Member Info for thurgarton

The planning application has a determination date of 29 Nov. There is nothing on the nelincs.gov.UK website and I can find no further info. Application No DM/0664/19/FUL

Further to my last comment here is the text of the document I refrrred to:

Hi Richard,I don’t think I have a ref number for this to submit via Uniform.Anyway as it happens I have been up on the Wolds today and I was able to observe the site and the Industrial belt that is the Humber Bank Industries. The weather was clear and bright so good views.Whilst the closest views I got were from the East Ravendale / Binbrook Rd I was able to get an informed impression of the potential impact of the proposal.My comments are as follows;The proposal is without doubt on a par with the Immingham bulk terminal, the Oil refineries, the Power stations and Novartis in regards to its visual scale. It must also be notes that the examples I have just given are spreadover virtually the whole of the Humber bank industrial belt so collectively the Industrial belt is a strong and established feature in regards to views out of the AONB towards between Grimsby and North Kilingholme in North Lincolnshire. The LVIA makes this point and I have no reason to question the methodology or conclusions of the LVIA.Whilst it may be argued that that this proposal takes the impact of the Industrial belt beyond what is acceptable I do not see that this line of argument could be sustained. The views of the Humber bank from above East Ravendale and Wold Newton are at such a distance that the proposal cannot feasibly be considered to be substantially increasing the visual impact of the Humber bank Industries on the AONB.Even when the closest views from the AONB is considered, that being around Irby -upon –Humber, the visual impact of the Immingham bulk terminal and the Humber bank Power Stations mean that this proposal is not seen in isolation.Although the impact of the proposal will have a limited impact on the views from the AONB that should not mean that the need for a landscaping scheme to ameliorate the impact of the closer views as well as the longer views is not required.I would suggest that this application is an opportunity to enhance and improve the existing nature corridors for Ecological benefit primarily as this will also enhance the publics visual amenity. RegardsPaul Chaplin |Trees and Woodland Officer |

NE Lincds web site states that the determination date for the application is 29 Nov so we should have a statement by close of play today. Surprised that this has not made the National Press.

The report on the AONB issue contained in the application documents and provided by a Council official would seem to suggest that, given the other industrial sites in the immediate locality (which includes Immingham power station), this would not be an issue as the AONB in question is sufficiently far away that the proposed site would not stand out against the industrial development already in place.

Nachez is their biggest project.

EXPB - How can the shareholders stop it? At some point you have to make the leap from small scale experiment to full blown plant. The question is do investors believe that Velocys has the expertise and knowledge to do this. The fact that they are all still on board suggests they have! Do you have another explanation for their loyalty given the major players involved?

Is it your contention that potential major investors (Shell, BA et al) can't afford it or won't afford it? Unlike you, all the major interests are still "on board"and showing no signs of abandoning the ship. I grant you that planning refusal might well change matters, but I would disagree with your view on matters if approval is given.

Planning hearing is scheduled to take place on 29 Nov.

IMHO it very much depends on what Velocys and its backers say subsequent to the decision, but if an announcement that the project will be fully funded is made, 2p would be a starting point. I suspect that many that have continued to hold VLS shares would hope that 20p might be more a more realistic figure. All those IIs must be hoping for a considerable upturn.

The VLS web site has been updates and the AIM rule 26 fact sheet now lists major investors as:

Shareholders owning more than 3% of the Company at 14 November 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%)
Jarvis Investment Management (4.30%)
Janus Henderson Group (4.20%)
Hargreaves Lansdown PLC (4.13%)

It also says:

As at 14 November 2019 there were in issue 643,756,100 shares of Velocys plc, none of which is held in treasury.

At the time of the last analysis of our share register on 14 November 2019, approximately 53.6% of our shares were classed as being not in public hands since these are held either by shareholders who own more than 10% of the Company or by Company directors.

Add in the minor players listed and you can add a further 21.9% that are not on the market. This means that only 25% of shares (160.9 million) are available for PIs!! It would appear that Henderson haven't sold their entire holding hence the drip of sells onto the market which seem to be covered by buyers. MMs anaging a large disposal would seem to fit the picture and explain the way the SP has been moving of late. Next Friday is the crunch day - planning permission obtained and the whole picture changes.

EXPB how can you refer to yourself as "we" when you have declared that you don't have shares and have consistently talked down the Velocys project. BTW even though Fulchrum is active in the USa, it apparently has not stopped Velocys pursuing their Nachez project.

Wrong in what context? We seem to have drifted a long way from your original, and, dare I suggest somewhat inaccurate, post. I can only wonder why someone who clearly believes that VLS is a busted flush wastes so much time posting on the subject.

You seem to have missed my point. You are right Councils do not consider financial viability with regard to a planning application. Investors, however, do. This project cannot proceed without investors. It therefore follows with an elegant simplicity that those investors that have stuck with the project (ie all the IIs), plus Shell & BA, clearly believe that the necessary funding is available. You obviously do not. Should the application fail, IMHO VLS would only appeal if they have the funding in place. If the application is approved there would doubtless be an announcement by VLS with regard to their future plans (this assumes that any funding is might have been conditional upon planning approval). Either way, there should be a clear indication as to the viability of the project.

I think you are trying to talk down the project without any strong information to support your argument. If the IIs believe that VLS is not capable of raising the necessary finance for both its major projects they would have pulled out long ago. In my experience, planning applications are finite in that on the day (29 N0v) the Council will say yes or no. The yes may well be conditional (I'd be surprised if it wasn't) but a no would leave the applicant with the only option of going to appeal. Either way it will provide a clear indication of the resolve and funding that VLS has available.

Oh really!! Shell, a Dutch Company, supporting the same agenda in its home country as it is supporting in the UK hardly justifies the "jump ship" headline you put on it. There have been no moves by the major investors to get out of the Immingham project, so clearly they must believe that it is doable once the planning permission is (hopefully) obtained next week. It is therefore reasonable to assume that they believe that the necessary finance is available. Could you be erroneous in your views, I wonder?

If you google "James Henderson Group, Woodford" you are presented with several links between the two in the way they invest and also a common link with smaller companies such as Velocys. It would seem that Henderson Group have been tainted by the |Woodford collapse and have been compelled to reduce their holdings in small companies as a result. So little to do with Vls as a company and a lot to do with Woodford. I would imagine that they have made a pretty big loss on their holding as well as forcing the vls sp to an artificially low level. I fear that the doom and gloom merchants on this board, and others like it, have made too much of the sp decline and could well have some egg on their faces if the planning application goes through. It certainly seems that the IIs (with the understandable exception of Hendersons) are holding their nerve, as are Shell and BA. Lets hope for a Happy Christmas for all those currently sitting on big losses.

AFAIK Fulcrum have yet to actually build anything, so it is reasonable to assume that they are no further ahead than VLS, indeed as VLS did build and run a trial unit, they may even have an advantage. It might also be assumed that BP haven't actually fessed up any real money so far. I also seem to remeber that VLS hold a load of patents with regard to their FT process which might prove an issue to Fulcrum. Notwithstanding the foregoing , the waste to fuel issue offers huge potential to anyone who can actually do it and the sort of fuel and waste quantities involved indicate that there is unlikely to be one dominant company in the field. I can hardly imagine that Shell would allow BP to steal a march on them, which nicely explains their interest in VLS. Roll on 29th November which might make matters a lot clearer.

EB your comments on this thread fly in the face of your comments on a previous thread (Is that it). You might like to decide which side of the fence you are on, or are you just sitting on the fence.

At least you are consistent EB. If this technology has never been tried at this scale, by your reckoning it never will be because it will not be funded. See if you can think of any other technologies about which this comment could have been applied. Some people are prepared to invest money in such ventures. Others pour scorn on them. I wonder which category you fit into.

Not sure where you are coming from. Nothing from the Company( which is hardly unusual given their previous PR track record) but some positive coverage in the press (see previous posts) and once again we seem to have a large seller dumping at very low prices for no obvious reason (unless Woodford is involved!!) and others buying in for peanuts. If Immingham and Nachez both come off, the gains could be substantial, but it is a punt, albeit one where the technology is proven rather than pie in the sky as others have been. Shell and BA are apparently still on board, as is RB and a large Japanese compay (TOYO) has also become involved. VLS must have access to funding, otherwise the Immingham project would not have got as far as the planning application, although nothing has been said by the company on this issue. IMHO this is not the time to get out, especially as there always seem to be buyers for those shares being dumped.

You would seem to have overlooked the TOYO deal (RNS 19 /9/19) which addss £3.2 million to the coffers. And then there is R4C!! If planning get through on 29 Nov this will surely be irrelevent. As for EB's "2years before final investment decision on Immingham" comment - based on what information?? We seem to have come across this sort of negativity from EB before on too many occasions to be just coincidence. Hidden (barely!) agenda?