We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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 see any buyout until QFI have commercial revenue in MSC.
“Just got to hope something big is in the offing ”
The “something big” in the offing is already known to us. We are currently preparing for a LONO trial later this year and an industrial trial in Morocco Q3 which should lead quite quickly to commercial discussions. I consider that pretty big.
The share price is where it is due to an abundance of cheap shares for sale, it’s really that simple. The reasons for sale are not 100% known but it’s probably safe to say has nowt whatever to do with what QFI are currently engaged in or their future prospects. The current owners want rid of their shares at whatever price the market can achieve, so an element of “distressed seller” seems to exist.
Had the seller(s) kept their stock, there’s also little doubt we’d be somewhere North of 3p by now as buying was vigorous and sustained after the MSC news. The market is generally bearish but I’m confident we will make progress as things develop toward year end. Get the sellers out of the way, successful trial in Morocco and hopefully a commercial agreement to follow will change the landscape completely. Not saying the SP will boom to dizzy heights but our share price will better reflect company value.
Wonga, yup looks like price is being kept 135-140 however this is probably me wanting to make excuses. We still don't know the reason for the heavy selling into the MSC news. Just got to hope something big is in the offing and that if the price is being kept down for some heavy buying or maybe even a takeover, would MSC or Shell buy us out. Just hope talking wtfdik, gla
feels like someone wants to keep the price down but I suppose most of the bullish investors are already (over) committed and there is little in the way of newcomers to change things.
I expect we're stuck here until possible Morocco update???
Volume has just dried up.
Which is depressing. You can buy cheaper now than before the msc framework agreement was announced.
Fitzy not sure the selling has stopped
For sure!
Our fuels are better in many ways, all proven in trials, not just numbers plucked from the air to fill up a sales brochure.
TCO
Performance
Efficiency
Longevity
Wear factors
Emissions
Etc
Haggis - I would have been very concerned if QFI hadn't known about ultrasonic emulsification in 2012 (and the possibility of using it on board) as it has been around for 50+ years in many industries. I doubt if there is any valid intellectual property associated with using ultrasonics in the preparation of residual fuels (though I may be wrong) and this is where I believe QFI have a distinct advantage. No-one can copy it other than through QFI.
MSC have not committed to “taking our fuels commercially”, get your facts correct when posting Haggis. They’ve committed to trials at this stage. You can read whatever you want into their actions but don’t state as fact something that is not true.
The selling wasn't based on how close we are to news, so why would that change?
Question, do you think the selling has stopped because we are so close to news , ?
I've just been through my many emails to QFI. I can see they were well aware of Ultrasonic on board blending going right back as far as 2012 as we discussed it at the time, and they were not worried about it at all, shrugging it off as very much inferior to MSAR, and since then we have improved to MSAR2 and now bioMSAR as an alternative.
Suffice to say, on board blending using ultrasonic cavitation has been around over a decade. Is it now fuelling MSC, Maersk, or even a meaningful part of the shipping or power industry? Nope.
Neither is MSAR, MSAR2 or BioMSAR, but at least we can get straight in there with the biggest shipping company in the World, one that's doing multiple trials and is spending many tens of millions on the trials, such is it's commitment to taking our fuels commercially.
"Ultrasonic emulsification: An overview on the preparation of different emulsifiers-stabilized emulsions"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224420306142
Sorry that should be bulker not bunker.
Well if they say it lasts upto 6 months I don't see see why that should be doubted as they would have done research and tests so as to back up that claim. Also regardless of whether Msar is better or not a major bulk carrier has saw fit to trial the fuel so is not inferior to Msar in the fact that it could get a commercial deal.
And before any naysayers step in, I'm not going negative. Still very positive on our prospects just don't like to be complacent with regards to any competition.
After all we are targeting the bunker market as well and was wondering if this was our bulk carrier.
I had a read Vince. On face value it can't deliver the percentages of C02 reduction that Quadrise can deliver, nor the bottom line saving from going direct to the refinery for residue, as currently the PoC appears to be based on emulsifying HSFO. They are a competitor and one to keep an eye on. As DoN noted, how long the emulsification lasts may be an issue.
Suggest you send it to QFI and get their view of it to share on here. I'm thinking there's probably a stack of things that make it inferior to BioMSAR and MSAR, but best to get that info from the horse's mouth.
https://www.quadrisefuels.com/contacts/
https://fowesolutions.net/cavitech-technology/
Did anybody actually look at the Fowe website to see what the cavitech technology is.
rpg7 & Hurrycane -- thank you very much for those really excellent comments. If you don't mind, I might have to come back to you gents for a future Quorum edition; I've been looking for some experts to add some (short) technically-oriented opinion pieces. We're very lucky to count a good number of chemical industry veterans amongst the ranks of QFI shareholders.
The longevity of the emulsion is a bit of a problem without the aid of an emulsifying agent.Maybe the particle size and relative specific gravitiy variations are minimal.I think without some sort of intervention the emulsion will destabilise -the timescale will be relative to the blend.
DON - crude oil, HFO, residue, bitumen, asphaltenes etc all contain indigenous surfactants which are oil soluble (naturally). These stabilise the water-in-oil emulsion. The main advantage of water-in-oil emulsions is that they can be manufactured on board using simple emulsification devices. However, the heavier the oil phase the higher the temperature it needs to be in order to pump to the emulsification device. Water-in-oil emulsions never burn out completely and so MSAR and bioMSAR possess significantly better combustion characteristics as far as soot and NOx are concerned.
Dustofnations;
I think the 'Cavitech' process may work by using a positive displacement pumping system to mix the constituents. Continually pumping around a closed loop system can create a lot of shear stress. to the 'mix'.This should be one way to emulsification-maybe?
Many years ago the company i worked for at the time used a similar mixing technique to produce a slurry of constant concentration.Sometimes when the mixing cycle was overextended the resulting physical characteristics of the slurry resembled that of an emulsion. The type of mixing pump used in that case was a stator rotor type.
rpg7 -- that's why I find the idea a 'bare' water-in-fuel emulsion could last 6 months surprising (i.e. nothing to stabilise). I'm not a chemist, but I don't know of a mechanism by which that seems possible. Unless they are using a very loose definition of what they mean by 'lasts 6 months'. I guess because they are using HFO rather than resid, the density difference between the phases is lower, and hence phase separation is also slower? Also perhaps smaller particle sizes can be achieved with cavitation, but they don't have any of that data available in the open.
I recall the same iantobach. I think that was the Maersk Singapore, if memory serves correctly?
I seem to remember that before the early stages of the Maersk trials one of their ships carried MSAR (without it being used ) for 18 months so that they could test that it was still useable and had not degraded.