Member Info for expatbrat

They wouldn’t go around NE. It’ll make for bad press and be seen as an unprofessional approval by the Council. VLS need to do this properly and not advocate back door tactics.

As I said, PP won’t be secured before Christmas.
Also, as is being said elsewhere, PP has no bearing on the elephant in the room. - project financing. With no waste to fuel demo plant, no board level blue chip backers, a nonexistent track record of raising more than just a few million of funding, and no developer experience, VLS will soon hit a dead end. I’ll remind you again, this plant is probably north of £600 million pounds, meaning at least £200m of equity needed to get moving.
This is the reality. Please take those rose tinted specs off.

It is however intended to discharge trade effluent to the Humber, as there are no mains sewers in the vicinity of the site. This discharge was the main cause of our objection to the application (our letter of 5 September 2019). Insufficient information had been submitted to allow us to judge whether the discharge would impact the Lower Humber waterbody in terms of Water Framework Directive (WFD) compliance and we advised that a WFD Assessment should be carried out. The new Modelling Method Statement could be useful in carrying out a WFD Assessment but is not a replacement for the assessment. We therefore maintain our objection.

The Highways England comment is in addition to the discharge effluent rejection. So we now have two issues to deal with. To address both, will need additional spending.

Well thank you. Unfortunately, this simply suggests your post is of little value other than to seek a response from me. Says a lot.

£10k!!!! Hahaha!
That’s a bonus reinvestment, not hard earned funds!

For a short term SP bump I agree. But won’t affect ability to attract finance.

Vls have not demonstrated a waste to fuel at any scale. They are now looking to build a large commercial plant.
Nobody will take that amount of risk, period.

I doubt this will be wrapped up before Xmas. I also expect a ton of conditions which, if you are familiar with energy projects, will add significant costs to the development.
I still have no indication of how this £600m project will be funded. We need to look beyond the PP (which is relatively easy), and focus on the project itself. I don’t see project equity arriving any time soon.

Clarifications needed. It appears Enzygo has misunderstood previous advise.
What appears on the face of it to be a good submission, still has some quality shortfalls that will need to be address. Meanwhile, cash will continue to be blown on high paid execs.

Can you name any other company that has built a plant comparable to that proposed by Velocys?

Enerken
Fulchrum.

Both use waste. Both fully financed. Both built (One is, the other almost).

check your facts. Envia used nat gas and landfil gas (not sold waste) and did not produce aviation fuels. Please study the topic before berating others.

"Velocys has now proven itself as a leading developer and integrator of the full technology solution required to produce Sustainable Aviation Fuel at scale, for immediate drop-in use, from abundant solid waste feedstocks"

Proven itself?!. Might be a good idea to build a plant first lads, before making such claims.

Pierre has left the Jungle.

agreed.
The securing of PP will be a shot in the arm for the SP no doubt. Probably short lived tho.

comparing a solar array with a complex and unproven fuels process is a bit naive. Good luck tho.
thanks

doubt it. VLS will need a working plant before someone buys it. They'll need to prove themselves first.

what is happening on the 12th?

Thurg. Let me break this down a little as you’re clearly struggling to interpret the documents correctly.
The surface water run off is what they’ve addressed with the revisions.
The barrier they cannot get over (yet) is the refinery process effluent discharge to Humber and that VLS clearly does not have sufficient technical data to address the concerns.
Is that clear enough for you?

"The new Modelling Method Statement could be useful in carrying out a WFD Assessment but is not a replacement for the assessment. We therefore maintain our objection."

Doesnt meet standards, rejected, or objected. Its semantics. Call it what you want but the EA has not agreed to the VLS approach on this topic and they'll need to resubmit.