Member Info for expatbrat

I don’t disagree with you @davehughes. However when it comes to the crunch, even in these ‘green or nothing’ times the financiers still have risk profiles. They won’t gamble on a combination of unproven tech and inexperienced developer. It might be easier to raise a few $million grants to undertake early development work but that’ll be the cap. You only need to look at the last few years and that VLS is seemingly incapable of on boarding investors. In fact, as in the case of Shell, they lose partners to other, more experienced developers (Shell dropped VLS and within 2 weeks, invested in Enerkem)

@davehughes raises a valid point. VLS is not a project developer, they are a technology developer.
When it comes to convincing funders to lend them $800 million, it’ll be this very fact that will make them come unstuck. There are several other SAF developers in the market, the successful ones having considerable development experience.
The only chance VLS has at success is via reactor sales to other developers. They will not be able to finance a plant themselves.

You’ve confirmed the intent of my post - if they get funding. Funding isn’t just about offtakes as Aimfor implied.

Wrong. The offtake agreement does not fully derisk the project by any stretch. Far from it. Selling SAF in today’s climate is the easy part - VLS will be trying to build a billion dollar plant with no previous track record or experience. That’ll be their major hurdle.

The Offtake agreement will be binding but will be full of caveats that relate to the ability of VLS to deliver. There may also be clauses that allow SWS to exit the agreement, should VLS fail to meet milestones. All standard stuff.

As an example, Red Rock biofuels have off take agreements in place with Shell, FedEx and Southwest for their plant and guess what, they’ve apparently ran out of money.

So in a nutshell, an off take isn’t the silver bullet. They actually need a strategic investor to make things happen.

One of a kind? Really? I suggest you research the topic. You may find that VLS is toward the bottom of the progress list of companies in this arena.

We’ve been here before. The reality will soon hit that the company is very short on cash and a placing will most likely being cobbled together as we speak.
An off take agreement does not alter the fact that the company has little to none experience in developing projects. Previous partners have flown the nest and the most telling part for me is that the IAG deal is merely a non binding MOU. It’s also very obvious that the Altalo project - arguably VLS flagship, does not get a mention anywhere in this overhyped announcement.

HAHAHA! This doesn’t change the long term outlook much. At the moment, VLS could sell SAF to anyone. The IAG announcement is just an MOU,
Let’s see if they can actually finance a plant, then I’ll eat humble pie.

Ps - as mentioned earlier this week, I trade news on this stock. Thanks to IM who advised of incoming news today.

Note that this TRL is for the FT system, and not the ability of the company to deliver on a commercial scale plant. Lanzatech have their own tech whilst also possessing the ability to build plants incorporating it.

VLS should stick to selling their (very good) FT reactors and leave the project development to those who know what they’re doing.

If you really think the US work is not relevant to what is being done in the UK, then you’re not as keyed into this as i thought. It’s very relevant.

If you want to silo the two markets, let’s talk about how well VLS have done in the US, versus others. Nil investment.

To use Lanazatech as an example, they’ve raised over £300m in funding and have steel in the ground.
Vls rely on Gov handouts and having nothing more than a CGI model.

It’ll be an interesting queue.

I take speculative positions in VLS based on news, but this one will be nothing more than a negative cash flow company, imho.

Thurg. You’ve missed the point again. VLS have achieved little to nothing material in the last 18 months. Once other players such as Lanzatech achieve PP, the perceived lead that VLS has will be no longer be a differentiator and in fact, Will push them to the back of the financing queue.

What’s then fascination with planning permission? It won’t be long until we have several SAF projects with planning permission secured. The companies’ ability to deliver a proven project is what counts.

Careful IM. You might be accused of insider activity…

I’m not sure if you’re trying to puff out your Oxford dictionary chest or you missed the intent.

Either way, you’ve cleverly deflected your ineptitude on all things technical process and project financing.

Thurg. You’re out of your depth here my friend. Your apparent lack of knowledge of both technical risk and the capital markets is showing.

I’ll keep going with my rhetoric until the next dilutionary fund raise. And then reissue the same.

Thurg. What are you talking about? Who mentioned ENVIA? ENVIA Aran on mostly natural gas and is nothing more than a large scale lab experiment of the FT tech.

I’m talking about using waste, processing that waste, gasifying that waste, creating a synthetic gas, preparing that synthetic gas, converting that gas to liquids (VlS tech), and finally, converting those liquids to jet fuel.

As you can see, the VLS is a small part in a large process. VLS has no experience in integration and the capital funders will know this.

Thurg. Another example of your lack of understanding on ‘proving’. The VLS tech is proven, but this is one piece of equipment in a large system. VLS have not proven this combined system at any scale. Fulcrum has (or will soon do) prove the system as a combined process,. VLS will not have this advantage. Funders in the UK will see this as lower risk and plough their client money into lower risk opportunities. It’s not rocket science.

I don’t think you’re seeing the bigger picture. The size of the market is irrelevant if you can’t build a plant to supply it. Fulcrum (thanks for the correction) has already built a plant in the US which puts them literally years ahead in terms of financeability of this one in Cheshire. This is ultimately what it comes down to in the end. In the early stages on this nascent SAF market, Monet will flow to those companies that have lower risk. VLS, having zero references in the field of large scale project development will rapidly hit the buffers. I suspect Fulcrhm will be able to refer to their US a plant.

No idea Spot. However they have fully financed a commercial plant in America and appear to be doing another one in Chicago. Unlike VLS, they don’t appear to be short of backers.

https://northernfinancialreview.com/2021/10/29/manchester-airport-first-in-uk-with-direct-sustainable-fuel/

Looks like a good tie up and one to watch.