Member Info for HelloSanDiego

wilco999 - "But yet other Gasification/FT processes continue to be developed without VLS's involvement..."

Having a car that can go 10x faster won't get you there in a tenth of the time. But two advantages I've found appear to be:

1) Velocys' reactor is a fraction of the size of conventional ones. It's literally like comparing a transit van to a jumbo jet. That means logistically it's much better.

2) The size means it's more efficient. So even if its output is matched by another reactor, it takes much less energy to produce it.

I read a report recently that said the reactor offers the potential for production at small, local sites rather than just large, central refineries. Moving SAF rather than enormous amounts of feedstock could have its advantages, and the scalability also means that pilot plants could grow as demand increases.

I'm not a chemist or an engineer though, so my take on that could be completely wrong.

Does anyone here have any information on how VLS compares in terms of patents?

I know Velocys owns hundreds and some of them apply to the microchannel FT tech, which I think helps them stand out from the rest. But do any of their competitors have any innovative IPs that could potentially give them an advantage?

Kettle - " if i was so against the Shareholder group i would prove my share holding , call them all idiots and leave the group to make a point."

I don't think they're idiots and I'm not really into name-calling anyway.

If they think they can achieve anything from being in that group I hope they're right. But I have no reason to believe that's the case. I'm sorry Kettle but until you can prove otherwise I'm not willing to waste my time and engage with you any further.

Kettle - "The Club you HAVE to PROVE you actually hold shares before you can voice an opinion. If Lse did that it would save a lot of wasted speech."

There's not much left to have an opinion about.

Fruitsnveg - "Some will be waiting like sharks for a cheap meal on spilled blood. I remain cautious about this investor until their MO is understood. Friend or foe, who knows...."

How could that be their intention here, given that they've just doubled their stake from 5% to 10%?

I suppose it's possible they've invested a large amount in shorting this stock and have just put this in as an insurance policy. But any other reason I can think of borders on conspiracy theory territory and would probably be too risky anyway, considering it's already a speculative stock.

Getting planning permission, fuelling a commercial flight, fulfilling orders for their reactor (that subsequently met its production targets). Those are all notable achievements.

Here's the paper in English:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24817-y

They wrote this bit in big letters, so it might be important.

"Overexpressed IFITMs block but endogenous IFITMs boost SARS-CoV-2 infection"

missthepenny62 - "At least the SAG might be able to get some answers on how it was all handled so badly, from not sorting the issues that triggered the NRL to the awful nature of the proposed RTO deal."

I don't even think it was handled badly.

I'm pretty sure the medical community simply weren't aware until a few years ago that some gram-positive antibiotics could cause liver damage. They had no reason to think it could cause a problem, so they weren't concerned about it. That would explain why the FDA didn't need that data until it was too late.

As for the RTO deal, we were offered the same price for our shares that they were worth at the start of last year. That doesn't seem unfair to me.

If the rest of the group don't think these points are relevant I really don't see what I'd have to gain from joining them.

Dote59 "you could join the many in the Shareholder Action Group who have all had to prove they are shareholders and with decent leadership"

Thanks. I'll join as soon as I see some proof of that 'decent leadership' claim.

I believe CRAs can be involved in putting together the final approval application, so they could be gearing up for that.

The FDA application can run to 100,000 pages.

Kettle - "The Shareholders group already have more information than is shared by Mtb to you so you are wrong on that point."

You can't expect to be taken seriously when your investor's group is run on the principle of "Tell me or I won't be your friend any more!".

What are you, five?

You might want to make more of an effort to point out your opinions could be totally wrong expat.

I said a few weeks ago I thought it was dropping because investors were expecting a fundraise, and I thought there was a good chance it wouldn't actually happen for another six months.

Now that it looks more likely that will happen after COP26 has raised the company's profile and prospects, I think we're seeing the price begin to recover. It could even hit 15p if there are murmurs of good news coming our way as November approaches (or drop below 4p if it doesn't) in my naive opinion.

No thanks. I'm not signing up for another group just to find out nothing's changed since the RTO failed.

If there are any updates from the company I'm sure they'll end up here.

There are plenty of shares that have risen 200% to 1000% in the past year.

There's really no good reason to have all your money in one company.

Does anyone know what the BoD's plans are for the company's future?

Are they just continuing to draw a salary until all the money runs out or do they actually have a plan?

I don't think anyone here is being wilully deceptive.

I think they genuinely believe in the company. But there's a remarkable lack of detail, not only about what has happened but also what needs to happen, and many posters here don't even see that as an issue.

It's not enough to make up for a lack of clarity, and the market seems to agree with me.

The diagram's very clear: Trials to continue for another year with mass production expected to start mid 2022.

At that point most companies would give details on what they need to achieve in that year - which regulators require further data, precisely what data have they requested etc.

Where's the interim data on the extended trial that's been going on since January? Have there been meetings with the MHRA?

There continues to be a worrying lack of detail about what's been achieved by the company while targets continue to be pushed back into next year. So why don't other investors here consider those things important?

Chesh - "So it works, and works for waste water, tick, and going to be implemented, globally"

I'm not disputing it works. But why is testing being dragged out for another year, and the BT product rollout being pushed back even further?

I'm also questioning how much benefit real-time water monitoring actually offers. Are we simply assuming it will save lives just because the government can have the data half a day sooner? Does it offer any meaningful benefit over the Environment Agency data, and how much benefit does that offer the government, in reality?