Member Info for 46Gillingham

Dear Peter,

I want to start by pointing back to your video update in March, where you described the MSC trial as very close, said you felt it was quite close, spoke about how we would scale up, said terms and conditions were standard, confirmed you'd had face-to-face meetings, and stated that MSC was committed to the two trials.

I am genuinely very disappointed. I had hoped that with all of these comments, and given everything we have heard over the course of the last eight to nine months, the trial would have started by the end of Q2. It hasn't.

I cannot fathom what everyone in the business is actually doing, day after day, month after month, that prevents these trials from going live. You keep telling us you're very close, that there's hardly anything left to sort out, and that you are 100% clear on what the remaining points are. If that's genuinely the case, why can't you simply get round the table with MSC and Cargill and resolve them?

This is what I find most staggering. As investors, we are completely in the dark as to what these remaining issues actually are. If they are not major matters which your own comments suggest they aren't why haven't they been sorted out by now? ( How long do you need) And if they are in fact major issues, then why are we being told repeatedly that we're "very close" and that you're "100% clear" on everything outstanding?

The complete lack of visibility is staggering, both for shareholders and, it would seem, even within your own team's communications to us for a company that has been pursuing this same trial for years.

I would strongly suggest that you carry out a proper investor update not a brief video clip, but something with real substance and proper time given to it, that genuinely sets out where we stand. After six months of meetings and engagement with MSC and Cargill, you must by now be either genuinely very close (within weeks), or you must know that you are nowhere near it. There can't really be an in-between at this stage.

I also want to be direct about the financial position. This business is running out of money, and on current trends will be partially short of funds by the end of the year. You effectively have six months to sort this out. What happens to the company if you don't?

I have to ask you, do you really believe investors will support another fundraising round on the back of weak communication and no substance as to why none of our projects have actually gone live? Peter, we deserve a proper update. We need to understand what is genuinely happening and what it will take to get this done.

You need to push our prospective partners hard, and get something over the line. Time is no longer on our side.

Peter, we truly are backing you. But that support has to be matched with genuine transparency and, eventually, genuine delivery.

I look forward to your response.

Fellow shareholders,

I want to be honest and own up to something. I have consistently told you throughout Q1 and again a couple of times in Q2 that I was hopeful these deals would be signed within Q2. There's only tomorrow left in the quarter, and I doubt very much that anything is going to land in the next 24 hours. So, clearly, I got it wrong.

I want to be upfront about that rather than just quietly let it slide.

I was genuinely hopeful, largely on the back of the rhetoric we were getting from the board from Q4 last year through into Q1 the confidence, the sense that things were close, the repeated suggestions that we were nearly there. Clearly, something is continuing to stop these deals being done. We heard about the VAT issue some time ago, and we know that's now resolved which, in fairness, was a useful piece of insight from the board at the time. They have told us everything else is being actively worked on and that it should all be "soon."

So I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that something happens very soon. If it does, it will be a genuine game changer for all of us as shareholders. But the honest truth is, none of us know when that might actually be.

What I really don't want is to arrive at the next AGM, a full year down the line, having said all of this, and still find ourselves with nothing signed even with a new CEO and all of the additional talent that has been brought in over the past year. That would be a very difficult position for the board to defend, and an even harder one for shareholders to keep tolerating.

I'll keep pushing, keep asking, and keep you all updated. But I wanted to be straight with you about getting this one wrong.

Thefaceman. I asked Peter back in March about this back in March

Firstly, to clarify the position regarding Nouryon, the new expiry date is entirely unrelated to the Company's cash position.

The existing Nouryon agreement has been in place since 2019 and has been extended several times. Nouryon were only prepared to extend the current agreement until 31 October 2026, as any extension beyond that date would require a new agreement using their updated contract template in line with their internal policies.

We therefore fully expect a new agreement to be executed when the current agreement expires.

BryanWAllen everything I know i have shared

Yes BarkingCrazy it was a large volume order that was fulfilled in full

Fellow shareholders,

I wanted to share an update. I emailed Peter earlier this morning raising concerns about ExxonMobil's recent B30 biofuel announcement and whether it represented a competitive threat to MSAR and bioMSAR. I have to say, I was very grateful to receive a reply so quickly at 7:40am UK time, no less.

Here's a summary of what he said.

On whether ExxonMobil's B30 blend competes directly with MSAR or bioMSAR, Peter explained that bioMSAR is actually an alternative to Advanced FAME B30, and that ExxonMobil's version incorporates Distilled FAME Residue a feedstock that Quadrise has also tested in bioMSAR, supplied by Cargill and others. He pointed out that whilst this FAME residue isn't in demand from the transport sector, the available volumes are relatively low, even though it's cheaper than standard FAME. In his view, this means the feedstock doesn't solve what he called the "abundance" problem facing biofuels in the marine sector more broadly.

On what advantages Quadrise's emulsion technology retains over straightforward biofuel blends like this, he cited lower delivered cost per unit of energy, better fuel efficiency in engines, lower emissions, better storage stability, and greater flexibility across a wider range of bio-feedstocks.

On whether this changes his assessment of the competitive landscape or the urgency to get trials over the line, he was clear that it doesn't. He said Quadrise has been aware of this particular option for some time, and that getting the trials approved and completed remains the company's main focus today.

I appreciate him taking the time to respond so promptly and directly to each point. It's reassuring to hear that the board doesn't see this as a new competitive threat, though I would still like to see that "main focus" translate into actual trial completion sooner rather than later.

Vince72 Sent this morning at 1am from Spain

Dear Peter,

I wanted to apologise for writing to you again so soon after my last letter. However, I have become a little disturbed by a recent announcement and felt it warranted raising with you directly.

ExxonMobil has just completed a successful sea trial of a new B30 marine fuel blend, supplied to Wallenius Wilhelmsen's vehicle carrier Titus in Zeebrugge. The blend uses FAME distillation residue rather than standard FAME, and was reportedly bunkered, stored, and used without any operational issues, with stable engine performance throughout. ExxonMobil's own commentary specifically highlighted that this feedstock currently faces no competing demand from other transport sectors which, as I understand it, is essentially the same argument Quadrise has used to position bioMSAR's glycerine feedstock as differentiated and uncontested.

This raises a question I would like you to address directly: should shareholders be concerned about this development? Specifically, does ExxonMobil's B30 blend compete in the same market that Quadrise is pursuing in the shipping sector?

A few things strike me as relevant here. First, ExxonMobil moved from announcement to a completed, successful sea trial relatively quickly and without apparent difficulty. This stands in stark contrast to the multi-year delays Quadrise has experienced in getting its own MSC trial off the ground. Second, ExxonMobil already supplies biofuel blends in the ARA region, the UK, and Singapore meaning they have existing commercial infrastructure and customer relationships that Quadrise does not yet have. Third, if major oil majors like ExxonMobil are able to offer biofuel blends as a simpler, drop-in alternative without requiring proprietary technology licensing, this could represent a meaningful competitive threat to MSAR and bioMSAR's commercial proposition, particularly on cost and ease of adoption.

I would be grateful if you could provide your assessment of this development. Specifically:

Does Quadrise view ExxonMobil's B30 blend as a direct competitor to MSAR or bioMSAR in the shipping sector?

What advantages does Quadrise's emulsion fuel technology retain over straightforward biofuel blends of this kind?

Does this development change your assessment of the competitive landscape or the urgency with which Quadrise needs to get its own trials over the line?

I look forward to your response.

The system is not updating very quickly. Bought a few at 1.89p not showing

BarkingCrazy. Spot on that's how I read it

Fellow shareholders,

I wanted to share with you a summary of Peter's response to the letter I sent him recently. As an AIM-listed company, he's understandably limited in what he can share outside of formal RNS announcements, but he did provide some useful high-level context, which I'll set out here in summary.

On MSC and Cargill, Peter says we're dealing with two of the world's biggest companies and their understandably busy legal departments, with the situation in the Persian Gulf not helping matters either. He says he has reasonable confidence a deal can still be announced before too long, citing regular and constructive contact with both parties, both of whom apparently want this resolved as soon as possible, and that the company is clear on the few remaining outstanding points.

On OCP and the Utah sample testing, engagement remains active and positive according to Peter. The relocation of the trial to an alternative site needs certain technical and OEM-related steps completed first. As we already know from the recent Valkor RNS, their site progress has been slower than expected, which has delayed both our payment and the receipt of samples. Peter says he expects positive news in Q3.

On Sparkle, we apparently have a willing customer, and the company is now working to secure feedstock, with agents working on this in the Americas, including Venezuela.

On cash, the company had £4 million as at 31st December 2025, which Peter describes as over a year's worth of "background spend" before any project-related costs. He says the actual cash runway depends heavily on the timing of project income, such as the Valkor payment, against ongoing expenditure.

On bioMSAR zero testing, work is continuing but is currently being deprioritised in favour of focusing resources on achieving project milestones and commercialisation.

My honest take: there is more detail here than we've had in some time, and I appreciate Peter taking the time to respond directly. However, much of this still rests on confidence and reassurance rather than hard commitments or dates we can hold him to. I will continue to push for clearer, more concrete updates, and I'd encourage others to do the same. Received late this afternoon

TheFerns well said, why not email Peter

There is one further matter that I feel compelled to raise, and which has received surprisingly little attention on this forum.

Since Peter joined, he has referred on numerous occasions not least at the AGM in November, and again in January and March of this year to his intention to secure a second shipping trial with a smaller container / shipping company. This was presented as a parallel track to the MSC trial, and at the time it sounded encouraging a sign that the company was broadening its commercial pipeline and not putting all of its eggs in one basket.

And yet we have heard absolutely nothing about it since.

This staggers me. Linda, who joined the company a few months before Peter, brought with her significant expertise and an impressive network of contacts within the global shipping industry. Peter arrived shortly afterwards with equally deep knowledge and connections at the highest level. Between them, you would reasonably expect that securing at least a basic signed letter of intent with a smaller shipping company which by definition should involve far less complexity than the MSC tripartite agreement would be entirely achievable.

So what has happened? Has anything progressed at all on this front? Is there a second shipping company in active discussion? Has any agreement, however preliminary, been signed or even initiated?

I find myself asking whether this was ever a realistic near-term prospect, or whether it was perhaps used as a tactical tool a suggestion to MSC that they would not be the first to trial, designed to create a sense of urgency and competitive pressure. If so, it appears not to have worked. And if it was a genuine commercial priority, the complete silence on the matter is deeply concerning.

Either way, this is yet another area where shareholders are entitled to a straight answer.

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the Valkor update RNS issued last week. It is genuinely appreciated and I want to acknowledge that.

It is good to finally have clarity on the current position the status of the equipment readiness, the sample preparation, the revised commissioning timeline for Valkor's pilot plant moving to Q4 2026, and critically the confirmation that US$0.95 million of the US$1.0 million licence fee remains outstanding, with full payment now expected by 30th September 2026.

My own view on this, given the history of delays we have experienced across all of the company's projects, is that I would not be surprised if Valkor's pilot plant commissioning slips further into 2027. If that were to happen, it would inevitably delay receipt of this payment still further, which in turn would place additional and unwelcome pressure on Quadrise's own finances at what is already a challenging time for the company's cash position.

My more pressing question however is this. The media is currently suggesting that a resolution to the US-Iran conflict may be closer than many anticipated. If that situation is resolved in the near future as appears increasingly possible does that then mean that the MSC trial agreement will be signed and scheduled to move forward without further delay? You have cited geopolitical disruption as one of the primary reasons for the delays in getting the MSC trial over the line. If that obstacle is removed, shareholders will reasonably expect to see swift and decisive progress on the MSC trial. I would welcome your thoughts on this directly.

I think this RNS could have been issued months ago their no current new news here. I think the BOD are trying to show willingness and issued an RNS however it show me they have no update on the main projects MSC and South America

Quadrise Plc (AIM: QED), the technology company focused on the decarbonisation of shipping and heavy industry through deployment of low emission fuels and biofuels, provides an update on its project with Valkor Technologies LLC ("Valkor") in Utah, USA.

Progress with Valkor continues to be made towards pilot deployment and the commercial demonstration of the Company's upstream production model. The Quadrise equipment is ready for deployment and the Company has been informed that representative heavy sweet oil samples have been prepared in Valkor's new pilot plant ahead of MSAR® and bioMSAR™ formulation work.

Valkor's 500 barrel per day oil-sands pilot plant is now due to be commissioned in Q4 2026. The Company will not therefore deliver a 600 bpd Multifuel Manufacturing Unit ("MMU") to site by 30 June 2026 as had been previously indicated, this will now take place during Q3 2026.

Since the Company's announcement of 28 November 2025, no further licence fee payments have been received by the Company and US$0.95 million of the US$1.0 million licence fee payable to the Company by Valkor remains outstanding as Valkor await receipt of approved project funding. The Board now expects payment of the licence fee in full by 30 September 2026.

SJS2019 Filtered

Great news Hotfinance14. Hope you get a reply

Tobythedog well done

Fellow shareholders,

I have written to Peter and the board on a number of occasions over the last few months, expressing my frustration and concerns about the lack of progress and communication across all of the company's projects.

I make no apology for doing so and will continue to hold the board accountable.

If any of you feel as strongly as I do, I would encourage you to do the same. Write to Peter directly and tell him how you feel. The more of us that do, the harder it becomes for the board to continue with business as usual while shareholders wait endlessly for news that never seems to materialise.

Peter's email address is easily found simply Google "Who is the CEO of Quadrise and what is his email address" and it will come up immediately.

There is strength in numbers. If we present a united front and make clear collectively that we are simply not happy with the status quo, it sends a far stronger message than any individual letter. The board needs to understand that shareholder patience is not infinite and that we expect better in terms of delivery, communication, and accountability.

I hope some of you will join me in making your voices heard.

AKHM

I appreciate your measured and balanced view, and I understand the sentiment entirely. You are right that we have no idea when news may come it could be this month, or it could be another two to three months of silence or even nothing this year simular to the last four years and £14m+ of funding over this time. That uncertainty is something all of us as shareholders have lived with for a very long time.

However, I think there comes a point where hope alone is no longer a sufficient investment strategy, and for me personally that point has arrived and I need to seeing something happening soon

When Peter took over from Andy, I was genuinely encouraged. He brought energy and momentum that had been missing, and I believed he could turn things around. He suggested something would happen by November 2025, then that revised to January 2026. In March he stated specifically that many of the outstanding issues on the trial had been resolved (VAT)and that he was nearly there. That was three months ago. Since then there has been a complete absence of any meaningful RNS updates across any of the projects. So im also getting negative