Member Info for thurgarton

XPB: All we need now is an impartial judge to keep score! Pleased that you agree with my assessment of the MMO issue. I don't think that there is any way to totally satisfy NE but I do think that ENZYGO have done their best and I suspect that the Council will agree with that view. If, as we both believe, planning is approved, it will be interesting to see if F4C come up with some money given the parlous state of the UK's finances. Talking of which, what sort of bounce do you anticipate if we are right?

XPD: I have no problem with you posting your opinions as long as it is clear they they are just that - opinions. It would be of more interest if they are backed up with some facts, which they all too rarely are. Of interest is the fact that Marine Management sent a very similar document to that posted on 9 Apr 20 on 19 Aug 19 and that the latest ENZYGO addendum posted on 8 Apr lists all the issues that have been addressed by the applicant. As I read it, ENZYGO are content that they have covered all the issues raised which would seem to support my view that the MMO letter is not an issue. BTW, in the time honoured words of Yes Minister in response to your latest post "Name six" - I refer, of course, to your comment - " I will however to continue to post my opinions and look forward to when all of my forecasts become present day reality (like a number of them have already.)" Please continue to post as it provides me with entertainment during our current lock-down.

XPB: It must be the isolation that is doing it. IM is plural, or are you suggesting a split personality? Once again you have returned to your repetitive and, as yet, unsubstantiated theme regarding financing. Please give it a rest as everyone on this board who reads your posts have all seen it countless times. BTW I have no connection whatsoever with IM. My expressed views are my own based purely on my research.

It would appear from the latest documentation that the outfalls VLS intends to use already exist and presumably are licensed. Unless I have misread the documentation, the project is not now intending to use any new outfalls so there is therefore no need to apply for a licence. As an aside, it is a bit late in the planning process for this issue to be raised. I wonder why it took so long.

It would appear that " It is down to the applicant themselves to take the necessary steps to ascertain whether their works will fall below the Mean High Water Springs mark." I would not have thought that the site falls into this category, although, given that there are other sites, including a power station, nearer to the coast, I would not foresee a major problem. Just another NGO justifying its existence IMHO.

XPB: There you go again. It is pretty clear from the latest documents that ENZYGO (and by inference VLS) believe that they have answered most of the issues raised as far as this is possible with new technology. Moreover they are frank in stating that the construction process envisaged will enable them to clarify and resolve issues that, because this is a new technology which does not currently have specific regulations in place, will need to be resolved by both sides, working together, as the project progresses. The documents posted yesterday clearly suggest that any conditions imposed (and they accept that there will be conditions) as part of PP can only be resolved as the job progresses so to suggest that they have to be resolved before the project can be financed, as you suggest, is clearly not the view of ENZYGO/VLS. Careful that you don't bite your tongue.

XPB: I pretty much agree - in fact the whole package looks like the result of discussions plus a very pointed rebuttal of the points NE made by AQC who appear to know more about the pertinent regulations than NE (see Air Quality responses ) and they have even addressed the lighting issue (apparently NE were concerned that lighting reflecting on water could upset the birds!). It would also appear that the Council are happy re Highways England issues (see NELC confirmation). Good job Shell/BA fronted up for the application costs because ENZYGO's bill is not going to be insignificant. Looks like your punt on planning approval is likely to succeed, albeit heavily conditioned.

25 new documents posted on the Planning Application today! It would seem that things have been moving, hopefully in the right direction. I didn't notice anything new from NE, but that was only after a cursory perusal of the documents. Will post my opinion on developments once I have had a chance to study them.

XPB: I think you will find that it was more than one MP.

https://www.velocys.com/2020/04/02/local-mps-reiterate-support-for-altalto-project/

Are you suggesting that the MP for Cleethorpes is overweight. I t is not a conclusion you would come to if you look at the pictures in the article. Seriously, there is support from both the Council and the local population for this project as a means of providing jobs in a depressed area so it is hardly surprising that local MPs would express their support too. then, of course, HMG (in the guise of F4C) have also indicated their support so I guess that it is just you and NE that object.

XPB: I notice that you didn't reply to my last post, and that now you have resorted to citing sites that charge (but say nothing that was not in the inews article previously flagged) in an effort to avoid anyone picking up the obvious flaws in your argument that I have already pointed out. If the Council decide to grant planning permission, there is little that NE can do other than employ delaying tactics which, given the support of local MPs for the project, might well prove to be a nugatory exercise.

XPB: Not all gloom & doom. The article states, as I have previously, that the Council can approve the application despite the NE objection. It also says VLS and NE have met to discuss the issues and, perhaps most significantly that :
"Paul Duncan, North Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Area Manager for Natural England, told i: “We recognise the site’s potential benefits and we have not objected outright to it. What we have done is request more information about work to mitigate potential damage to the local area and wildlife, which is internationally recognised for its precious natural heritage and rare bird species.”
I take it, since you have admitted to betting on VLS getting Planning Permission (post 382), that on this issue we are in agreement.

XPB; You have expressed your views. I have expressed mine. I see little point in arguing further until such times as the project is either canned or goes forward. I'm betting on the latter. You, apparently are not betting at all.

XPB: Oh please! I am not a complete idiot. You are still spouting unsubstantiated costings and refusing to countenance any argument with your point of view. As a long term investor in Velocys ( I first bought at over £2!), I could hardly fail to appreciate the problems they have encountered, nor their financial state. Nor, I would venture to suggest, can the IIs who hold >70% of the share capital. You are apparently convinced that the Immingham project is doomed and will not accept any argument against that view. I accept that the big "if" in the project is the planning permission, which has already put a 6 month delay on progress. When that is resolved it might be possible to move on from our current impasse as I am sure that Velocys will, if the application is agreed, provide us with further information as to its plans which will resolve some of the issues you continue to postulate with little foundation.

XPB; From your original reference:
"The contribution from British Airways and Shell of £2.8 million in total covers the final stage of the pre-FEED, planning permission and commercial pre-contracting of the Altalto Immingham Project, means no further net contribution will be required to be made by the Company until the first quarter of 2020 for the full FEED work. Further funding will be required at that stage to execute the full FEED work, being the next stage on both the Mississippi Biorefinery Project and the Altalto Immingham Project. However, it is expected that the large majority of this further funding will be provided by further commitments from strategic partners."

Not only are you implying that you have inside knowledge of VLS, you are now making the same inference with regard to Shell and BA.
BTW, also from the same source:
ENVIA: commercial scale Fisher-Tropsch reactor demonstration completed
In September 2016, construction of the first demonstration plant incorporating the Company's Fisher- Tropsch technology was completed and commercial scale catalyst loading was proven.

That hardly accords with your unproven technology claim.

XPB: Once again you have quoted selectively to support your arguments. To quote precisely from the 15 Jul 19 RNS:
"The Company estimates total costs of the project as $910 million, broken down as $576 million of core capital expenditure, $76 million of construction costs, $148 million of other costs and $110 million of financing costs. The Company does not expect to contribute to such project costs which are expected to be funded by strategic partners."
Two things to note, the statement refers to the Nachez project not Immingham and VLS does not expect to contribute to project costs. There is a detailed description of the UK project but without any costings and it is noted that Shell & BA put up £2.8m to fund the planning application. That rather torpedoes the basis for your estimated cost.
It would not be unreasonable to presume, given VLS known finances, that they would, of necessity, need to have the project funded by their strategic partners (Shell & BA). The fact that those partners have already stumped up for the planning application would suggest that they are prepared to fund the total project and have so indicated to VLS. Given that VLS is talking of profit margins around 12% it is not hard to see why.

XPB: I'm not sure why I am bothering to write this as it is a bit like arguing with a speak your weight machine! I agree that other projects have published figures, however VLS, as I said in my last post, have not. Therefore any figure you postulate can only be conjecture. Moreover arguing that because Red Rock (a USA project) cost around £350m and is half the capacity of the VLS project in UK, a cost of almost double is reasonable is questionable. You are not comparing like with like. I don't know what experience you have in this field (you have never said) but I agree that you need access to the funds needed to undertake the project from a reliable and experienced source. I assume that this is why VLS are in partnership with Shell and BA, both of whom have the funds (and in Shell's case the experience) to cover the potential costs. I think we can safely ignore the current short term crisis when considering the funding issue as the demand for both fuel and flights is certain to recover very quickly once it is over.

XPB: I was actually pointing out a couple of developments in the immediate area of the Velocys site that appeared to contradict your assertion regarding the site. As usual when challenged you have attempted to move the goalposts. As to your latest offering, I was not aware that VLS had published any cost estimates, nor have they disclosed what test data they hold. This being the case, it follows that your assertions as to costs and test data are pure speculation based on your own conjecture and are consequently valueless, or do you have an inside track on the VLS position. Since neither NE nor VLS have made comment since February, the Council aver than discussions are ongoing, and the decision date is rapidly approaching, it is likely that we will find out the true position within the month. I have always tried to base my posts on verifiable information, be it good or bad for VLS; I do wish you would do the same.

XPB: Just over the road from the velocys site is a power station, the South Humber Bank Power Station, a 1,365 MW gas-fired power station on South Marsh Road at Stallingborough. Moreover, a year ago the North East Lincolnshire Council gave approval for a development on land next to the South Humber Bank Power Station for the EP South Humber Bank Energy Centre. The energy centre would be powered by 620,000 tonnes of refuse derived fuel a year and will generate 49.9MW of electrical power, enough to power 500,000 homes. Developers EP UK Investments Ltd, said the plant comes as part of a £300 million investment. Now what were you claiming about development size and CAPEX? The rest of your post is purely reiteration of your previous unsubstantiated comments. I realise that you are trying to convince other readers of this board that the project is doomed. I strongly suspect your motives for so doing. If you don't believe in the project, don't invest and don't waste your time posting nugatory arguments.

XPB: We are talking of a site in an industrial area where the local Council is keen to encourage investors because of a failing local economy. The VLS site is by no means the only one in the area and these other sites have, I presume, all obtained planning permission. What makes the VLS site different? As to your diligence comment, I repeat that your assertions are unsubstantiated.

XPB: Due diligence is either done or not done! They did choose the site (as had others before them) so one has to presume that VLS believed that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. Once again your assertion that VLS was unaware of the issues is unsubstantiated, it is merely your opinion. A few facts might make your argument more plausible.