Member Info for expatbrat

Are you honestly comparing a national infrastructure project such as HS2, with a small project, developed by a company with no development experience in Immingham? As for F4C, the HMG has pumped in a few 100k, whilst HS2 has cost 7 billion this far nd will be north of 100 billion once complete.
I did say id leave this group for a while, but that post made me fire up my Dell

sector wide sell-off, but some companies in the sectors are having serious issues, which are compounding the problem.

Thanks ToB. The horse has been flogged. I think with that, i will take a break from this board for a period of time. Unlike Lawrence Oates, I plan to return, probably when PP has been granted.
atb

You're poorly substantiated responses are doing you no favours. The fact that Ive been saying this for so long - wearying others in the process yet consistently being on the money, says it all. I'll say again, this project will come undone at some point and the cracks are already starting to show.
There are so many flaws with this project, purely based on the contents of the submission . Id be happy to list them, but i doubt there's any point as such facts would probably have a rose tint for many on this board.

The EA deferred to NE in a previous correspondence and this is NE response. In addition it clearly states that there is potential damage to the environment and the humber from the discharge and this needs to be addressed. This will not be passed as a condition with approval as this is fundamental to the industrial process - VLS's process.
It appears to me that council have not been vigilant enough, whereas NE have been on point.
In summary then; it doesnt matter how you cut this Thurgarton, the data supplied by VLS is either incomplete therefore not possible to determine the impacts or, the data provided pushes the discharge over the acceptable limits, therefore is being objected to due to the damage to the environment it will cause. Either way, as I keep saying over and over again, more work is needed and further delays are to be expected.

Agreed with this commentary. NE is an advisory body to the UKGov and should not be ignored. As stated earlier, the topics raised by NE relate mainly to the effluent, which due to a lack of data provided by VLS, is not well defined. This further illustrates the lack of technical detail in this application and is a point that was raised many moons ago and brushed off by many on this board.
This will also delay the F4C grant.

Buy the rumour, sell the fact...

Just means more delays for PP. Non of the objections are unsurmountable.

SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND’S ADVICE
OBJECTION
Natural England objects to this proposal. As submitted we consider it will:
? have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Humber Estuary Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area, Site of Special Scientific Interest and Ramsar. https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/
? damage or destroy the interest features for which the Humber Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest has been notified.
Natural England’s further advice on designated sites and advice on other natural environment issues is set out below.

THIS.

On the contrary, im waiting for reality to kick in!

Some big trades today....

They don't need to publicly publish physical results (that would be silly if they did), however the fact is that they have announced biomass to liquids testing (context being Natchez), but failed to announce MSW to liquids (UK plant context), suggesting they have not carried out testing on MSW. Until i see evidence to the contrary, i don't believe it has taken place. However as stated, happy to be proven wrong, which one would hope to be....eventually.

Agreed. I too would not understand why such MSW testing may not have not be done, given all the effort involved to get their kit there. I can only assume something prevented them from doing so, such as lack of funding at the time.

I would nt normally labour the point , however VLS is not shy about announcing things to bolster its SP, or warm up to investors. Case in point a recent photo I saw on twitter of VLS Jet Fuel. There was no mention of how this was made or the feedstocks used to produce it from. That would have been a perfect opportunity to say it was made from MSW, hence why i dont think theyve done it. I am however, more than happy to be proved otherwise and it would improve my opinion (and the bankers no doubt) of VLS if it transpired that they have indeed produced MSW Jet Fuel

DaveH:. Its pretty clear that the testing done under the DoE support was biomass and not MSW.
Given the fact that VLS has not stated they have produced Fuel on any scale, using MSW as feedstock, one can only assume they have not. Given the stakes - F4C, PP, BA/Shell financing, investor market opinion, why would they not be talking about it if they'd had success in MSW to fuels testing? The answer is pretty obvious.

Thanks ToB. Most people on this board attempt to 'put me down', but end up failing to do so!
Appreciate the discussion.

Mr Bee and Hughes. For the 20th time.......the process being proposed by Velocys for the UK is waste to jet fuel process, of which FT is merely one part. VLS have tested their 'part' on natural gas however they have not tested, even at demo scale, their FT system in a fully integrated waste to fuels process. Hence, the correct way is to do the demo first, then go to commercial. This is what aaaaalllll other developers have done - Lanzatech, Enerkem, etc etc. Why should VLS cut corners?

Please get your own facts straight before attempting to put others down.

Very positive for the UK. Its clear there is a market to capture.
However, we can only get there by proceeding in the correct manner, ie demo scale, prove your process, then go for commercial scale.

The answer is that they are not progressing. They have plans in place and some engineering drawings, but progressing to financing a build is years away.

No plans for me neither. VoD is a term relating to companies spanning demo to commercial leap. VLS will be in this phase soon. (strictly speaking, they have not demo'd their process, but I'll let that slip for now)