Member Info for HelloSanDiego

aandi - "Why does producing natural gas eliminate any carbon savings?"

I think you've misunderstood. The reactors don't produce natural gas. I said that Velocys' reactors can also be used to make aviation fuel FROM natural gas. But then it wouldn't be sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), and would therefore offer little-to-no carbon saving.

"The British Medical Research Council's Common Cold Research Unit laboured for 43 years (1946–1989) without discovering a cure. Several compounds with promising anti-rhinovirus activity in vitro failed to demonstrate useful clinical activity. Both a- and ß-interferon, given intranasally before viral challenge, were shown to be effective in protecting against rhinovirus, coronavirus, influenza and RSV infection; however, local side-effects and the fact that they were most effective given prophylactically inhibited their utility in these indications."

https://academic.oup.com/jac/article/47/3/251/749350#13177820

aandi - "a lot of Twitter users calling this green washing"

It has the potential to be just that.

Velocys' reactor can be used for natural gas, thereby eliminating any carbon savings. But even with much cleaner burning fuel it's also possible that the airlines could sell carbon credits, giving other companies free reign to just pollute more. The best way to prevent this (until it's properly regulated) is for people to be aware of the potential misuse so they don't get duped into supporting 'eco-friendly' companies who are just using the term as a marketing ploy.

Does anyone know if it's in the print edition, or just online?

That's weird. You said the same thing yesterday when t was 8.1p

aandi - "I thought they were just maybe owners of the site at the moment until financial close."

Their main thing is that they have been developing a new type of reactor to process the fuel. But they're also aiming to use it at the sites they're developing.

The Fischer Tropsch reaction processes have been around for a century and are the industry standard. Velocys was working on a much improved reactor (faster, cheaper to run and a tenth of the size of existing ones) and also acquired some patents from the US military that were originally developed as a mini-fuel plant to be deployed in war zones. Engineering journals from a decade ago were hyping up microchannel technology a lot, but with the caveat that, being new, it was therefore unproven.

So the focus of the past decade has been on proving it is better than previous FT reactors. But it's complicated by the fact that 1) we're also seeing a shift from conventional fuels to low-carbon alternatives, and 2) they're hoping to produce it from non-recyclable municipal waste and/or biomass. So to achieve all their goals they not only have to demonstrate the reactor is as good as is claimed, but also prove there's a market for SAF and that waste-to-fuel is feasible.

All of those things now appear to be coming together. We're getting the results we hoped for and all facets of their business are gaining momentum. But with so many moving parts it's difficult to predict how things are going to develop.

Again, anyone should verify that themselves if they're thinking of acting on it. None of it is advice and I'm still not an expert.

aaandi - "VLS are not the plant owners so will not get the revenue."

I think you're mistaken, but here's my understanding of it. Everyone should confirm it themselves as I'm no expert.

Velocys is the parent company of Altalto Ltd, which is putting together the Immingham plant, owns the option of the Immingham development site and was recently granted planning permission for it. British Airways owns the option of half of Altalto Ltd. So if BA funds half and, for example Velocys is able to raise the rest through bank loans, the revenue would be split between those two companies. Obviously that could change when deals are made to actually fund the site. But at present Velocys is the sole owner of the project and expected revenue.

But Velocys also makes and sells its proprietary FT microchannel reactor to other customers. I believe the 28 minute mark on the video you linked was an overview of the revenue channels they would see from other sites if they are only supplying the tech.

I wouldn't worry. Over 40m shares have been traded today compared to 2m on an average day, yet we're still 30% up.

There clearly aren't many in it for the odd penny or two.

Ok, thanks for dropping by and keeping us all updated. Bye.

I think the real impact of today's news (and the subsequent price rise) is that it's brought the company to the attention of a lot of investors who had never heard of it, many of whom will invest here in the coming weeks and months.

If the company achieves its goal of making the MOU a legally binding contract within six months and if Red Rock takes us from TRL 8 up to 9 next year, we could be well on our way to £1 by 2026.

Top of today's leaderboard by a long way.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/indices/ftse-aim-all-share/constituents/table

"The Project may additionally benefit from the value of greenhouse gas credits if sold above the minimum price by Southwest"

They'll have to be careful how they go about it. It's the rapid increase in public demand for carbon-neutral or negative solutions that's driving this. So the airlines would be shooting themselves in the foot if they were seen to be selling other industries a license to pollute even more.

Technology Readiness Levels are based on a scale from 1 to 9, not 10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level

"BA is investing in a plant at Immingham in Lincolnshire that could produce 80 million litres annually within four years."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10172969/British-Airways-flights-powered-sustainable-jet-fuel-set-year.html

I've been looking at this and I think Fulcrum's success is largely down to its plant's location.

The Sierra BioFuels Plant is just a few miles from Reno, Nevada. It's one of the US' most visited cities but its isolated location in the Nevada dessert means it has no fuel pipeline, unlike Las Vegas (500 miles further) which gets fuel piped in from Los Angeles.

That means rail freight adds an additional 10-20% to its fuel cost (compared to 2-4% for pipeline fuel). Based on some rough figures, that's up to $20m every year just to get enough fuel to Reno airport.

With the completion of the world's first waste-to-fuel plant only three months ago, I think it's likely that investors and policymakers will be taking more and more notice of this tech and things should start to move very quickly here.

plazahot - "Relax and enjoy the ride ending the today 2 pound+"

Don't count on it. I expect this Friday's price to close higher than last Friday's. But don't be surprised if it dips a bit below 190 in the meantime. It could go either way.

Has anyone actually bought or sold shares based on an opinion or unverified 'fact' they read here?

Im guessing there aren't many people who are that stupid. So who, exactly, are these influencers influencing?

MassiveRay - "the mm's have the upper hand"

Do they?

They have to buy and sell shares even when nobody else is and when they don't know if the price is on its way up or down. They have different advantages from investors, but different disadvantages too.

Oakleaf72 - "NDn is working this board like many others are, trying to sow doubt and mis-lead genuine investors so that they will give up their shares."

Over £3m worth ofSNG shares are traded every day. Do you really think the comments on this board affect even 1% of that? Judging by the votes that comment got a lot of people do, which is worrying really.

I've read that analysts check boards like this as part of their due diligence before their employers invest, and (I think) I've seen evidence that PR firms monitor them. But nobody's basing their trading decisions on some poster's opinion or their unverified 'facts'. The conspiracy theories on here don't really stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

expatbrat - "I disagree."

You always do. That's why it doesn't matter any more. These are things anyone can check for themself.

1) Even though the share price is lower than five years ago, the company's market cap is 50% to 100% higher.
2) Everybody knows that a company's share price five years ago is no reflection on how today's price will compare to next month's, next year's etc.