Member Info for thurgarton

XPB: Which rather begs the question why are you so interested in VLS when you are not invested?

Gleichfalls

XPB: I refer you to the final paragraph of my previous message. Any attempt to deny that virtually all your posts have a negative slant would be indefensible. DYOR is the only way to invest sensibly.

XPB: Or, to be more accurate, extracts from a paper from a respected consultancy. It is not hard to quote from the same source and present a converse argument to your position. For example, the paragraph immediately following your quote says:
"In addition, investors explained that the presence of co-investors was also key in giving additional
confidence. When a potential investor sees other existing investors already on board, this gives
additional confidence, given that these existing investors will have already carried out their own
technical and commercial due diligence, and are happy with the risks identified. Airlines explained that
they see Oil and Gas companies as key partners not just from a financial point of view, but also in
helping to perform due diligence on the developer’s technology."

The preceding para 3.3.2 has the following comment:

"Some stakeholders shared a view that they see higher regulatory complexity in the UK compared to
some of its counterparts, particularly relating to obtaining planning permission. They explained that the
Environment Agency could be seen to be too cautious when approaching novel plants/processes.
Delays in the planning permission process leads not only to uncertainty, but also to project delays,
which translates into higher project costs."

Both paragraphs could be seen as showing the Velocys/Altalto case in a very favourable light . Moreover, the article contains a very clear reason for the hold up in awarding F4C stage two money to Velocys - the need to provide detailed costings as a precursor to the award - hence the much awaited FEED report.

My final point is that potential investors should do their own research. In this context, read all of the articles quoted by posters and certainly do not rely on cherry picked quotes such as XPB has provided in this instance. And No, I don't think that the paragraphs I have quoted are any more telling than those quoted by XPB, just that neither should be read in isolation.

He/she won't, if past history is any guide, as the original article will have been cherry picked to support his negative view of Velocys.

XPB: AFAIK Velocys have never quoted a cost for the Immingham site, although others, including yourself, have. In other words your estimates are pure speculation. BTW why should I feel embarrassed when questioning your arguments, it is not as if I am a voice in the wilderness.

XPB: Your cost suggestion of £350m is just that. Moreover ISTR that you were suggesting £400m in earlier posts. You may be right, you may not, but to be as assertive as you always are, you actually need some facts to support your arguments To date your position has no real data to back it up, hence the need for the FEED investigation. As to missing targets, whenever you are asked an awkward question you choose to ignore it, as you did when I suggested that your prediction of an SP below 4p had proved somewhat inaccurate. All I am trying to is point out the weaknesses in your arguments. I don't have an agenda, just a little more belief in the project than you have, which is why I am continuing to hold my shares.

XPB: As we don't yet have a costing, hence the FEED, there is no reason for Shell to put up any further funds. The £1m was purely towards the cost of the FEED. To commit funds when you have no idea of the final cost is not a good idea IMHO, and your cost projection is purely a guess on your part. What is needed is some hard facts, not biased conjecture.

XPB: "Shell threw in some coppers" As I recall, the few coppers you refer to was in excess of £1million!

XPB: Could it be that Shell are waiting for the outcome of the FEED assessment that Altalto are currently undertaking; an investigation funded, if I remember rightly, by Shell. I'll reserve my judgement until Altalto disclose the outcome of the FEED investigation to shareholders early next year. You may be right, but at this juncture it is not possible to make a definitive statement unless you are party to the inner workings of the Shell management.

XPB: Do they have a choice? One way or another Shell will need access to saf if they want to hold on to their predominant position as supplier to the aviation sector. Having remained silent as the SP rose to 7p+ (on nothing other than investors' sentiment) and in so doing rubbished your prediction of a drop to 4p, you have reappeared to add the negative element to this thread. Your opinion is not reflected in the Shell sp, which continues to rise.

You are obviously pretty new to this board. The lack of PR has been a shortcoming for years. It is one of the few things that XPB and I agree upon as a failing of the company.

Do you have a source for that claim. AFAIK SAF has to conform to specific laid down standards in order to be accepted. Surely you are not suggesting that the fuel that VLS will eventually produce will not meet these standards.

From this web site it would appear that there were no trades after 1433pm. The last five trades on the London Stock Exchange site commence at 1623pm, so what happened in between other than XPB posting, at the only time throughout the day that it was true (1622pm), that the sp was down. Curious?

XPB: "The leveling up denouncement is for improvements to towns, cities and villages and their respective vista and functional development. The intent is for people to be happy where they live. ". I assume that your meant announcement, and made a freudian slip, as denouncement better reflects the vast majority of your posts. As usual you have only quoted that part of the Chancellor's statement that supports your argument.

XPB: As usual, select the bit that supports your argument and ignore any comment to the contrary. I didn't cherry pick. You did. Plus ca change! BTW Bayou is a red herring - two different animals in two different countries. We will see if anything changes once Biden gets his feet under the table.

XPB: Velocys is shortlisted for Stage 2 funding from F4C, which vindicates my earlier comment. I suggest that you re-read the F4C objectives, which are listed here:
https://ee.ricardo.com/transport/case-studies/f4c

XPB: Whilst I accept, as does everyone concerned, that the project has not been done before, the processes involved are far from unproven, it is the amalgamation of these processes in one plant that is new. Moreover, the awarding of the F4C grant suggests that HMG is happy with the proposal. It is just you that isn't. I presume that much of your comment came from a "cut & paste" file as it is very familiar. Meanwhile the SP continues to creep up.

ISTR It was more than £2 when Abramovich first got involved!

XPB: Not really - I find the England side too reliant on brawn and one dimensional for my taste. I have never disputed your assertions on the funding issue which is key to both projects but, given the current climate with regard to SAF, I do not share your pessimism and, unlike you, I have back my view by retaining my shares Everyone
is entitled to their opinion but trying to convert others to your view with unsubstantiated statements does nothing other than alienate your readership as recent posts clearly demonstrate.