Member Info for 46Gillingham

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

“I hope a number of regular posters have written to Peter and the Board over the last few days to complain about the lack of news.”

He's on the wrong forum

June last year we had a Business Update on the 10th and Joint Development Agreement with Alder Energy LLC the week after.

And this is what I find most puzzling of all. Whatever the outstanding issues are, they must be something truly out of the ordinary because in normal circumstances, you would simply sit around a table with the relevant managers and their respective legal teams and sort it out. That is what lawyers are paid to do. MSC alone reportedly has seven full-time lawyers in their legal department. So what on earth is going on that cannot be resolved in a room with the right people present?

Fellow shareholders,

Reading back through Peter's comments from January and March of this year, unless I am completely misreading the situation, the clear impression I got was that the majority of the outstanding issues between Cargill and MSC had been resolved including the VAT matter that had been mentioned previously. The messaging at that point suggested there were very few remaining items to sort out, and that nothing was going to stand in the way of getting the trial contract signed and the project moving forward.

We are now in June. There has been no news. No update. No explanation.

This raises a question I would genuinely like the forum's thoughts on: what could possibly still be holding this up?

I want to be clear I remain encouraged by the momentum Peter has brought and the quality of the new talent he has assembled around him. That is genuinely positive and I don't want to dismiss it.

But we have now seen false starts under Jason, under Andy, and potentially now under Peter as well. The issues holding this trial back have persisted for three to four years across multiple management teams. That pattern demands an explanation that goes beyond the usual reassurances.

Peter cited geopolitical disruption in the Middle East specifically the US-Iran situation as a factor. I have to be honest: I am not fully buying into that as a reason why we cannot at least get the contract signed. Signing a contract does not require stability in the Gulf. It requires two parties to agree and put pen to paper.

So what is really going on? I would genuinely welcome thoughts from fellow shareholders. What do you think is holding this up?

Part 3

It is also worth recognising that Peter and his senior colleagues are strongly aligned with shareholders. Through their option packages, they stand to benefit very substantially if these projects are successfully delivered and shareholder value is created. In simple terms, they have every incentive to get this over the line. Success would not only transform the company, but could also result in life changing financial outcomes for those leading the execution. While incentives alone do not guarantee delivery, it is reassuring to know that management's interests are closely aligned with those of shareholders at this critical stage.

Part 2

For me this month is critical. Expectations have been set and management now needs to deliver against those expectations. If they do, I believe the market's perception of the company could change materially. If they do not, then many of the concerns that shareholders have been raising will become much more difficult to dismiss.

I want to start by acknowledging that I have written quite extensively to the Board and to Peter over the last three to four months, raising concerns about non delivery, poor timelines and inadequate communication. I stand by everything I have said. I believe it has all been factually correct and warranted.

That said, I have also said consistently from the beginning of this year that I genuinely believe something will happen in Q2. We have one month left of Q2 and I am not yet at the point of serious alarm. However, that point is approaching.

Let me also focus on some of the positives, because there are positives worth acknowledging.

The momentum that Peter has brought since joining has been genuinely encouraging. The team of new executives and advisers he has assembled, most with directly relevant industry experience, gives me more confidence than I have felt for some time that the right people are now around the table to get these projects over the line.

I also endorse Peter and his team being highly visible across the industry. Attending conferences, engaging with stakeholders, promoting the company and demonstrating that we have a presence in the market is important. The cost of maintaining that visibility is, in my view, insignificant compared with the potential value that successful execution of these projects could create. It sends a message that the company is active, engaged and serious about becoming a meaningful participant in this sector.

I think it is also important to understand that this is not simply a case of getting Cargill and MSC to sign the tripartite agreement. There is a much broader strategic picture here. For this project to work properly, the bunkering infrastructure needs to be established globally and in parallel with customer adoption. Getting that right is what turns a successful trial into a genuinely transformational commercial operation.

Am I disappointed with the share price? Absolutely. It has continued to deteriorate gradually. However, many of us have been forecasting exactly this outcome for the last six to eight weeks given the delays and uncertainty. While the market's reaction is understandable, I do not believe that the current share price necessarily reflects the potential value of the opportunity if management can deliver.

In fact, over recent days I have personally been purchasing additional shares. That is not because I am blind to the risks, but because I continue to believe this remains an exceptional speculative opportunity with potentially very significant upside. It is still a gamble, and investors should treat it as such, but based on the information available today, it is a gamble that I remain willing to back with my own money.

If you are worried then email him directly not via IR.

If you google Peter Quadrise CEO what's his email address hopefully you will get it

I posted earlier in the quarter that I really hoped Q2 would be the quarter when the trial will be announced. Still hopeful

" if we had a successful trial and we had contracts with MSC, Cargill, OCP, Valkor and Panama I would very disappointed with 10p. "

I agree no need to sell if qed has these contracts signed and the sp will be significantly higher than 10p

If they could sell the company for 10p a share, Peter could walk away with just over £2 million in his pocket, which for a year's work and the hassle that he would have afforded, would probably be a good payday. I also would be very happy with 10p a share. I think a pound a share is a bit pie in the sky, valuing the business at £2.2 billion. Well, it'd be nice to see, but um, I don't think we'll ever get there anytime soon.

Their are 5,500,000 companies in the UK less than 500 are valued at £2b or more so don't hold you breath on QED joining that club, more likely to be acquired by one of them

Yorkie thats what happens to me also......What to do??

Fellow shareholders,

I want to share some candid thoughts on where we stand with Quadrise.

My primary concern remains the company's cash position. With a monthly burn rate of approximately £300,000, the runway is finite and I worry we could find ourselves facing yet another funding round before anything commercial is delivered.

That said, I do believe the momentum has genuinely shifted since Peter joined. There is a different energy about the company, and I want to acknowledge that.

What also gives me some comfort is the personal financial incentive the three main members of the management team have to deliver a successful trial. The numbers are significant:

Peter holds 46,000,000 share options

Jason holds 6,100,000 shares and 12,000,000 options

Andy holds 4,600,000 shares and 9,000,000 options

At anything approaching a realistic success scenario, these holdings would be worth multiple millions to each of them personally. Their interests are very firmly aligned with ours in getting this done.

I also accept that there are genuine global issues at play which are likely contributing to the delays. These things are not always entirely within the company's control.

However, I want to be clear about my position going forward. If nothing material has happened by the end of 2026, we must seriously question the management team's ability to deliver. At that point, perhaps the most sensible path would be to explore selling the technology and allowing a major oil company with the resources and relationships to take it forward properly.

I remain hopeful. But hope has a time limit.

Gr1bbler & Hotfinance.

I was in hospital yesterday for a procedure which was very uncomfortable and remains so, but your combined comments have finally brought a smile to me, so thank you very much for these comments.

No timelines quoted

Fellow shareholders,

I wanted to share the substance of a response I received from Peter Borup following my recent letter to the board.

Peter acknowledged shareholder frustration and confirmed it is shared by both the board and management team. He indicated that whilst progress has taken longer than anticipated, all projects continue to move forward with active engagement across all counterparties. He cited recent geopolitical events, particularly disruption in the Middle East, as having impacted counterparties' priorities and caused longer response times.

On MSC specifically, Peter confirmed that substantial progress has been made on trial logistics, equipment readiness, and the contractual framework. He acknowledged this has taken longer than originally envisaged but assured me the project remains active and that they are doing everything possible to conclude the agreements and start the trial.

Regarding the strengthening of the team over the past year, Peter explained this reflects the company's intention to deepen marine and refining engagement. He indicated that the depth and frequency of interactions with potential shipping clients and supply partners has improved markedly since the team was expanded, and expressed confidence this will be reflected in future newsflow.

On the question of the Valkor receivable, Peter declined to provide a specific update, stating it is not standard practice to comment on individual receivable balances.

My personal view remains unchanged. Whilst I appreciate Peter taking the time to respond, the answers remain frustratingly vague. Geopolitical events are a convenient explanation, but they do not fully account for delays that predate recent disruptions by several years. I will continue to engage with the board directly and keep shareholders informed.