Member Info for thurgarton

XPB: Why are you surprised? He has stated a viewpoint, and having stated it, has left it to others to decide how to view it. Meanwhile you have added four more posts to your record and said virtually nothing other than blown your own trumpet with no justification for doing so. It you bothered to pause for thought, you might conclude that your approach is nugatory for, as we all know, empty vessels make the most noise.

XPB: I don't have an issue with loosley's post. I do, however, wonder who is raising the funding. The planning application was submitted by Altalto, not Velocys, and they are, as I understand it, in a three way partnership with BA & Shell. It is surely this consortium, not Velocys, that will be approaching the financiers. BTW ISTR that there was a big court case several years ago regarding patents and the Fischer Tropsch process, which Velocys won. This may have a bearing on other competitors who seek to use the process.

XPB: I take it from your comment that you consider any opinion that differs from yours (which is itself a moveable feast) to be wrong, regardless of any supporting documentation etc. , which gives you licence to post incessantly as almost nobody else on this board agrees with you. Can I suggest that you get a bigger window box (you obviously don't get out much) to provide you with something else to do other than incessantly bombard us with your opinions dressed up as facts (for the most part).

XPB: What! All of them?

XPB: As you are not invested perhaps you could splash out a little of your profits on a computer system that highlights glaring grammatical errors (I don't mean typo's) and includes a spell checker. FWIW deliberative - involving careful thought and discussion when making decisions - would hardly seem appropriate in the context of your post.

XPB: Oh dear, it seems that someone with a much more detailed knowledge does not agree with your opinions - to whit the CEO of Velocys. Unless you can actually demonstrate that Henrik was lying, I would suggest that continuing to post comments such as this are, at best, disingenuous. Kindly desist and give us all a break.

XPB: I have refrained from joining in the chorus of derision your most recent posts have engendered. However, I cannot let your latest comment, " the aspect that everyone apart from a few in here that are familiar with complex petrochemical infrastructure, is that there is NO proof that it will work", pass unremarked. The converse, there is NO proof that it will not work, given the amount of work done by Velocys and others on the individual stages of the process is also a reasonable claim. I would refer you to Sean83's latest post, which would seem to debunk your claim conclusively. You continue to make unsubstantiated claims based on an expertise that you have also failed to quantify. Somebody earlier in this discussion suggested that Ervington had averaged down to 67p. If this is true RA's holding amounts to just under 138 million shares and he is currently looking at a loss of around £85 million on current prices. yet he, and other IIs continue to hold. I value their judgement rather higher than i do yours.

XPB: It would be nice to find something new in your posts, but yet again you persist with unsubstantiated opinion and half truth sold as fact. In reality, until the planning approval is formally given and the F4C issue has been settled, nothing much can be said. The soon to be delivered formal company report may shed some light on the finance issues to which you refer but I still find it hard to believe that the project would have been pursued as far as it has, with cash backing from Shell and BA, unless there was some firm financial commitment in place. With regard to the speculation about the "big seller", FWIW his was the latest published position:

Shareholders owning more than 3% of the Company at 31 March 2020 were as follows:

Ervington Investments Limited (21.41%)

Lansdowne Partners (21.16%)

Amati AIM VCT plc (10.36%)

CQS Directional Opportunities Master Fund Ltd (9.32%)

Hargreaves Lansdown PLC (7.71%)

Janus Henderson Group (4.32%)

Jarvis Investment Management (3.58%)

XPB: Good question, and the planning approval hasn't made the local TV despite the fact that they made a big fuss when the scheme was first proposed. Also nothing from F4C or Shell and BA. Much noise from many here with their own agenda but nothing tangible from the main players. I think a little patience is required as the public's fixation with coronavirus to the almost total exclusion of other matters is not helpful . meanwhile I will continue to sit on my hands and ignore the froth. BTW are you still holding, your more recent comments seem to suggest that your previous positive forecasts were misplaced.

Tell me news not history! RA has had around 20% holding since the shares were >£2.30 (Jul 2013)and the decision to go from research to sales hadn't been made. He has stuck with it ever since which indicates to me that he has more faith than some posters on this board.

XPB: I note that Natural England's latest missive still seeks considerable conditions (which the Council can choose to ignore!). I agree with your predictions if all goes well on Wednesday, provided that the VLS PR is up to the task and produces a really positive and prompt RNS with some clue on future funding. Thereafter it is just a matter of seeing where it goes SP wise, although with the prospect of F4C money there is always the possibility of a takeover bid.

XPB: No I haven't. Stands to make a pretty good profit in pretty short order IMHO. Next week should be interesting. The SP is obviously not reflecting the market. Anyone with half a brain should take advantage. Off to first game of golf for 2 months!

XPB: Agreed. My two buys today both shown as sells !! Two 1000,000 buyers late on but still the price stayed below 3p. There must be a reason given the RNS and the Planning Officer's report which are both positive. Looks like day traders plus the gloom from the Fed has had a serious effect. Roll on 20th!

XPB: Agree entirely with your sentiments. You wonder where they all came from, although I was flattered to be described as knowledgeable (I don't have any special access or knowledge that is not available to the public at large)! Are you sure about delegated approval as the application now shows a Committee scheduled for 20 May (as well as a new comment from Network Rail) ? Either way I believe that we shall have a decision by the end of the month, closely followed, I hope, by an announcement from F4C. Today's RNS is interesting, but I am a little surprised by the size of today's feeding frenzy given that planning approval is not yet finalised (I wonder what the response will be if/when it is - you must be rubbing your hands in anticipation) . I also feel a bit sorry for whoever sold 1.7 million shares late on Monday - shocking timing.

XPB: Not sure how you spell hypocrite. "bought a ton more before the whole world knows about the potential here". I don't blame you for buying, just not sure that you have ever admitted that the project has had any potential other than for financial disaster as, in your opinion, there was no way that the project could/would be funded. Have you changed your mind or are you still working on the basis a short term profit after PP is granted? It would be nice to know. BTW not seen any response to my comments re Mr Hird!

XPB: Why would anyone want to be like Mr Hird? Why would you want to support Mr Hird's position? Don't you want the planning issue to be settled so that you can make your little profit?
The document which started this diatribe makes no appeal to VLS to clarify matters; indeed the ENZYGO addendum submitted on 8 Apr makes specific mention of the drainage isse as follows:
Para 10.10.21-It is proposed that surface water runoff is limited to the rate advised by North East Lindsey Internal Drainage Board, which is 1.4/l/s/ha. Water will be attenuated at the site prior to discharge using a combination of tank storage and a detention basin, sized to store the volume of runoff generated by a 1 in 100 year plus climate change storm event.
If you also consider that ENZYGO submitted on that same date an amended layout plan (Rev 10) and a detailed surface water drainage plan, methinks that Mr Hird is having a hissy fit with the Drainage Team at NELC because he has been left out of the loop because he had already stated that he had no objections on two occasions earlier in the year. Nothing to do with ENZYGO/VLS imho.

XPB: Having previously (30 Jan and 7Feb 2020) entered a "No Further Comments on Water Framework Directive Compliance Assessment" response to the consultation, it is a bit strange for the same consultee (Mr Hird) to come up with today's missive at such a late stage. This especially given that ENZYGO produced an amended drainage plan on 8 April! This would seem to be an issue between the Drainage Team at NELC and North East Lindsey Drainage Board rather than an issue with ENZYGO who have obviously (see DM/0664/19/FUL) sought to provide all the information and changes that have been requested by consultees. It is difficult to see what more ENZYGO (and by inference VLS) could have done, especially when it has taken four weeks for Mr Hird to respond and I see no justification for your adverse comment with regard to VLS other than your well known bias towards the company.

XPB: I am pleased to note that you placed your "facts" in inverted commas, as just about all of them have been challenged by myself and others in the past. Time will tell. BTW there can be no decision before 17 May because of the consultation process and no Council Planning Committee meeting has been scheduled as yet so I would guess that your "end of May" suggestion is a little optimistic.

XPB: Authoritative as ever. Your view is well known and oft stated. It is also heavily biased against the project ever succeeding and largely based on your own unsupported opinions rather than hard facts. Once PP is granted (on that point I agree with you) we shall see how VLS plans to proceed, assuming, that is, that their PR machine has been properly briefed (alas not always the case in the past!). VLS shareholders comprise Institutional Investors (70+%), mostly long term and still on board despite the depressed SP, with the remainder of shares on the open market. Only time will tell whether this project and/or the Nachez project in the USA will bear fruit, but there is no doubt that there will be a demand for the end product.

XPB: And what are you prepared to bet? This is a big multinational, not a hedge fund! The big plus of the area for VLS (apart from it's relative cheapness) is the proximity to a port from which to export the resultant jet fuel easily. Obviously there is plenty of suitable waste around as both companies are planning to import pretty large quantities by road, and both, independently, have proceeded with their planning application based on that premise. Surprised that you haven't commented adversely on EP Waste Management Ltd's ability to fund their £300Million project.