Connecting MSAR with the job ad is imo a very good theory but it's not a fact. It's only a theory. It's probably a better theory than CyclOx (which probably has nothing to do with HFO 'experience') but it's still only a theory. It may be possible to rule out many possibilities (some below), but ruling out other theories doesn't make MSAR factually connected with the job advert. Without the letters 'MSAR' in the job advert, we simply do not know, yet. AIMHO only. MSAR KSI WiF GLEAMS CyclOx B21st and whatever else
Creature. You have successfully removed the last crumb of doubt most fair-minded posters have about your motives and credibility, in short you should be thouroughly embarrassed. ArgyllEagle has been very kind to you in his critique of your 'research', I dont feel so inclined, it is a joke and as I said an embarrassment, yes I`m embarrassed for you. The article you quote is 1 year old, Maersk are this company`s first customer, its in early development, and yet your hypothisis suggests that they are now ready to go into mass production across the globe at all fuel hubs to produce this wonder fuel in place of HFO and now MSAR2 of course? But wait, why would the Maersk post-holder in your hypothisis require to negotiate with refineries for this new fuel when we know its not crude based? I could go on but its pointless, the only reason I respond at all is that its now getting funny, was boring before but now we are into the realms of real fiction and I like a good story, just needs a far-fetched plot and I`m there, cant wait for the next instalment of the 'The World according to Creature'. I know I`ve stolen the title from another book but it sort of fits.
Creature You conveniently ignore the piece in the advert that states that the candidates should have experience with HFO. We also now have two separate sources confirming the fuel is msar. It would take years for the infrastructure to be in place to produce the large quantities of ethanol required by Maersk, simply to add 10% ethanol to MGO. They even mention in the next 3 to 7 years. You are grasping at straws. Are you going to answer the questions in my previous post?
Even better still why dont Maersk just go down the route of getting nuclear reactors on board like the submarines and big aircraft carriers, cost of implenting that would be huge though but you would essentially get free power for 25 years without having to fill up. MSAR provides the benefits of not having to makes huge changes to the fleets engines at a cost saving of $1 million a year. Biomass, LNG, Nuclear reactors and even these balmy ideas of powering these boats with sails are a long way into the future IMO. For the short to medium term MSAR covers the marine market for Maersk very well (if all goes well with the trials that is). It also comes with the added benefit of not having to change anything on board the ship for the fuel, cost reductions and also the added green benefits of the fuel. No one can for see the next black swan events, but in the mean time i firmly believe (if the trials come back good) MSAR provides excellent benefits in the short to intermediate term for Maersk.
Maybe run this past your secret contacts ;) 'Progression Industry will develop a sustainable marine fuel…….for Maersk Oil Trading.' http://www.tue.nl/en/university/departments/mechanical-engineering/news/progression-industry-develops-alternative-marine-fuel-for-maersk/ "Maersk Oil Trading is urgently looking for a talented and experienced individual" https://jobsearch.maersk.com/vacancies/publication?sap-client=500&sap-language=EN&pinst=005056934E5D1EE3AEFED2D2F1630D8D&callback= Have a nice Easter. Good night.
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.