The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Probably. Whenever I see a headline saying "Scrubbers", I'm there like a flash. Doesn't take long to find out it's not what I was hoping for.
hughjampton if that was the case I doubt he would be boasting about it on his LinkedIn. Or was your reply an attempt at humour?
Perhaps he meant without comparison because nothing had ever been that bad.
Not sure tests were a failure as the Maersk project manager himself stated on his LinkedIn that the project was "without comparison".
Yeh Maersk obviously contractually committed to trial - but very half hearted approach to it & cut short at drop of hat - Thay had obviously made up mind not to proceed before trial - By committing contractually to trial then QFI may have triggered NDA clause re full positive results & scuppered selling to rivals? If the above is the case then QFI should state that Maersk have enforced an NDA on the results and that their silence has been forced - that would speak volumes Failure of QFI to do this raises the likely prospect that the tests were a failure IMHO
Hi pcjoe i attended the AGM (as usual) and did ask Mike a few questions on this subject and the consensus was that Maersk had left us hi and dry and walked away and had not really helped in promoting QFI or Maersk and as a result did not believe they should benefit . I always have had some suspicions on maersk as you do not get to be such a major player by being nice ! And was highly suspicious - still am of the - surprisingly low hours ALLEGEDLY spent running on Msar and how do we know these hours were right ? the only one is maersk. i was worried in case they knew it worked , kept quiet let us go bust and buy us for peanuts
QFI should come clean on this - Either there is an NDA covering full disclosure of succesful test results being enforced by Maersk to deter others taking up the tech (sabotage) - Or QFI are using an NDA to hide evidence of test failure from their long suffering shareholders - Which is it?
That would explain it, though surprised to hear that Maersk would or could exercise that right if they have walked away? - A bit like a bride dumping a guy at the alter and telling him he cant see anyone else thereafter for a few years - If Maersk does have that power & the trial was a toal undisclosed success, then the whole thing was a total charade designed to scupper Msar success - Maersk commited to a trial ( unfinished due to the suspicious Buoygate) & then allowed to sabotage future prospects? Thinking logically - Im not sure about this - something not right - How can QFI be looking for new partners if they cant discuss the efficacy of their product because of a live NDA with an estranged Maersk? - Clarification from the Co required for shareholders methinks - I am not currently one
Prep H, As someone who has drafted numerous NDAs in my time the term of the NDA is defined within in it. There will be a period where disclosures can be made between the parties and a further period where what has been disclosed between the parties cannot be released. Any IP developed between the parties during the term of the disclosures is usually defined within the NDA in terms of ownership.
Joe Unfortunately, unless specifically agreed by all parties , I don't think NDAs have expiry dates.
Prep H "As DPE stated, no technical information/ results / data was forthcoming from the Maersk LONO trials. Now, I wonder why that would be? If they were bad, Maersk would clearly have come out with them as a justification for not deciding to continue with MSAR." As far as I know QFI are not bound by any NDA with Maersk any more - I also wondered why result elements of the marine trials had been withheld? - I am sure QFI would have offered full disclosure if results good - Why Wouldnt they? KSA the safest & best bet by a mile now of the two options - Not been in here for a while but monitoring the situation - Last minute "Commision" issues probably to blame for latest hold up - Luckily the third party inermediaries can keep QFI "clean" in that regard - Are that lot paid an annual retention fee by QFI i wonder..