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.
Akhm,I agree with Petergar,I think they will need significant progress and a contract in place for people to commit to a further fundraise, rhetoric and jam tomorrow won't cut it now I'm afraid.
They have been lucky to have such loyal support over the so many years from the PI's,who believe in the product,and have supported the Board and Mike and Jason in so many occasions.
They simply have to deliver now and go whatever it takes to achieve something signed and concrete.
That's why I think the next 3 months are so critical and I am hoping they do to.
Another fundraise for more wages for a year without achievements simply won't work in my opinion.
I don't disagree but any positive news with the biomsar will be the key I believe as that clearly has more longevity. I guess we shall see over the next couple of months.
The Biosmar test results are due in July.Two working days left in July.
They surely won't be late, will they.
So if they are late, so be it, I am more concerned how successful or not they are, not on the delivery time. If this is a key trigger point then as invested I am hoping they are good enough to move on to the next stage, no doubt our team and MSC are awaiting assurances from OEM’s etc.
Not just a little thing this future fuel business, IMO MSC are no mugs and could have sent us packing ages ago. I will wait for the RNS good or bad, it will come when it’s ready and not before.
Yeah strange how the mood has changed just because the SP has fallen when all projects are still progressing.
IS the consensus that there are concerns that QFI may be cut out of the Utah project.
and is this the cause of the SP drop ?
As far as I gather Petroteq are operating the POSP at present, so would it not be in Petroteqs interests (and ultimately Greenfields) to have the commercial demonstration done asap ?
I wish we'd never heard of BioMSAR. For me this has just been a distraction and should have been kept under wraps until we were commercially supplying MSAR. Not only has it muddied the waters but it may have distracted our top people from "closing a deal". They're scientists/engineers of course, not salesmen hence they will be more comfortable in a lab than a client's boardroom.
Given the limited supply of glycerin, it is too early to be promoting BioMSAR, as it's impossible to guarantee being able to supply it on a large scale commercial basis.
Happy to be proved wrong though.....
I see we got a "naughty step" mention in the latest Premier Miton Fund Manager commentary, although to be fair they seem to remain positive for QFI. My curiosity regarding their contentment led me to believe they have possibly been on the dog to old MK.
Excerpt from the commentary;
"During June, as investors looked through the current inflationary rise, long-dated bond yields have declined. Meanwhile, some of the inflation related share prices have peaked, including many of the Materials, Industrials, and Energy stocks. Hence, the slight pull back of -1.6% in the share price of the Premier Miton UK Smaller Companies Fund during June isn’t related to disappointing trading results.
Rather, it is related to stocks such as Avacta, Quadrise Fuels and Pan-African Resources, where their share prices have declined by around 25% during June despite our view that all three remain very well placed to generate substantial surplus cash in the coming year or two. All of these have already delivered very substantial capital appreciation, and hence given the market cross-currents, were easy pickings for those looking to take profits at a time of more uncertain market trends. In comparison to the fall of -1.6% from the fund, the IA UK Smaller Companies sector returned 0.5% over the month and the FTSE AIM All-Share Index returned -0.5%."
Short-term sector under-performance will not overly bother them, although they will not be happy if things don't improve in the medium term.
I am glad we have heard of it as the globe is looking at an emissions issue especially in shipping. If this can jumped up the ladder for a future fuel that is enviro friendly and if we go forward with a successful LONO with MSC, then IMO many other carriers will jump on us quick style. Yes it has taken longer but MSAR still has its place in Morocco, Mexico etc. Plenty of potential for both fuels, I am also sure the glycerin issue can be dealt with if and when required or even other substitutes that these clever people can deliver.
Only time will tell , but we are many months away from any results yet, long wait ahead
Careful Wonga, you mustn't mention salesman, or even worse order closers, on this board.
‘All three remain very well placed to generate substantial surplus cash in the coming year or two’
Looks to me like they are patient and very pleased to wait a few years for project delivery. A solid back up, if they were not happy they would sell up, I guess they are no quick turnover mugs then like our previous unmentionable outfit.
"I couldn't care less about deadlines"(Indigo). Nor could QFI. I think it sums it up nicely.
Utah has morphed into an opaque situation where all does not seem to be well regards the future direction to be taken by the three main players Valkor, Tomco and Petroteq.
The samples are who knows where and the delay to their dispatch would seem to be part of the dispute between the three.
Greenfield and Petroteq have both issued notice that the 5,000 bbl/day commercial plant FEED study by Valkor subsidiary Crosstrails (no conflict of interest there then) has concluded that 10.2 API bitumen can be produced for $22/bbl excluding corporate costs, SG&A and royalty fees. The selling cost will obviously include all these, plus $10/bbl transport across the country. Let’s say the sales cost -including transport is therefore 22+10=32 and the corporate costs include interest payments on the $110 million plant cost to make an additional $10/ bbl to a total of $42/bbl. Subtract the sales cost of the frack sand of say $5/bbl equivalent and the sales cost becomes $37/bbl.
Canadian bitumen (heavy crude) produced from their tar sands sells at a varying discount to WTI between 10 and 60%.
Heavy crude bitumen such as Utah need complex high conversion refineries, the closest of which are in Texas and California. Utah bitumen therefore needs transport.
The economics of Utah bitumen are marginal, as they have been since the US Navy’s first investigation in 1917.
Maybe you are not down £50k on the last LONO fiasco with Maersk, Tuckman?
No not 50k but double figures but for me it’s either boom or bust. No trading, have a million shares and oh yes maybe wish I sold on the tops and bought at the bottom but I wouldn’t be here still waiting maybe if I was a genius. Wish I saw COVID coming wish I did this and that. I believe we will be successful in the end which is why I am invested, it may take years and many more ups and downs in the SP but here we are and what else can we do but sell up if we are not happy. Sadly we can’t force a deal on anyone we need the customers to want us.
PharaohRocher,
I believe your 2 x $10/bl add ons might be too high and there is 1.5 tons of sand produced per barrel of oil. The sand should sell for $10-20, say $15/ton or $22 per barrel, hence the profit margin is much better. Add to the mix the MSAR option, which reduces some of the transport cost as it would cut out refinery stage and you are left with an even more compelling case.
I'm sure Tomco/Valkor/Petroteq will be aware of the potential benefits of using MSAR but are possibly resorting to some poker tactics by insinuating they have a good business model without MSAR, in order to strengthen their negotiating position prior to agreeing MSAR adoption.
“Sadly we can’t force a deal on anyone we need the customers to want us.” (Times up for my self filtering.)
More succinctly put than my remark, but I don’t begrudge you. The fact is that things are changing so quickly nowadays, including fuels and technology, that the past is loosing its relevance. Best to consider the old days long gone and QFI as a new company. Your losses remain the same, but you will feel better.
Absolutely Tidetime, things are changing extremely quickly these days. COVID has had a major impact and it will be followed up by climate no doubt. We have changed and adapted and hopefully still can get our place in the future and be a successful company eventually. But this is not an easy market to get into considering all the other options available for fuel and major institutions that just are resistant to change. If we are lucky enough to get various LONO’s on different engines with MSC then the patience will be worth it. Throw in a few industrial deals and we could well remember these days of pain. However I still am not blinkered to think that we could fail.
@WongaFC
I totally agree with your last paragraph there with respect to Valkor / Greenfield trying to posture themselves as not needing the MSAR process ahead of any negotiations. All makes for a rather adolescent piece of posturing, sadly all too common.
Neverthless, with Petroteq now operating the POSP, surely it would be up to Petroteq to arrange a commercial demonstration. What possible disadvantage would there be for them to not wish the trial to go ahead ?
“The upgrade to the existing oil sans plant may include a commercial scale demonstration trial of MSAR technology from Quadrise Fuels International plc to produce over 600 bbls of power grade MSAR. Petroteq, Greenfield and Quadrise believe that the use of MSAR technology could potentially add significant value to the oil produced from Utah’s oil sands.” Page 14 of the presentation from Petroteq’s Investor Presentation dated 24th June 2021. I appreciate that they use "may" and "could" but it does seem to suggest that Petroteq, Greenfield and Quadrise are all in agreement of the potential benefits. Let's hope the samples are being tested as we speak.
Thanks for your reply Wonga.
I think the $10/bbl transport cost is about right.
The frack sand at $22/bbl equivalent or $15/tonne is high as the sale price to the oil companies is in tbe Oder of $20/Tonnne. The Petroteq sand will have to be transported to and undergo additional cleaning and sizing / sorting processes by the frack sand company before it can be sold to oil companies as frack sand.
Corporate costs ( including financial) plus G&A I’ll wager will be high, especially financial.
Regardless, MSAR will make the difference between a marginally profitable venture making a refinery crude susceptible to WTI spot market pricing and a relatively stable priced refined product for sale to the end user.
As it has been said, there’s some heavy duty posturing going on.