacking.
The LPA will consider the opinion of NE. The LPA will not go against NE for reasons well explained by other posters on this board.
The ONLY solution is for the applicant to revisit their submission, work out and supply the detail that is lacking, and appease the concerns from NE.
IF this goes to appeal now it will be rejected, as the only reason why said detail is not available is because VLS have not done the work.

Do the work, get the detail, supply the detail, submit, discuss and get your PP. Stop cutting corners and thinking this will be pushed through just because its green. NE are are green as they come and they don't like submission.
Its not rocket science.

In addition, before I go, please read the objection letter. Its clear from the letter that this is way more than just wildlife and damaging the site. This is about a lack of , or incomplete technical data being provided by VLS - data needed for NE and Lincs to properly assess the impact both on air quality and estuary discharge. The submission, despite being comprehensive in some areas, is lacking on real engineering and this project will NOT proceed unless they look hard at this and start again.