Member Info for thurgarton

EPB: Language please. You have obviously pre-judged the outcome of the planning application based on the assumption that NE will prevail, any appeal will fail and VLS will run out of funds. This is based entirely on your predictions and is by no means the view of many others including, I presume, the IIs. Greenpeace et al would seem to be getting a bit of a kicking in the media for being unrealistic re Heathrow.

EPB: Gosh, that was a short sabbatical!! Comparing this project with the third runway project having previously (and wrongly) condemned me for comparing it with HS2 is a bit rich. Having initially (13.33) come out with a "this is bad for VLS" judgement, you have subsequently backtracked to agree with others that the judgement can be viewed as positive for bio fuels but then sought to qualify it in VLS's case by suggesting that their project is not "Green". Suggest you resume your all too short sabbatical and save us all from trying to follow your convoluted logic.

EPB: Suggest you read Moleinahole on how NE actually conducts itself at planning applications. Just where you got your "ignorance to the truth and lack of experience" comment from is beyond me. As to your claim of fact based observation, you provide your facts and then put your spin on them. A litle more objectivity might gain you more credence. Meanwhile have a nice R&R.

EPB: I thought that you were leaving this board for a sabbatical! Please stop posting rubbish. Of course ENYGO are not impartial - they work for Velocys! NE has its own agenda as an NGO which centres on it remaining one! Nevertheless the ENYGO comment that I quoted is relevant. The LPA is required to do its own assessment on the issues raised as NE have pointed out.

XPB: Additional to my last post, you may find this quote interesting:

It is our understanding that in accordance with standing guidance from the Planning Inspectorate (Inspectorate, 2013)the Local Planning Authority are to undertake the actual HRA/AAassessment and make a determination using the supplied information and following consultation with Natural England/Environment Agency as necessary. Additionally, that any relevant recent case law, such as “People over Wind” will be taken into consideration.

It comes from the supporting document supplied by ENZYGO on behalf of Altalto on 20 Jan, and clearly shows that they believe that there is a need for the Council to make its own assessment, which would seem to explain why NE are at issue with the Council.

XPB: No I'm not directly comparing HS2 with this project. I was merely pointing out that NE objections are by no means the final decider if HMG decides it wants a project to progress. I have read the NE objection letter, and indeed quoted from it. It is not clear what more NE actually wants VLS to provide but what is clear is that NE and the Council are at odds over the issue. BTW you may have heard the CEO of Heathrow expounding the necessity of Heathrow expansion as a pre-requisite for a successful UK economy post Brexit and also the need for zero carbon fuel to keep our aviation industry competitive (there is apparently a danger that France could supersede us as the primary European hub if Heathrow does not expand its capacity!

Probably explained because Highways England are due to respond by/on 4 March.

Muscorum: If you read what I have written, you will find that I have not stated whether planning permission will be granted nor have I questioned NE's right to object. I have merely pointed out the issues and options available and some relevant facts and left others to judge their merit. Internet reports suggest that HS2 will be damaging to habitats and ancient woodland and that NE produced a lengthy report for HMG (which I have not seen). Only time will tell on the outcome of the VLS application. It is now a question of do you hold your nerve or do you take the profits and get out now. No sign that the IIs are jumping ship and the sponsors have said nothing so it is just the 27% holdings of PIs that are responsible for the current volatility.

Whilst I can understand why Natural England would object to the VLS application, it has to be remembered that NE and other wildlife trusts also objected to HS2, yet HMG has given that flawed project the green light. We are no longer in the EU so it is therefore highly unlikely that the issue would end up in the European Court. Moreover NGOs are subservient to the Government, and it is the latter that has the final say. There can be no doubt that the VLS end product would prove beneficial to the UK economy, given the size of our airline infrastructure. Moreover it is seen as "environmentally beneficial" and as such worthy of government investment (F4C). It is perfectly possible, whatever the Council decides, that the application is "called in" by HMG. What is not predictable is how HMG will view the application having already invested in it! Interesting times, but I still think that the VLS PR is somewhat lacking which does not help positive sentiment. BTW does anyone actually now what the current state of progess is for the Nachez project?

XPB: QED not!

XPB: Oh really!! Please try reading my comments before sounding off on your own well worn agenda. I am not disagreeing that further delays are a distinct possibility, especially as Highways England have already said that they will not respond before 4 Mar, but all the rest of it is unsupported speculation Moreover, consistently trying to foist your own agenda on those of us that have long been wearied by it strikes me as a nugatory exercise.

XPB: Contrary to your comments, it would appear that Natural England is at odds with the Council, not the applicant. NE asked for information in their 18 Dec 19 document, which would appear to have been provided by the applicant on 20 Jan. It has take NE a month to digest this and enter it's objection with the following interesting paragraph buried deep within their objection:
"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."

the inference here being that NE and the Council are at odds over the issue. You, of course, blame VLS but I wonder if you are right to do so. I would have thought that it might be an appropriate time for VLS's PR machine to make some comment that might shed some light on things.

XPB: So no real answer then.

XPB: Ever the optimist. When will you be selling your small holding? BTW I thought that Death Valley was in California. I have no plan s to go there, but enjoy your trip.

XPB: If you haven't got a response to the UK issue, why not try the US angle. Despite all your negative comments re funding, both projects would seem to be progressing although neither, according to you, has the necessary funding in place. Please explain how this apparent contradiction of your assertion is happening.

XPB: Don't really buy that. Most of the IIs are investors of other people's money who are there to make a profit. IMHO such people either get out on a stop loss or really believe in the company and LTBH their shares. FWIW here are the current (19/12/19) IIs:
Shareholders owning more than 3% of the Company at 31 December 2019 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 (5.99%)
Jarvis Investment Management (4.29%)
Janus Henderson Group (4.20%)

I'm sure you will find something derogatory to say if you try hard enough.

XPB: He doesn't need a UK passport, they come very cheap from Malta! RA has, as you say, held more than 20% of the stock for ages, certainly from when the SP was over £2 (heady days). He is not the only II who has been invested for a long time and the company is >70% owned by IIs. Leaving aside the Woodford issue, why would such investors stay loyal for so long if they did not believe in the company?

XPB: Desperate times call for desperate measures and having unearthed a seam of positive PR for Velocys you now seem desperate to destroy it. You have already stated that YOU are along for the ride (or have you sold your small holding already). Not sure what else you are trying to prove as everyone knows exactly where you stand. You really should get out more.

XPB: If you quote a source, I would sugest that you look at all of it, not just the bit(s) that fit in with your agenda. Anyway, thanks for the tip - a very interesting read and hardly a disincentive to serious investors in Velocys! Note to self: must try harder!!

From the same magazine, released 20 Jan 20:
https://biofuels-news.com/news/alaska-airlines-promotes-sustainable-aviation-fuels-in-us-state-of-washington/
Note the phrase " The SAF Producer Group comprises leading producers and developers of sustainable aviation fuels, including Fulcrum, Gevo, Neste, Red Rock, Velocys and World Energy." Somebody obviously thinks more highly of Velocys than some on this board.