Member Info for thurgarton

XPB: I take it that you are confirming my previous comment. You are merely reiterating your oft-expressed opinion that Velocys is basket case that couldn't run a whelk stall. You have been saying this for what seems an age despite your claim that you have no financial interest. This raises the obvious question, which you have yet to answer, why have you bothered to waste so much of your time refuting each and every positive post on this board?

XPB: Yet another negative and !misleading comment - It is merely a reiteration of the Drainage Board comments made previously. BTW have you ever made a comment on this board that. Is not negative and disparaging of another viewpoint?

XPB: As you are not invested I don't see why it should matter to you at all, so why all the negative posts? You must have a motive, so do tell, why do you waste so much of your valuable (?) time posting on a chat board of a company in which you have no financial interest? BTW If you have only had 4 hot dinners in the past four years, I would be somewhat concerned about your health! Happy Xmas

Name six of the many aspects your refer to and do tell what spot you are at. AFAIK you are not invested in VLS, consider them to be doomed and yet still continue to post doggerel to the amusement of some and the annoyance of more.

"Ignore commentary by NE at ones peril..." You might also have added Ignore my posts at your peril as that generally seems to be their tenure. As I have said before, NE is an NGO trying to justify its existence - it was only set up in 2006 and, like so many of its ilk, pays fat salaries to its executives from public funds. It has a vested interest and it is up to the NE Lincs Council to advise VLS of their view of the comments any any action it needs to take. What is certain is that there will be no decision this year.

Who, apart from you, is suggesting back door tactics. The decision is made by the Council, not VLS and requires them to take all comments and submissions into account. NE is yet another NGO trying to justify its existence.

Not of itself a very positive comment, and very late in the day as regards submission. However, hidden deep within the document is the following:
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 would seem to suggest that Wildlife |England objects to most big applications (onshore wind is a good example) but that they are frequently ignored by planning authorities. It will be interesting to see if/how the applicant responds.

XPB: " as is being said elsewhere, PP has no bearing on the elephant in the room. - project financing" - said elsewhere by whom I wonder. You have banged on about this issue for what seems like an eternity yet VLS have pushed ahead with what I am sure will prove to be an expensive planning application with no sugestion that there are not enough funds to progress the project when PP is granted. Although you claim that there is no blue chip backing on the BoD, you seem to have overlooked the fact that the new Chairman has a very strong Shell background and has gone from nowhere to Chairman in very short order just as the need for funding is about to raise its head. I don't view that as a coincidence.

Once again XPB you only post that part of a document which supports your doom and gloom scenario. Posted below are two further paragraphs from the document in question:

We understand that it is not possible at this stage to confirm precise details of the effluent and outfall, as this is dependent on the ongoing environmental permitting process. However, full characterisation may not be necessary to address our concerns if an appropriate WFD assessment is carried out.
There are many existing trade effluent discharges into the Humber Estuaryon the South Humber Bank, similar to that proposed for this development.However,these are all historic discharges and considerable work will be requiredbeforepermission for a new deep water discharge in to the Estuarycan be granted.Modelling is likely to be necessary,as acknowledged in the Modelling Method Statement.

So not quite so negative as you implied. It would appear that the EA, whilst raising concerns, seems rather more disposed to being helpful than your post suggests.

It is clear that the planning permission decision has been delayed because of the Highways England issue. XPB is, as usual, trying to muddy the waters. I would assume that the Chairman sees this as a buying opportunity without any suggestion of insider trading (he has no input to the planning decision, although I assume that he has been assured that the issues raised by Highways England can be resolved) and has taken it, which suggests that he still believes in the long term prospects for the company. I take this to be a positive signal from the company, albeit a small one, and it would seem from today's trading so far that I am not alone in this view. However, this is merely my take and as ever DYOR applies.

Ever the pessimist. One has to ask why the company would pursue the project, given that they must have a pretty accurate cost projection, if they did not have a pretty good idea where the funding was coming from. Given that they started this before the latest climate change hype, and with several large investors (notably Abramovich) and high profile partners (BA & Shell) on board, it would seem to indicate that your frequent assertions that the project does not have the requisite financial backing is based on little more than your personal agenda.

Apart from the last sentence (which is both inaccurate and misleading), I agree with your analysis. It is not clear from the Highways document who failed to make their position clear. It should be noted that the Council are still showing the determination date as 29 Nov! Somebody, probably NE Lincs CC, needs to clarify the position.

New document on the planning application today(16 Dec) from Highways England asking further questions of the application. Looks like we are not going to get a decision in the near future as it would appear that there has been some sort of misunderstanding between Enzygo and Highways England which will require a further consultation period. It would be helpful if either NE Lincs CC or Velocys could clarify matters!!

I did not say that he couldn't buy, merely that to do so would leave him open to accusations of insider trading, which, even if unfounded, are hardly an auspicious start to his chairmanship.

He can hardly buy shares at this juncture without being accused of insider trading as we all seem to agree that granting (or not) of the planning permission will materially affect the SP and he is likely to know the answer before we do!! Question is has Pierre Jungels sold his 700K holding?

Can you name any other company that has built a plant comparable to that proposed by Velocys?

Apart from the revised drainage plan submitted on 4Dec by the applicant!!! You really must understand that telling half a story to support your agenda is not a sustainable argument, but do keep trying.

Nothing has yet been decided according to the nelincs web site. Hence your inability to find an answer to your question. Patience is a virtue in this case.

Selective quotations to present a false picture would seem to be your game. Had you included the following paragraph in the document you quote, or better still the applicant's response, you might have avoided being accused of muddying the waters.

DM/0664/19/FUL significant dates (from NE Lincs planning portal)

Application Validated Date Fri 09 Aug 2019
Actual Committee Date Not Available
Neighbour Consultation Expiry Date Sun 15 Sep 2019
Standard Consultation Date Wed 20 Nov 2019
Standard Consultation Expiry Date Sun 08 Dec 2019
Last Advertised In Press Date Thu 22 Aug 2019
Latest Advertisement Expiry Date Sun 15 Sep 2019
Last Site Notice Posted Date Thu 22 Aug 2019
Latest Site Notice Expiry Date Sun 15 Sep 2019
Agreed Expiry Date Not Available
Permission Expiry Date Not Available
Environmental Impact Assessment Received Not Available
Determination Deadline Fri 29 Nov 2019
Temporary Permission Expiry Date Not Available

Just to end the speculation, from the dates provided it would appear that the Council will have to say something by the end of the week.