DPE Thank you very much for taking the time to so comprehensively respond to my earlier post. As a frequent reader ( though not poster) of this BB, I had in fact seen your earlier posts. Notwithstanding the response of Quadrise IR, which was probably a reasonable view at the time it was made, I still have my anxieties. If the project were proceeding in an orderly fashion then it might be reasonable to go for an all encompassing contract with a refiner, but this most certainly does not seem to be the case. The project is stalled and needs some action to get it back on track. I accept that batch production in the manner of the POC would be sub-optimal, but then so is the present situation. There may be additional expense but I believe this is a bullet that should be bitten. If Quadrise themselves cannot totally finance this then it seems reasonable to ask a project partner to contribute or make a loan to achieve this. To a company the size of Maersk, the additional costs of batch production with a small refiner would be peanuts. The fuel savings that would accrue to them as a result of more quickly bringing the product to market would swamp these costs. I cannot understand why this is not being done. This is one of the factors that prompts my reservations regarding Maersk.
Below is the reply from Quadrise IR to my question relating to a switch to a batch run for LONO fuel.
The batch run alternative has been considered but the combination of distraction and high cost of sub optimum logistics continues to effectively rule it out. Also the likely variations to the forward timetable which was as anticipated late 2014 ,and the progress made to date, would not warrant a change of plan at this stage.
To follow on to my previous post and perhaps answer the 2nd part of your post.
Some months back I asked a very similar question with regards to producing LONO fuel in a similar way to that of PoC fuel such as to speed up production and LONO Basically they answered that this had been considered, however, they were too far along in negotiations and would not gain anything in doing so.
I will try to find their exact reply and post it for you
I post below a partial comment from the forum which was a reply from Quadrise IR
"There was always some uncertainty regarding the final form and nature of contracts for the LONO programme and beyond. The Heads of Terms approach was considered in the interest of time and progress. Given the depth and detail in preliminaries, little purpose may now be served and probable that a Heads of Terms step may no longer apply. "
End of quote
The above was the basis for my comments, in that all aspects of the LONO program may well be written within the contract and given proviso's in such as way that each stage has to obviously be successful.
I do not know the so called Roll Out volumes, but all parties will wish to protect themselves in the event of failure, and equally be prepared in the more likely event of success
Same User name, feel free to check with moderators, but correct, rarely visit. As an investor not a trader happy to sit and wait, I too believe in the product. I pop into this BB every few days to catch up . As it happens I was asking the question to gauge sentiment.. I am considering a small top up given the drop in SP (and before you say it not relying on others opinions to shape my investment strategy). This is definitely my last post on the matter.
I am the holder of (for me) a large investment in Quadrise and read this BB on a regular basis. Like many others I am appreciative of the very many knowledgeable posts. Unfortunately I am, like many fellow investors I’m sure, becoming increasingly worried about progress of any sort and the possibility of a large negative hit. It appears to me as if the BOD is acting like a rabbit caught in car headlights; frozen into inactivity and not knowing what to do next. My concern is that whilst they are seemingly sat wringing their hands in anguish, the rest of the world are not sitting on theirs. On an almost daily basis we are being told of developments in the field of marine fuel technology, prompted by the catalyst of changes in emission standards. I have some fear that, whilst Quadrise wait for something to happen, someone will announce a development that will make MSAR2 obsolete. I read the post of earth DPE at 10:30 this morning and thought that it did not seem to be entirely logical, I post the relevant section of it below for convenience. “If my understanding is correct, the "Heads of terms" protocol is no longer being sought, instead it is the full contract terms from LONO fuel production to full roll out of MSAR2 within North West Europe.
So personally I am hoping that when news is released that the contract terms will include all the stages through to final LONO completion including various provisos, one of which may include the issue of an interim LONO per engine manufacturer.” My thoughts relate to the significance of the LONO in any relationship with a refiner. The LONO is a test which must be passed before any full roll-out can take place. It would seem therefore that no refiner would be rushing into a full contract until there was the certainty of the LONO, particularly as one now reads of CAPEX cutbacks in the oil industry. In such circumstances it seems to me that Quadrise, in association with its backers, should take on full responsibility for obtaining the LONO by its own means (they have done it before, admittedly on a smaller scale, with the POC). This would not only speed up the project, but would significantly strengthen their negotiating position. I would think that Maersk could easily help in achieving this, though I too if have my doubts as to their commitment.
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.