Member Info for thurgarton

XPB: Although you " suspect" and " strongly suspect" that VLS did not do due diligence before entering into the planning process, you offer no evidence to support your suspicions. Your suggestion that the site was "cheap" is again unsubstantiated as is your claim of undue haste in order to obtain F4C funding. BTW, the F4C funding is a drop in the ocean cf the total cost of developing the site. Your assertions re the flood plain issue are, once again, unsubstantiated. I don't dispute that there are unresolved issues with regard to the planning application but I find nothing in your arguments to suggest that these issues are unresolvable.

Stokey12's comments are valid, although it is hard to imagine that VLS are/were unaware of these issues when they entered the planning process. Cadent have not made any further comments since January and Natural England have also not commented since mid February, yet matters are progressing according to NE Lincs CC so one must assume that there is dialogue between the parties although nothing has appeared in the planning docs. As for XPB's comment re the flood plain and its implications; is he seriously suggesting that the costs of meeting these requirements, which were readily apparent from the outset, have not been factored in by VLS when entering into the project? I see no way that he can vindicate the lack of due diligence by VLS that he claims without supporting evidence, but then that hasn't bothered him before! BTW what is a 3rd Party investor?

XPB: Be serious - nobody writes off the sort of money that the IIs have put in. . Abramovich has been there for years (originally above £2) and has had ample opportunity to sell, yet has maintained a consistent holding > 20%. Other venture capital is more recent but the only sell-off, AFAIK, was due to the Woodford effect, not VLS shortcomings and IIs have consistently held >70% of the share capital. It would appear that, unlike you, the IIs continue to believe that VLS has a future.

XPB: Having looked a little further into your original EQT plug, I notice that they have a subsidiary called EQTEC who are potential rivals to VLS and therefore of much more interest that EQT. Could it be that you work for them and spend your gainful employment trying to discredit EQTEC' s competitors, or am i just being fanciful? BTW have EQTEC provided an RNS on the Covid-19 situation? I also note that it is quoted on the AIM market (EQT) and the current SP is 0.175p!! It would seem that they are in a much worse situation than VLS financially.

XPB: You seem to have overlooked the Institutional Investors who own 70%+ of VLS shares, none of whom have shown any sign of selling their holding. I hadn't heard of EQT until you mentioned them and I really can't find any evidence of the impressive legacy you mention. moreover, I don't suppose that they would be interested in VLS as there is currently very little in the way of assets to strip. BTW you haven't said whether you are employed by EQT or are you just providing free publicity out of the goodness of your heart.

XPB:

"EQT is a differentiated global investment organization with a 25-year history of investing in, developing and owning companies, and has a demonstrated track-record of attractive, consistent investment performance across multiple geographies, sectors and strategies. EQT manages and advises a range of specialized investment funds and other investment vehicles that invest across the world with the mission to generate attractive returns and future-proof companies."

In other words nothing like VLS and therefore totally irrelevant to your argument. How did you come to use it? Could it be that EQT is also your employer, which would explain a lot about the positions you have adopted on this board.

XPB: Whilst you didn't actually say it, your post 356 did appear to imply it, so I thought that I might clarify matters. I notice that, as usual, you change the subject if your view is challenged.

XPB: Your point is valid to a degree, if not unexpected as VLS seem to work on the "no news is good news" principle. In mitigation for the lack of any PR, I would suggest that until the planning issue is resolved (plus F4C) there is no news other that which is readily available from other sources. What exactly would you have them say? We are talking about a lot of known unknowns here and in reality there is nothing meaningful that VLS can say at the present time, although, in fairness, any shareholders left that subscribe to your point of view are unlikely to be reassured in any case.

XPB: You my be interested to learn that Natural England is not an NGO. Rather it is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. It's raison d'etre being promotion of the status quo with regard to the environment. It therefore stands to reason that it will object to any industrial development on principle. Rather as you object to any argument with your opinions on the basis that you are always right ( which BTW is a fallacy).

Posted today on the planning application by Highways England:
Highways England now consider that the outstanding issues have been resolved, and accordingly we are removing the ‘Non determination’ with immediate effect and issuing a ‘No Objection’ today. May I thank all parties for the work done and for all your efforts which have enabled us to reach this conclusion.

Regarding NE's objection, it is, perhaps, pertinent to consider this paragraph from their letter of 20 Feb:

Please note that if your authority is minded to grant planning permission contrary to the advice in this letter, you are required under Section 28I (6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to notify Natural England of the permission, the terms on which it is proposed to grant it and how, if at all, your authority has taken account of Natural England’s advice. You must also allow a further period of 21 days before the operation can commence.

This comment would seem to imply that, unlike with Highways England, the objections and advice of Natural England can be ignored by Planning Authorities. It therefore follows that the final decision lies with NE Lincs planners who can choose to ignore the NE if they chose to do so. If you look at the area under discussion and take into account the desire of NE Lincs to bring employment and industry to that area, you might be more optimistic than some on this board as to the final outcome of the application.

At last a bit of positive news, Highways posted the following on the planning docs on 18 Mar:

In conclusion the Transport Assessment states that the proposed development will be seen to operate with no detrimental impact to the local highway network in terms of traffic impact or highway safety concerns. The Highway Authority concurs with the conclusion reached, in that there would not be a severe impact on the highway network, by the applicants and would thereforerecommend approval of the application, subject to the following conditions:

The document contains a lot of waffle and several conditions but does appear to remove HE's issues. That leaves NE's objection which, if the information already posted on this board is correct, has been addressed by sorting the effluent issue with the adjoining site, so there appears at least a possibility that we may get a decision next month.

That is a very short term view IMHO. Just how long do you think the crisis will last, bearing in mind that China and South Korea appear to be into recovery which suggests that Europe might expect something similar if the headless chickens don't screw things up. meanwhile the global warming issue remains and future air travel would seem to be dependent on finding a more acceptable fuel source which rather suggests that both IAG and Shell will continue to have an interest in"green" solutions if either company wants a future.

That date would tie in with the HE date of 20 April. It is not clear what impact, if any, the coronavirus pandemic may have. I note that EPB is his usual pessimistic self on that point, but I would think that rural areas will be less impacted than major conurbations so perhaps matters mighty be resolved fairly soon. Meanwhile the markets are in deep depression with panic selling readily apparent. Difficult time to keep calm an sit tight.

Good question. It would seem that they have an answer otherwise why bother to pursue the project.

EPB: Have just spoken to NE Lincs Council Planning dept (very helpful). As you say, there are two issues, HE's delayed decision and NE's objection, both of which must be resolved satisfactorily in order for matters to progress. I was assured that ENZYGO were aware of the issues and working towards resolving them. The Council had no idea how long this might take nor of the likely outcome. In other words, wait and see. As you say EPB, how long can matters drag on unresolved. I did get the impression that if matters are resolved between ENZYGO, HE and NE, the Council would not prove a further obstacle, although I do not take this as being in any way definitive.

According to the application data currently on the NE Lincs web site (application DM/0664/19/FUL), the "AGREED EXPIRY DATE" is today!! Somebody will have to say something, but, as I and others have said elsewhere, there are at least two outstanding issues, the Highways England delay and Natural England objection. It would be helpful if both Velocys (or ENZYGO) and the Council were to clarify matters. Treating shareholders like mushrooms is not clever IMHO.

EPB: Good question. It is not clear from the documentation who HE expects to produce the required information, but as it refers to the Stallingborough Employment Site, an already approved application, one would have to think that it is not ENZYGO!

EPB: Once again selective quotations in support of your argument, in this case from :
http://planninganddevelopment.nelincs.gov.uk/online-applications/files/866EF60A1915A75F2AC6CFF7101F7B18/pdf/DM_0664_19_FUL-HIGHWAYS_ENGLAND-1465670.pdf
This is an 8 page document provided at the behest of HE. I would offer the following two quotes from the same document, provided to the Council on 16 Dec 19 which suggest that ENZYGO provided a TA in Sep 19.
"Enzygo Limited has produced a Transport Assessment Addendum and Travel Plan in support of the development proposals – a Waste to Fuels Project – promoted by Altalto Immingham Limited, located on land at Hobson Way, Stallingborough". ............. "Given the site’s location, there is potential for the development proposals to impact upon the Strategic Road Network, namely the A180, hence Highways England requesting CH2M to review the contents of the Addendum and TP. Previously, CH2M provided Enzygo with pre-application advice in March 2019, as well as reviewing an Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Request in April 2019. This was then followed up with a CH2M review of a Transport Assessment submitted in support of the development proposals in September 2019."
Subsequently HE made the following comment on 13 Jan 20:
"Highways England have considered the latest information from Richard Limmer and Tom Morley regarding the improvement works to the Stallingborough Interchange junction, and the position that works are starting imminently and are due for completion within twelve months. We therefore accept that there is no longer a requirement to model Stallingborough Interchange without the improvements as this junction will have been completed prior to this development. However, the trips allied to the Stallingborough Employment Site should be included within the junction assessment work. "

So it is not a failing on Velocys part but rather the tardy processses of HE that is the issue. I refer you to my original post.

EPB: As usual an attempt to mislead based on nothing but conjecture. The Highways England delay, according to their own submission today, has little to do with the Velocys application information but is in regard other developments taking place in the area which could generate traffic issues.

"As recently advised, Highways England are still awaiting an updated Transport Assessment, mainly in respect of additional trips expected to the Stallingborough Employment Site when that is operational "

It will be interesting to see if the Council will accept further delay without something more concrete in the way of an actual objection by HE, which they admit that they are currently unable to justify. You can hardly stop the application because something might become an issue in the future.

10.6% holding as at Dec 19!