expatbrat - "The reality will soon hit that the company is very short on cash.."
Deja vu is appropriate since you said the same thing in the summer. I told you you were wrong at the time and since then things have played out as I said they would. Do you want me to go and find the comments?
andy216 - "We don’t need such ridiculous comments on here.."
You made too many wrong assumptions to be speaking on behalf of the entire board.
When a company gets international media coverage for the first time it will bring it to the attention of many news potential investors. Many of them will never have even heard of the company until they wake up and see it on their favourite news site or paper. So how and why would they already have a buy order?
There were a couple of million OTC shares traded yesterday, equating to around 2% of yesterday's volume. A story in a major US paper could provide ten times that today. And since it's appeared in The Times today, it's entirely possible it will appear in other publications owned by the same group, e.g. The Wall Street Times.
If you think it's irrelevant because it was done in the 70's, that's your mistake. We've all been told our trial from last year was too small to show statistical significance. But the results were good, so you're just picking and choosing which evidence to trust based on whatever fits your narrative.
TLWilliams - "My research points me in a diametrically opposite direction to that adopted by you/Sakura7. "
I don't think it does. I've been invested here for over 18 months but I hadn't heard anything about CCRU's work until today. So it's in my interest to support anyone who posts relevant information especially when they get a ton of abuse for doing so.
RE: Prof. Richard Dawkins Just tweeted about deals. Lovely exposure!11 Nov 2021 09:31
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."
RE: Prof. Richard Dawkins Just tweeted about deals. Lovely exposure!11 Nov 2021 08:43
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.
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.