PYX Resources: Achieving volume and diversification milestones. Watch the video here.
XPB: Not quite true. the company acquired the existing facility in 2017 from Centrica. It is now choosing to develop the site further, having recognised the potential of the area.
Further to my last, the application was submitted on 9 Apr to the National Planning Inspectorate. This would appear to be a much bigger project than the VLS one as it will be decided at National level rather than by the local council.
https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/yorkshire-and-the-humber/south-humber-bank-energy-centre/
One to keep an eye on?
XPB: It would seem from the two latest additions to the pile of documentation that things are happening at pace as the loose ends are sorted prior to the Council's decision. What is of interest is that VLS' s project is not the only one:
https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/south-humber-bank-energy-waste-18071693
As this is a new addition to the South Humberside Power Station site, it would seem that the joint use of the effluent outflow could well be a long-term agreement between two parties with similar interests. I currently have no idea where this project is in the planning programme but it would seem that they and VLS must have been in discussion over their two ventures (I am assuming that the "green jet fuel" plant referred to is the VLS plant). Nice to know that we are not alone in choosing to develop in this area.
XPB: I would tend to agree with your No response as matters currently stand. However, should the Immingham plant actually get built, or indeed the Nachez plant, I would not totally rule out the possibility. Should either go ahead I would expect it more likely to generate a takeover bid from a much larger player, but at a level below £1. Either way I suspect that most current shareholders would happily settle for a price around 20p.
XPB: The important point to grasp is that what is postulated is the worst case scenario for a return to 2019 traffic levels. So yes, the airline industry is on the ropes, but there is no suggestion that it will not recover once the current pandemic is resolved, and that that recovery will commence the moment restrictions are lifted. This is obvious to anyone with even a basic knowledge of the industry. Once again, the British press take great delight in pushing the doom and gloom scenario with little basis in fact.
XPB: ISTR that IAG committed to huge backing of green technology last year. I also think that the BoD are far more likely to consider what is in the best long term interests of IAG and base any decision on that rather than short term issues such as you raise. Your humble opinion is noted. I am sure you will agree that I have the right to disagree with it. Give it a couple of weeks and we'll see who is right. BTW are you still invested to profit from upsurge engendered by the PP approval?
XPB: No need to be quite so offensive. Did I touch a nerve? I notice that you now claim to speak for IAG and Shell shareholders, on what basis do you claim this presumption. Two quotes from the Reuters report following Shell's announcement of dividend cuts:
From Shell CEO Van Buren: ""Where possible, we try to spare (New Energies) a little bit and that is basically because we still believe that there is an energy transition underway which may even pick up speed in the recovery phase of this crisis and we want to be well positioned for it,"
An this quote from the same article: The head of the world's energy watchdog, Fatih Birol, told Reuters this week that global efforts to minimise the fallout from the pandemic presented an historic opportunity to scale up the technologies needed to move to cleaner energy.
Given those two comments I feel that your assertions are based purely on your own opinions and have little basis in fact. Feel free to comment as I am running out of things to do during lockdown. Keep safe
XPD: Were you talking of anything else but project funding in your original post on this theme? Are you trying to move the goalposts yet again? Let's try for a little clarification. First we need to establish that there is a funding gap. VLS are still in the planning stage (already funded by Shell/BA), and that is not going to be resolved for another couple of weeks at least. At that juncture we might reasonably expect VLS to make some comment on its future plans and how they will be financed. We might also expect some comment from F4C. Taking a short term view of a long term project is, IMHO, a nugatory exercise. As a footnote, the Shell decision to cut dividends will doubtless cause you to suggest that they, too, will not be in a position to fund the project so I will forestall by referring you to my reply to your original post.
XPB: Be honest, you didn't see any funding from BA for the project from the outset, and have already said so many times. The BA action is a short(ish) term knee jerk due to the lack of revenue. Commentators are saying that it will take several years for air traffic levels to return to 2019 level BUT none are suggesting that it won't happen in time. It therefore follows, with an elegant simplicity, that BA will need to re-employ the staff they are about to make redundant if they are to survive. A corollary of the return to pre-2020 traffic levels is the need to make their operation greener to cope with the global warming issue (which has not gone away), and therefore to source greener fuel. Therefore, whilst I agree that BA might be unable to offer money up front in the immediate future, that does not preclude them doing so later in the project which, I would remind readers, will take several years to become operational and therefore could well benefit from not competing when the cost of oil is at its present depressed level due to lack of global demand.
The latest 6 documents certainly seem to indicate that everyone is now satisfied (with the possible exception for impact drilling - see ECOLOGY 15 Apr) so it does look as though Planning approval is imminent, although NE Lincs Council Planning Committee meeting scheduled for 29 Apr has been cancelled and none are currently scheduled for May which rather suggests that matters may remain on hold until the Coronavirus issue is resolved. I don't agree with your opinion regarding Shell and IAG. Regardless of how long the Coronavirus issue lasts, the Global Warning issue will still be there and it is generally accepted that airlines will have to use green energy for long haul for the foreseeable future. Both Shell and IAG therefore have a vested interest in ensuring that they are in this loop.
Thanks for the information. I guess that we will all have to wait and see what happens once the planning issue is settled. Shell being an equity partner with Enerkem does not preclude them making a similar arrangement with Velocys. After all, why would Velocys, Shell and BA continue with the Immingham planning application if they believed that the project would never raise the necessary finance? It makes no sense.
"No idea why the spread has been so wide it is ridiculous"
This is pure speculation but it did seem that the wide spread has generated quite a lot of automatic sells. This has happened before when MMs are expecting the price to rise, as they may well be, given that even XPB admits that the planning application is likely to be approved (at last!).
The biggest difference is that Enerkem are only operational in Canada, with Canadian Government backing. AFAIK their operation in the Netherlands is roughly on a par with Velocys in the UK in terms of development and they don't have Dutch government funding. I suspect that currently Shell has a similar stake in both and is awaiting developments, but that is only my opinion.
XPB: Enerkem have received Canadian Government funding, which may well be an influencing factor for other backers. Velocys may well receive UK Government funding via F4C once planning permission is granted. There is a certain similarity here
XPB: Shell is a partner in the Enerkem project in the Netherlands, very much the way it appears to be with Velocys. Obviously Shell is very interested replacements for its current oil business. This is what Shell said when they joined the Enerkem project.:
"Andrew Murfin, General Manager, Advanced Biofuels, Shell, said: “Industry partnerships, just like this one, are critical to delivering some of the many solutions society will need to meet energy demand while reducing emissions to tackle climate change and air pollution. Advanced biofuels, including those produced using bio-methanol, have the potential to decarbonise the transportation sector, in particular. This is an exciting prospect given transportation accounts for one fifth of global energy-related CO2 emissions, and will continue to rely on liquid fuels, especially for long journeys and heavy duty vehicles, for years to come.”
Precisely the same comment could apply to their partnership with Velocys. As neither project has progressed very far, Shell's position is perfectly understandable. What will be interesting is any comment Shell makes if/when planning is approved. Shell must have had an objective in mind when it subsidized the planning application, otherwise the exercise was pointless. I wonder what that objective was.
XPB: It is my understanding that Shell and BA agreed to finance the planning application which is hopefully nearing completion. Are you claiming inside knowledge of the intentions of both companies once planning is approved? If so, on what basis? Further, you claim "others in this space are getting 100’s of millions of investor money". AFAIK there is no company which has actually achieved waste to fuel on a commercial scale in existence so to what others are you referring? Once again, your opinions unsupported by any hard facts!
You mean apart from Shell, BA and all those IIs that have stayed loyal for years with >70% of shares. I am not claiming that I am totally convinced that VLS is a sound investment, although for a variety of reasons (not all financial, it is in the AIM market after all) I would like it to be, but I am convinced that some company will eventually open Pandora's box and provide the green fuel that aviation so desperately needs for its future. Right now two of the biggest players in that field have taken a punt to the tune of £2.8M on VLS. We do not know what information VLS provided to get the SBA loan but it must have convinced them. I do try and be objective rather than subjective in my comments, which I try to base on the available information.
XPB: You may not have said that VLS is not viable in this particular thread. However, just a modicum of back checking suggests that you have suggested exactly that on other threads in the recent past. Just to remind you (and others) you posted this on 31 Mar:
"This is a 600 million GBP project - meant to be built on a cat 3 floodplain. It really inst going to happen. IT'll never be financed due to such risks. Other developments in the area don't even compare in terms of CAPEX, and are therefore a very different proposition. The subterranean pipelines will be a headache and may need to be relocated at great expense, futher adding the the costs of the project.
These two issues, whilst not directly affecting PP, will affect the ability to finance the project.
Natural England have the bit between their teeth on the effluent discharge issue and is currently the pacing item. In order to placate them, VLS will need to carry out some more engineering activity to get a better handle on the data and I doubt they have the funds to to this at this time."
This just from a cursory search - I'm certain there are others. Once again you attempt to weasel-word your way out of an untenable position.
XPB: Once again half a story, missing out the bits that do not accord with your position. From the SBA loans website, the following information is required:
SBA Loan Application – To begin the process, you will need to complete an SBA loan application form. Access the most current form here: Borrower Information Form - SBA Form 1919Download Adobe Reader to read this link content
?Personal Background and Financial Statement – To assess your eligibility, the SBA also requires you complete the following forms:Download Adobe Reader to read this link content
Statement of Personal History - SBA Form 912
Personal Financial Statement - SBA Form 413
Business Financial Statements – To support your application and demonstrate your ability to repay the loan, prepare and include the following financial statements:
Profit and Loss (P&L) Statement – This must be current within 180 days of your application. Also include supplementary schedules from the last three fiscal years.
Projected Financial Statements – Include a detailed, one-year projection of income and finances and attach a written explanation as to how you expect to achieve this projection.
Ownership and Affiliations – Include a list of names and addresses of any subsidiaries and affiliates, including concerns in which you hold a controlling interest and other concerns that may be affiliated by stock ownership, franchise, proposed merger or otherwise with you.
Business Certificate/License – Your original business license or certificate of doing business. If your business is a corporation, stamp your corporate seal on the SBA loan application form.
Loan Application History – Include records of any loans you may have applied for in the past.
Income Tax Returns – Include signed personal and business federal income tax returns of your business’ principals for previous three years.
Résumés – Include personal résumés for each principal.
Business Overview and History – Provide a brief history of the business and its challenges. Include an explanation of why the SBA loan is needed and how it will help the business.
Business Lease – Include a copy of your business lease, or note from your landlord, giving terms of proposed lease.
If You are Purchasing an Existing Business – The following information is needed for purchasing an existing business:
Current balance sheet and P&L statement of business to be purchased
Previous two years federal income tax returns of the business
Proposed Bill of Sale including Terms of Sale
Asking price with schedule of inventory, machinery and equipment, furniture and fixtures
In other words, you need to demonstrate your viability in order to qualify, which is pretty much what I said in my previous post!
Just a thought, but AFAIK from British requirements, you need to present a plausible business plan and details of your finances and expected cash flow in order to get a loan in UK - this from this morning and an interview on LBC. It is not unreasonable to assume that similar criteria would be applied in the USA which seems to suggest that, unlike XPB, the US authorities consider Velocys to be a viable business once the present crisis is resolved.