Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video 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.
I don't think I said that an Orimulsion comparison wasn't valid, in fact I think I said the opposite. Obviously, as I said, Orimulsion is a technologically more primitive iteration of MSAR, but it's raison d'etre was totally different and it was sold for next to nothing as, essentially, a coal replacement.
Remember, at the time when HFO was $19 a barrel, Orimulsion was $1.20 a barrel. From this point of view, we're really talking apples and oranges here. Orimulsion was a technology to make a very specific product (Orinoco bitumin) useful at all.
JM has spoken about this a bit in the past.
Whilst they are definitely related in a conceptual sense (both OIW emulsions), MSAR is several generations removed on its chemical and physical characteristics; it is superior on all technical metrics. They did ensure compatibility by having an "Orimulsion-spec" MSAR product at one point, I believe, so you could do a switchover with no modifications.
AIUI, Orimulsion required preheating, had relatively large fuel droplet sizes, and fairly poor stability. I believe it was basically only able to work with Orinoco feedstock (which was its stated aim, of course).
MSAR is a generalised product that can work with any feedstock (and even heterogeneous feedstocks), has tuneable stability, and requires no preheating. It also has better burnout due to smaller droplet size. I would imagine the surfactants involved are at least somewhat different as Quadrise's come from AkzoNobel's portfolio; I don't know for sure, though.
Indigo, the comparison to Orimulsion is completely valid.
http://tiny.cc/b4jcgz
MSAR is Orimulsion Mark II, it was Jason and Bernard who spent 10 years in Venezuela making the stuff for BP and PDVSA.
No, I think we can agree that IWs legacy was awful and that the Captain Kirk strategy is far safer.
I think Mike Kirk and the board realise they have a finite window of opportunity to get underway. As for the "14 years" story? In reality and until recently, QFI ignored ALL opportunities with the exception of Maersk and KSA, believeing at least one of them would come up trumps. A high risk strategy for sure but had it worked we`d have declared Ian Williams a genius! He wasn`t a genius as it turned out for the reasons we know all too well. However his strategy was a sensible use of company resources at that time and it sure looked like we were on the cusp. So in the era of Mike Kirk its only fair to judge him on the strategy he has employed over the last 2 years, Maersk and KSA were not his projects. He chose a broader approach which we hope lands something AND potentially includes both Maersk and KSA again! Not a bad result so far I`d say, he now has to deliver along the lines he himself acknowledged.
If they don’t produce a rabbit of some description it could be a lively AGM
Fyoz
Appreciate your reply personally I bought in big before and while the Maersk trial was underway. Once the trial was over sold 95% and had a headache with a six figure loss. Have always loved the story and thought one day the BOD would find some commercial future for MSAR so against my better judgement find myself holding a similar number for share as before however average price is currently 4.5p. My thoughts are I could easily lose the lot however one Middle East trial or one bunker confirmed and the domino effect could happen. I would real like to hear a very honest appraisal from the board at the AGM as to where we really are on all the potential partners with timelines
Not really. Orimulsion is quite different to our product in market and price (not chemistry, where it's comparable).
And Venezuela is a nation state with more oil than anyone else in the world flogging a dirty cheap HFO alternative. It's not so similar to be honest.
"The reason why it hasn't happened is that it's very difficult"
Indigo, we've heard that for a while and I'll admit that even I used to believe it, "It's a very conservative market, it's difficult to get these big companies to change." But I've recently realised that it's a load of old tosh.
The Venezuelans, that's right the Venezuelans, not the most advanced society on the planet, in fact it's probably close to slipping back into the category of third world country, they managed to flog more than 60 million tons of emulsion fuel. Now Orimulsion is vastly inferior to our amazing product, but they still managed to find various customers for it in at least 6 or 7 different countries around the world, so it can't be that bloody difficult, can it? But after almost 14 years QFI still haven't managed to sell a single commercial barrel of MSAR, which is an infinitely better product than Orimulsion was. It doesn't add up, it doesn't make sense. It can't all be down to bad luck, disputes with the electricity company, hitting a buoy. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune seem to follow QFI wherever it goes.
For me the buck has to stop with the management. They've had a commercially viable product which they could sell since the day Quadrise was set up, but have so far completely failed in the last 14 years. It's a simple as that really.
I'm giving them until the end of January, if I don't see absolutely CONCRETE progress in the next two and a half months, I'm out. A commercial contract, a huge trial announced in the Middle East, something along those lines and I'll be satisfied. But if the share price isn't significantly north of here by then, I'm selling up. Kirk said towards the end this video back in January
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juo0QqsdV9k
that 2019 would be the year they deliver. I'll give him one months grace after that. I've had enough of his broken promises.
I think all of us who hold this share believe progress is being made behind the scenes otherwise we'd have sold. I've been in contact with QFI about the missed deadline as posted here, they're not worried, it doesn't impact the overall timeline and the milestones were purposely aggressive in their timings.
However yes, this is depressing as hell, I think that much is a given.
46G
I was replying to a specific comment that absolutely nothing is going on. It was stated as a fact, and I was pointing out that even in this quiet year the BoD are busy doing things. I'm not blinkered, I know I may lose my investment, that 's the nature of pre-commercial companies, but we only need one contract (in my opinion) for us all to get a return out of this, and that one contract can literally land anytime. So the fact that we're not seeing progress doesn't mean it isn't being made
The reason why it hasn't happened is that it's very difficult - it's like electric cars, the question for most people still, where do you charge them and this is with the fact that there's already a comprehensive electricity grid everywhere. In this case even if you want to use a new fuel, it has to be bunkered in a number of different places. And even Maersk probably doesn't have the clout to tell 8 ports around the world to bunker MSAR just for them. I was never keen on the shipping side of this coin for that reason.
Fyoz
In the last 2-3 years loads of MOU etc have been announced. They are a good start however Nothing has happened with any of them. Even this year one was announced with additional warrants being issue in a September if by then they moved on to the next production stage. Nothing happened, deadline missed, no update as to why this did not happen. I think you should stop shooting down every slightly negative comment as many of us are LTH, on side and have huge holdings but we would like to see some tangible commercial partnerships moving forward with some speed to repeat what has been said many times.
foxm
35,000 x 390 x $50 = $682.5 million a year in savings, or $1.75m per ship. Very daft not to.
I could not agree more. So why has it not already happened with any shipping group already ....Must be something we are all missing?
Take your point Fyoz, I agree stuff maybe going on but nothing thats materially positive and making a jot of difference to the company or its SP
BC:- "Absolutely nothing is going on."
Well just look back at the 40 or so RNS's this year and you'll realise that's a pretty stupid comment. There is always something going on, just maybe not exactly what we'd liketo be going on
I was referring to Maersk being in a closed period.
The thing is somebody always gets a wiff of what going on and I'm afraid the SP and volume tell the story. Absolutely nothing is going on.
Why are we in a closed period, AGM doesn't mean we are in closed period.
"IF Maersk go for it(they have got to be daft not to) MSC will surely come on board also."
Back of fag packet calculation. The graph on page 2 of the General Meeting presentation, MSAR Economic Viability, seems to show the savings from MSAR vs HFO as steady for the next 18 months, about $140/t. For the end user, let's say 35% of the savings for them, so MSAR would be about $50/t cheaper to buy than HFO.
250 MSC ships + 140 Maersk = 390. If all those ships burn on average 100 tons HFO a day, that's 35,000 tons a year.
35,000 x 390 x $50 = $682.5 million a year in savings, or $1.75m per ship. Very daft not to.
"IF Maersk go for it(they have got to be daft not to) MSC will surely come on board also."
From the Annual Report -
"We have continued our discussions with Maersk in relation to the Royalty Agreement and related future MSAR® opportunities."
If MSC did also use MSAR, presumably Maersk would make money from it via the Royalty Agreement.
On the first page of the recently released Annual Report, Maersk Line are now included in the map of Project Opportunities, so that would suggest they have already knocked on QFI's door. We have worked with Lithuania and Canada in the past, but they are not shown. If the Maersk project wasn't now currently active, why include them?
http://tiny.cc/w37agz
'You would think that with Maersk fitting up to 140 ships etc' .
They might well be already talking..Remember they are in a closed period and cannot give out certain information and remember how tight lipped they were when the LONO trials were actually happening. ' Maersk has formed an alliance with Swiss-based MSC, which is betting big on scrubbers.' The savings are immense as we all know but IF Maersk go for it(they have got to be daft not to) MSC will surely come on board also. What a lovey thought for a wet Friday. Have a good weekend all.
You would think that with Maersk fitting up to 140 ships they would be knocking on the Quadrise door wanting MSAR to get the commercial advantage. However all seems quiet on the Marine front, what is wrong is it Quadrise or MSAR thats the problem.
See this is what they don't need you about buoys. Buoys are often put in place to warn ships about hitting significant corporate policy changes on the future of shipping fuels.
Maersk forced to change course in global race for environmental gains
https://shippingwatch.com/secure/carriers/article11752841.ece
While Maersk is publicly criticizing the exhaust gas cleaning systems, the group has still begun to install them on a large scale. Smart choice, say analysts.
In the fight to keep costs down, A.P. Moeller-Maersk has begun to install numerous of the exhaust gas cleaning systems, scrubbers, which the group has in the past otherwise severely criticized.
Scrubbers represent one of the methods to ensure compliance with the shipping industry's new environmental regulations, which are set to come into force at the turn of the year. The other option – which Maersk as been advocating – is to bunker cleaner fuel.
"Maersk has been forced to change its stance on scrubbers, and this gives a good idea of what they think about the cost savings that can be achieved by installing them," writes Alphaliner analyst Tan Hun Joo in an email.
The shipping industry is competing on paper-thin margins, and the savings achieved by installing scrubbers compared to the use of cleaner fuels can produce solid gains, as it looks now.
"It looks like they, by choosing scrubbers, gain a significant competitive edge compared to those opting for low-sulfur fuel," says Johan Eliasson, analyst at financial firm Kepler Cheuvreux.
Installing a scrubber requires a one-off investment of USD 5-8 million. On the other hand, it turns out that fuel with low sulfur content costs around USD 200 more per ton than the traditional heavy fuel that one use on ships with scrubbers installed. And this adds up.
According to Alphaliner, Maersk plans to install scrubbers on around 140 of its ships. The number, which Maersk declines to confirm, is far higher than previously estimated.
Even though Maersk currently plans to install exhaust gas cleaners on a smaller part of its combined fleet than many of its competitors, the shipping group still holds a strong card to play.
This is because Maersk has formed an alliance with Swiss-based MSC, which is betting big on scrubbers. On the biggest and most important trades, the two shipping companies share costs for fuel and slots on their ships, and Maersk benefits from this.
"On the big tradelanes, the alliances that sail with scrubbers will determine freight rates," says Eliasson.
Maersk is in a silent period ahead of publishing its interim report, and as such the company declined to comment on this story. But CEO Søren Skou acknowledged the large financial benefits of scrubbers in relation to its second quarter results. At the time, he also said:
"We have always been very clear that we're not very excited about scrubber technology."