Member Info for HelloSanDiego

loosely - "This means from ground breaking to first product 3.5 years... This means that Velocys is more than 3.5 years behind their direct competitor."

I don't see how you've reached that conclusion unless you think Velocys' construction time is somehow dependent on their competitors'.

It's more like a 99.9% survival rate if you get the virus.

But if I had a one-in-a-thousand chance of dying from catching a cold I'd consider that pretty high. For comparison, the chances of dying from vaccine side effects are below one-in-a-million, possibly as low as one-in-a-hundred-million.

Another example of expatbrat perpetually overexaggerating while underestimating the potential.

You're right. I'm kind of regretting that "simple maths" remark.

alinz - "The death rate is dropping from the 2% of population level and 0.2 % of those infected, most of whom are over 75."

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from, because it's currently a bit above 1% in the UK. The maths are simple. NHS figures show that death occurs, on average, 8 days after first displaying symptoms. In the UK, on June 22 there were 8952 new cases. Eight days later, there were 11 deaths.

That's 1.2%

You can easily check any of those figures for yourself.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=coronavirus+stats

fern5 - "Good to have opposing views and generate debate."

No it's not.

You could've picked Iclaprim up for two million last year.

It wouldn't have taken "fancy accounting practices". The entire company's market cap was only £350k.

expatbrat -

We both have reasonable opinions. Yours seems to come down to "I don't think they can do it because they haven't already", whereas mine is "I think they've spent the time proving they can do it".

Ultimately that's going to be decided by investors who have substantially more to invest than we do. But for the time and money I've put into it I think a high risk investment could return very high rewards.

"There is a clear explanation. They are not plant developers, they are technology developers."

I agree. The facts completely support that.

"They should stick with what they are good at and stop trying to be something they are not..."

That's where I disagree. Some people say in a goldrush you should sell picks and shovels, and that would've been great advice a hundred years ago. But times have moved on. Not only does this company have better technology, they've also been been granted a claim to a couple of very promising locations.

We both have access to the same information. So if you can't think of a single reasonable explanation, why would I waste time trying to explain some to you?

You seem to have immediately assumed there aren't any rather than taking the time to think, or even ask.

I don't think that's a foregone conclusion at all. The risk/reward ratio has the potential to change significantly following the introduction of the Sustainable Skies Act six weeks ago, and I think things could begin to move very quickly now.

Thanks for the info.

Diversified,

Thanks for replying but that appears to be referring to a re-test of the samples already provided by the 40 participants, just to confirm that data.

Today's RNS says that additional trials are needed, implying it will involve more participants. Other clinical trials I'm familiar with would also suggest that we require data from considerably more than 40 participants to get any kind of regulatory approval.

If 40 results have taken nine months, is it really possible the product could be rolled out this year?

"Subject to successful completion of additional human trials, the Microtox BT would be expected to meet the criteria for UK, MHRA's Target Product Profile Rapid Breath Test with potential roll out of COVID-19 and other pathogen breath tests later this year"

Have there been any further details released about the additional trials, such as how many participants are involved or the estimated completion date?

Considering how long the 40 person trial took, how likely is it that the product will really be rolled out this year?

The FEED phase would be expected to take around a year for a large refinery producing conventional fuels by conventional processes. But that's a tried and tested scenario and they're trying to achieve something quite different here.

Andym123 - "Diane Abbott campaigning against the horrors of private education then sending her own to one."

Sending your kids to a public school while pointing out it gives them an 'unfair' advantage isn't quite the same thing as handing an unfair advantage to your mates by way of hundreds of millions of pounds of public money.

I'm trying to estimate how much money they stand to make from these.

If they're able to get 10,000 units out in the next three years (for example), does anyone know what the profit is on each one?

The same resolution was included in the 2018 and 2019 AGMs. I'm not sure about any others and don't know if they've ever used it. It might just be they want the ability if they choose to.

I don't really see how it benefits shareholders to have that in there though. Here's an interesting, recent article on share buybacks.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/08/the-stock-buyback-swindle/592774/

I'm pretty certain they arrived at the 2366 litre figure as that was precisely what they needed to fly the length of Japan.

According to Airbus, the plane they used has a capacity of 300-350 passengers (depending on its configuration) and a fuel consumption of 3 to 4 litres per passenger per 100 kilometres.

For a 1000 km flight, assuming there were three hundred people on board and averaging 35 litres each, that gives a total of 10,500 litres of fuel.

25% is around 2366 litres. That doesn't explain why they were limited to 20 litres a day though, or how easily that plant could be scaled up.

It would if it were true. But I don't believe they were using test tubes and bunsen burners to produce enough fuel to cover the 1000 km between Tokyo and Sapporo.