Ph I knew you would reply with a constructive answer and you have my gratitude an respect for that I had read through the link you attached before and it to is a jumbled view , The IMO decided as far back as 2005 to implement a roadmap for reducing the pollution emitted from the Maritime commercial industry so China/Brazil etc etc have no argument as they must have been well aware of the reductions needed to comply so 2025 should only be an exemption for exceptional circumstances otherwise no point in drafting the roadmap in the beginning and Seafarers are more than aware of the hazards and effects of Nox / Sox Black Soot etc Sometimes its too easy for Pi,s like myself to criticise company actions on the road to commerciality as the hurdles to overcome like compliance, JV,s legislation and MOU,s, groundwork, change of management @ AK, Maersk,Cespsa, QFI,POO,Market sentiment etc etc are immense and all contribute against MSAR commerciality being a foregone conclusion, So no matter what A55 myself and others post it will not affect the end result . BUT bodies like the IMO most definitely can influence & dictate the end game here, So lets hope common sense prevails next week and the MEPC does indeed have a method to there madness
Do we even know yet if there is a scrubber big enough for a 64 Megawatt engine?
It's a difficult time also for the decision to be made with shipping companies now struggling and the prospect of raising prices of everything that gets to us by sea. Whatever the decision, I believe, will be good for MSAR as it will enable it's profile to be raised. However it has to be signed off as a marine fuel first and everything's looking good for that. I see MSAR as one of the 'low hanging' fruit mentioned in the Guardian article above.
The company had to progress the CEPSA route for LONO which has caused the delays of the past but has now got themselves in a far better place for the jump to full commercialization. (see the slider on the front page of the new website!)
One things for sure though, it's not just about sulphur (which actually contributes to global cooling), PM's , Black Carbon, and NOX is also coming to the fore as major contributors.
The questions seem very reasonable. I'd be keen to know the answers myself. Also curious who is the "largest founding shareholder" that you refer to?
A challenging past though however necessarily mean that the company isn't on the verge of big things. As they say in Hollywood, it takes a lifetime to be an overnight success!
The overriding consideration is that QFI is in bed with Akzo, Cepsa, and Maersk. Huge players that have made serious commitments. If this did not have a very serious chance of success, then why are they involved?
SO Taking the below into consideration , One would have though If the committee are fully aware of MSAR,s ( and other emulsion fuels ) existence and current progress " LONO conclusion Mid 17 " , The decision is a no brainer in favour of 2020 with an amendment of maybe member states provide grants for the fitting of scrubbers
Hopefully the more knowledgeable posters like Ph / DP/Berty can help me out here as there these seems to be a bit of conflict regarding this coming week,s IMO emissions MEPC conference agenda The roadmap for cleaning up pollution from ships was set out in 2005 then adopted in 2008 with a clear end implementation of 2020 / 2025 ?????? Now we have
IMO commissioned a review of the availability of low sulphur fuel oil for use by ships, to help Member States determine whether a new lower global cap on sulphur emissions from international shipping shall come into effect on 1 January 2020 or be deferred until 1 January 2025. Taking into account The terms of reference for the review were decided by the MEPC. They include: o Assessment of the predicted demand for compliant fuel oil; and o Assessment of the predicted supply of compliant fuel oil, based on the estimated ability of the refinery industry to supply the projected demand for marine fuel oil meeting the global 0.50% m/m sulphur limit required, starting in 2020. And Yes, as part of the demand modelling the review takes into account the predicted uptake of alternative measures to low sulphur fuel oil to meet the requirements, such as scrubbers.
So it seems they have fast tracked the decision to be made @ MEPC 70 so companies have time to comply by 2020
The MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 14.8 requires that the review “shall be completed by 2018”. This could be interpreted as a decision having to made, at the latest by either MEPC 71 (May 2017) or MEPC 73 (Autumn 2018).
The report was submitted by 10 August 16, So all the necessary people will have read the report prior to the meeting and will have made there decision BUT Also and the most important regards MSAR is
A review of the standard set forth in subparagraph 1.3 of this regulation shall be completed by 2018 to determine the availability of fuel oil to comply with the fuel oil standard set forth in that paragraph and shall take into account the following elements: .1 the global market supply and demand for fuel oil to comply with paragraph 1.3 of this regulation that exist at the time that the review is conducted; .2 an analysis of the trends in fuel oil markets; and .3 any other relevant issue. THE TREND IN FUEL OIL MARKETS What bothers me slightly , ( taking into account vessel availability / logistics ) Why did Maersk & QFI not push on for the completion of LONO and MSAR 2 as a proven certified alternative compliance ( with Scrubbers) bunker fuel to be a commercial ready to use alternative fuel option included in the report ? The other slightly confusing aspect is IF they have worked for the last 11 years towards a goal of 2020 implementation ( And it seems they want 2020 conclusion fast track MEPC 70 decision ) Why even consider 2025 as an extension UNLESS there is no other cert
You've copied this entire posting from a cretin on another site mate. I can't work out your motives. You claim to be an investor but you continue to post garbage in an attempt to rubbish the company. We know your investment strategy is to buy high sell low so I can only assume you are trying to achieve a lower share price so that you can sell. Very strange behaveour for a self proclaimed millionaire with a big red Mercedes.
"FIRING OF MSAR® ON 340MWE BOILER AT KARLSHAMN POWER PLANT BACKGROUND The plant is located on the south coast of Sweden and is operated by Karlshamn Kraft AB, part of E.ON Utility Group. The plant has been operating since the early 1970`s and primarily as a peak shaving and reserve facility for when there was insufficient hydro and nuclear capacity within the Swedish system. The plant comprises of three oil-fired 340MWe Units and MSAR® tests were performed on Unit 3. Unit 3 is retrofitted with Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP), a Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) system and a Selective Catalytic Reducing (SCR) system for NOx emission control. The existing fuel system was adapted for MSAR® and a total of 700m³ was manufactured at the Power Plant, prepared and stored in one of the Unit 3 day tanks prior to testing."
So we had an MMU transported to Sweden & manufacturing MSAR there - When?
If the power Co didnt take up the tech ( Like the Lithuania plant before) - Why not?
If MSAR is the cost saving power generator it claims to be then these opportunities should have resulted in a sale - If not & like the KSA test opportunity - Why not?
Wall St Journal: If enacted in 2020, marine-diesel prices could surge as high as $1,000 a metric ton, said Gregg Schwartz, director of strategic development at fuel supplier Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc., at a September event in New York. “This shock will really crush an already beleaguered [shipping] industry.”
Marine gas oil, which is nearly identical to marine diesel and has a lower sulfur content than fuel oil, on Thursday cost $464.50 a metric ton in Singapore, according to pricing service S&P Global Platts. Fuel oil sold for $283.97 a ton
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.