Member Info for ade328

At last, QED singing like a canary.... we should be seeing articles like this more often as such represent far greater use of cash.

I also think an article published so recently calling out MSC and Cargill is a really good sign of the underlying reality.

We are all grappling with 'when' which the article *cannot address, but it certainly confirms the 'if' for me personally.

Https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/rystad-energy-us-iran-re-escalation-could-see-oil-at-180-by-august/vi-AA24ydYh?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds

This is a worst case scenario, No deal persists and Iran retains control over traffic through strait....

What does the collective think about possible impact on QED/MSC deal - positive or negative?

Sounds like MSC is still on-board, the client is the most important party in this game.

Wow.. just seen this will read tomorrow. Why has QED not been shouting about ??? Or did we all miss?

I had supposed the gulf crisis would have sharpened shipping company focus on *all alternative fuel options (not just little old QED). However, as much as I read or attempt to equip myself with sufficient evidence to keep/close my QED investment - I cannot quite get close to the minds of those that would be making the decisions.... I naively assumed some clear logic would assemble in my mind, but I do not see any evidence of any direction for the market....

A method will appear and herd mentality will ensue where a high proportion of shipping companies will convert/or run their fleets on 'MagicMix42' because it's cheap, plentiful and smells of roses when combusted. But that time is not now...

What I do see is a lot of procrastination IE everybody knows things have to change but nobody wants to move first, get it wrong and risk losses and potentially going out of business.

So the Gulf crisis and the generally accepted long term damage to Oil supply chain, has not impacted anything yet! The Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) emissions controls on intra-EEA routes and FuelEU (Maritime controls on greenhouse gas intensity) don't seem to sway fuel choices... as shipping companies appear to simply pass on the costs of increased fuel!

If QED does have the answer, is it that many shipping companies are not aware of them because they are a minnow? Has OIW emulsion become a 'White Noise' IE everybody knows about it as it has been around so long as BP technology reject (feel free to correct my comprehension of history (I haven't energy for verbal...) ) Or are all shipping companies standing around 'hands in pockets' waiting for divine guidance?

It is comical, I have decided as I typed this post to keep where I am as I don't believe anyone knows what to back - while MSC are still keen, we have a 'puncher's chance' of making some money.

We have a good story with MSAR, but with Bio-MSAR I believe there is still an in-direct dependency on the same feedstocks. Bio-MSAR incorporates renewable glycerine, which in turn is a by-product of biodiesel and FAME production. " Quadrise is assessing options to increase fuel-grade glycerine production, and is currently conducting research into producing glycerine via algae and yeast, as well as investigating blends of other renewable fuels"

I don't know what to make of this news? Not having a subcription. But i do know Maersk are feeling the pain of excess capacity and increased costs ... so they should be looking reduce costs https://shippingwatch.com/logistics/article19303642.ece

I believe there is a problem that is obviously too sensitive to share. As long as that problem does not manifest as frustration within MSC at the "inability of the tiny partner 'QED' to execute" then I am content to wait longer.

Whatever the problem, if MSC are cool with further, delay then this investor is too.

Sorry, not 'alludes' but "qualifies other articles.. "

Interesting article applies to a lot of wells impacted by delays in goh... small relevance to our joint interest in QED - the link alludes to other articles warning of 'long term damage' of current problem. Leading to higher oil prices and good for all alternative fuel suppliers. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Oil-Wells-That-Will-Never-Recover.html

Biofuels are another option that shipping companies will rightly be trialing. This is the MSC cruise division completing a trial, as far as we know the container shipping division are still keen to trial with QED.

Most publications i read advise companies to explore all options, paying particular focus on the supply chain.

So in this case its not ENI beating QED - MSC 'cruise' has a biofuel trial with ENI and MSC 'container' has an emulsion trial with with QED.

Auramarine has some good oresentation materials on different optionghbb

https://www.auramarine.com/solutions/

Maybe I lost it in the mist of time, but what is the plan. Assuming some form of regular commercial activity gets underway, does anyone have an understanding of model going forward?

Does QED simply license the IP to interested parties?, setup with refineries and bunker companies as a Specialist fuel supplier, sell-out to XYZ?

If QED established a market does anyone envisage QED setting up as supplier and paying a dividend or do we think there after one big pay day!

Yes, it just has to be the case. So MSC is undoubtedly feeling similar pressure or did they simply pass it on already?

This cost advantage ( ahead of any renewable tickbox) is why i personally feel the QED deal will happen - those are very big numbers...

I believe QED is so small, they cannot get the message out! Even if they jump up and down in bright orange jump suit , they are like the toddler in room full of parents discussing an older siblings new school!

QED definitely lacks that killer 'leave no prisoners' salesperson touch - i have witnessed their lamentable efforts.

Oh thats enough now... i don't want to trigger a "he said, she said..." thread :-)

Interesting that various publications are all coalescing on the veracity of the supply chain... whatever the alternative is . I shared a very similar from IEA couple of days back.

Almost like - its not a problem which alternative fuel is selected, but just make sure there is plenty available!

Seems exactly what QED is 'wrastling' with right now!

Hi All,

Depending on which publication you read, the market disruption will last from 2 years to forever...

I believe all shipping companies are evaluating alternatives based on conversion costs, supply chain with sustainability credentials probably last on list IMO...

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/IEAs-Birol-Says-Iran-War-Will-Permanently-Cut-Into-Future-Oil-Demand.html

CMB.Tech CEO Alexander Saverys is betting on Ammonia https://shippingwatch.com/regulation/article19229208.ece

We are betting that MSC sees a different route.

As shared earlier, the article from oilprice.com based on research from https://www.rystadenergy.com/ The changing problem the gulf is presenting appears to be strengthening business case for *any/*all alternatives? The article does touch on viability of bunker supply.

Sharing again below:

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Hormuz-Crisis-Forces-Rethink-on-Alternative-Marine-Fuels-Investment.html

Https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Hormuz-Crisis-Forces-Rethink-on-Alternative-Marine-Fuels-Investment.html

This story on oilprice.com may help our cause...

It may seem an obvious question, but MSAR (as I understand) is still dependent on the non-distilate or by-products from refineries ie if the the refineries are not producing petrol, kerosene etc does by-product flow also stop eventually ?

Do refineries have a glut of 'refinery left overs' that can easily be tapped for MSAR OIW production?

Not asking about bio-msar / feedstock here, just the MSAR 'tar' ..

Just trying to close a gap in my understanding.

Presentation..

There was linked in presso on this tool couple of weeks back... very impressive, but prestation lacking 'sales omph' from QED staff - the Sustainable Shipping guy saved the day. Honestly if they sold Sushi QED staffers would talk "cold dead fish"...