Member Info for thurgarton

XPB: Conjecture? - YES, by definition.
Until VLS complete FEED, raise the funding and actually build something (an event that, in the past, you considered to be highly unlikely for a variety of reasons with which you regaled this board on numerous accassions), any statement as to the equipment likely to be used must be considered speculative. BTW seeking to make a profit from a business venture cannot be desscribed as a cop out. Consistent;ly changing your argument when it is undermined is!

XPB: As VLS haven't actually built anything themselves other than their reactors (for customers, rather than own, use), I do not understand your claims that they are copying Fulcrum. Until FEED has been comleted in USA and UK, any such claims can only be based on conjecture. Furthermore, even if accurate, using what I presume from your post to be the best available technology hardly shows rash decision making. As to your claim of plagiarism, I suggest you check the definition. Two companies using the product of a third hardly fits the desciption. Moreover, there is no difference between VLS and Fulcrum regarding MO - both are seeking to use the same commercially avaiable technology to produce SAF from waste products.

XPB: Could you elaborate please.

Call me a cynic, but I get the distinct impression that the SP is being manipulated (by MMs?) to shake out those investors with set limit holdings around the 5p mark. Next week's meeting may change matters somewhat.

Why would you " love to be wrong on VLS" when, on your own admission, you are not invested in the company?

Critiquing your grammar is not a time-consuming task as the errors are usually glaringly obvious. I am not, nor have ever been, a teacher but I do hate poorly constructed posts. Moreover, the time I appear to cause you to waste responding to my posts at least spares us from the negative positions you seem to adopt towards Velocys at every opportunity and provides a little light entertainment whilst we all wait (you would say in vain) for the SP to rise.

Is it me in particular, or are you referring collectively to all who post here?

No thanks. Seems your grammar checker is still malfunctioning - "I have been invested in GEVO Aand AMTX for over almost 2 years" - replace "over almost" with nearly?

My mistake. Are you challenging anything else in my post?

One small point. Neither Gevo nor Artemis (with whom One World also have a simillar deal - 350M GPY - have actually produced any SAF to date. It is also noteworthy that Gevo is, according to my research, comparable to Red Rock Biofuels, A company well known to long term contributors to this board.

convb: "at 5p a share that wouldnt take much to add to your 'holding' " - leaving aside the missing apostrophe, I wasn't aware that buying a cheap share (after appropriate research, of course) in the expectation of future profit was a silly idea. Don't bother to explain your reasoning, it is blatantly obvious from your many previous posts!

convb: Oh please!! Your appalling English, as evidenced by your many posts, suggests that, besides lacking grammatical skills, you also suffer from problems with comprehension. The VLS response you received merely reiterates the information I had already posted. Where do you think I got it from? That's right, the VLS web site! The ability to interpret what you read in order to make sensible comment thereon is obviously beyond you. Please spare us your further thoughts.

If it were "the exact same technology", this would be an issue with regard to patents. The fact that both companies utilize the FT process does not mean that they intend to use the same equipment or catylist. As I said earlier, the FT process is nearly 100 years old and, of itself, not subject to patent restrictions. However, certain aspects of how it is applied is subject to patent restrictions. Those of us that have been following the Velocys story for any lenght of time are very well aware of the origins of the company and the unique application of the FT that it has patented. It is not difficult to understand. It merely requires a little research.

"It's not my opinion, its just what I think" plus the other grammatical s rather undermines your position.

Do you think that convb and expatbrat are related. Both obviously suffer from excessive verbosity and are prone to push their opinion as "fact". FWIW the FT process was used by the Germans in WW2 and was invented in the 1920s. Velocys own a series of patents related to the process which were confirmed by the British courts some years ago. They certainly don't have exclusive rights to the FT process. Given the projected future requirement for SAF, there would seem to be plenty of opportunity for companies to get involved without destroying the ambitions of others. Could the choice of Tees Side have anything to do with its Freeport status?

You have to wonder if RA's investment in Velocys some 8 years ago reflects a Russian state interest in the technology. ISTR that he bought in at quite a high price and, at one time, had a holding that amounted to nearly 30% of the share capital. AFAIK he has never sold any of his holding, although he has not bought in to the last couple of dilutions, hence the reduced holding as a %age.

To reiterate. I made no claim that there was nobody with an FT reactor in commercial service or close to commercial service. I merely asked XPB (or anyone else) to name some as I don't believe that there are too many. My main point was the fact that TOYO was one and that they are using Velocys FT reactors! After many years of XPB's put downs of Velocys, I am well aware of his/her methodology and tend to post when the claims are demonstrably false.

I think you rather missed the point of my earlier post.

According to his/her own statements, the latter case would seem to apply!

XPB: Not again!! Yet another piece of misdirection (although this time without spelling errors).
"At the time of writing, VLS has exactly ZERO FT reactors in commercial service or close to commercial service. "
Would you care to name any other company which has any FT reactors that are in, or close to, commercial service. I suppose that TOYO is a possibility, but wait a minute, who's FT reactors are they using?