Member Info for DevonianExile

The rampers are incessant - and any ordinary shareholder hesitates to post given the speed at which it will disappear down the screen. However This Master guy takes the biscuit - reminiscent of someone who has a pretty hefty underlying condition that really needs addressing.

For what it’s worth I am very happy with the prospects here given the regional challenges. Indeed for a small micro cap to have a strong oil agenda alongside a strong green agenda is almost unique in my view.

Added more this morning and will probably rebalance my portfolio to increase further.

Whilst the multi posting herds on both sides of the fence are reflecting I suspect the silent majority of holders are ok with this. Good steady income, complex farm out options still very much in play and Sunsteppe making strong progress.

In the real world looks pretty solid to me

Exert from one article today……..

“But here’s the thing. The oil futures market is yet to appreciate the massive supply disruption from the Middle East, a shock now in its third month, lasting far longer than almost anyone expected when Trump lit the touchpaper in late February.

Brent crude futures are indeed $30-40 per barrel above where they were when this war began. But over the last week or so, those same futures prices have been trading some $30-$40 below the actual price at which physical cargoes are being sold, with these “on-the-ground” prices reflecting underlying supply-and-demand realities, with actual constraints and shortages now beginning to bite.

In north-west Europe, on secondary markets followed only by specialists, oil has been changing hands over recent days at $130, $140 and in some cases $150 a barrel.

And if the geopolitics don’t improve markedly over the next week or so, futures prices will start to catch up. The likes of Brent crude and other widely quoted price metrics will hit levels now seen in physical markets, a wave of (highly leveraged) speculative money will enter the fray – and the headline oil price will crank up, in my view, beyond its 2008 peak.”

They would very naive if they didn’t cover the possibility of a fundraise, and as has been pointed out this is no different to last year. I can think of a load of reasons why they need to cover all eventualities- eg:

- they need to have a Plan B if farm out discussions falter

- a negotiating tactic is of course to threat to go alone if the proposed terms are not good for MATD

- a farm out deal could of course include the requirement for MATD to contribute to certain infrastructure costs - no deals are the same as each other

- if 2 farm outs are under consideration the terms may be wholly different

- Sunsteppe may require some funding - commercial funding could well require a degree of reciprocity

I could go on but for me this is very much business as expected

Thanks DoN.

Cannot overemphasise how important these informal lines of communication are - and the value of having long term shareholders who are prepared to do this on a shared basis.

Many thanks and good to see this process reinstated

Wouldn’t normally post but having read some of the drivel earlier in the day I feel compelled.

Well done Dan again. So if the value of oil is on the rise the double benefit is that the Sunsteppe business case must be looking more and more interesting by the day. And the powers that be in Mongolia will be offering every encouragement to any initiative that improves domestic resilience.

Interesting weeks ahead

You bit me to it Proquo. Should also add that we are lucky to have posters like Dan - finds really useful pieces of the jigsaw and posts them with the minimum of fuss.

The more I think about this the more positive I feel. A small cap producer with a likely farm in on the way - which is also a lead player on renewables in a relatively protected - albeit small - emerging market. Difficult to think of any comparable outfit on AIM in my humble opinion.

Like most small cap shares this board has it’s “characters” – and over the last 20 years or so I have seen too many to mention. But StockMaiden is altogether in another league. Obsessive in the extreme and this can only be explained in one of 3 ways.

Perhaps a genuine need for help regarding his/her obsessive behaviour.

Or someone trying to create enough doubt to try and keep open a good entry price.

Or perhaps someone who has been bitterly hurt financially in the past by this share

If the latter I would suggest a read up of the J curve in small cap investments may help going forward – the 3 phases are Negative, Trough, and Value Creation. Many small caps don’t even get through the Negative – they spend many years trying to prove concept especially if in exploration enterprises – further accentuated if in politically challenging environments. Only the brave should invest in these years.

My take on MATD is that it moved out of the Negative about 12-18 months ago and is firmly in the Trough. But it is now showing very strong signs of being at the right end of the Trough and this year could progress into Value Creation. If I am right this is without doubt the best time to get on board. And obsessing about who said/did what in the past is wholly irrelevant.

Finally all this barrage of obsessive comment masks some really enlightening posts. I would commend everyone reads the Dan_LSE post on 20th Feb at 20.09. Someone who only posts with something material to add, and someone who pro-actively tries to check out the situation.

Been in this share for over a year now – and I think I have a good sense of where the company is going (I actually have a pretty positive view based on the long J curve that is typical for this type of share). But whatever - this is a small cap, high risk/high reward venture and as a consequence attracts all sorts of anonymous commentators. Each with their own agenda, and this forum in particular has a lot of fog from both sides of the fence – more so than any other share I have been involved with.

This share is actually a traders dream. It is small but has attracted substantial interest, it is volatile and critically it is one of those rarities where a concerted effort by one cohort or another can influence short term sentiment and share price. I am convinced that quite a few of those posting their views trade regularly - knowing that they can influence things for short periods of time. So I absolutely do not think those with a negative view are simply trying to save everyone else from eternal damnation – they are trading this on a regular basis for short term gain.

I am also sure that MB and his team are fully aware of this – and know that trying to combat it is a waste of time. They will not be concerned about short term movements – particularly if they have a game changer within their sights. They will judge that the only way to break through this volatility is to deliver a significant change in status, and one that then attracts sustained volume. So I for one will patiently sit on my hands for now.

I rarely post and on this share this is my first - and possibly one and only. The toxic nature of some posts - either side of the fence - is frankly ridiculous.

But the Adw post on take up on the last offer can’t go without comment. The Petrovis and MB take up in my view was impressive- and the overall skin in the game is pretty high. But that is just a view.

More to the point there are very clear rules around RPTs (related party transactions). The first hurdle kicks in if the investment is above 5% and a more vigorous hurdle at 10%. The Board, the Remuneration Committee and most importantly the Nomad/Advisors have to agree that the level of “insider” take up is fair to “outsider” shareholders.

The collective take was regarded as fair by those approving - and the thresholds for that fairness would certainly have kicked in regards the advisors.

Higher take ups may have raised flags - and I for one am happy with the level of holding of those in the know

Just to reiterate a view I expressed at the weekend - I think that arguably the IMO impasse puts QED in its strongest ever position regarding Marine Markets.

If you bother to read up on this the solutions hit hardest by the uncertainty are going to be those requiring complex infrastructure, high cost and extended ROIs - ammonia, hydrogen and probably even LNG would fall into these groups. And a part of the investment assumption has been that the taxes/tariffs/fines would go towards investment cases over the long term.

Some of these assumptions are at best thrown into doubt - and at worst disappear all together.

The case for a low cost, low infrastructure, and low risk transitional fuel must be more compelling than ever - not to mention cost savings and an early return.

Interesting to read to the end of the article mentioned earlier today.............

"The International Chamber of Shipping, a global trade association representing more than 80 percent of the world’s merchant fleet, said it was disappointed with the outcome.

“Industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonize the maritime sector,” Thomas A. Kazakos, the chamber’s secretary-general, said in a statement. “As an industry we will continue to work with the IMO, which is the best organization to deliver the global regulations needed for a global industry.”

Part of the shipping industry is worried that if the IMO effort fails, the result could be a patchwork of national and regional measures that will be expensive and confusing for the sector.

Agree with HF - difficult to understand (we can agree sometimes). My take would be that a good number of decisions were held back pending the IMO meeting. Some of those business cases may now have collapsed or been seriously jeopardised.

Hopefully leaving QED as one of those that still looks good.

Fingers crossed

A bit of a lull. I guess we are all trying to work out what this means for QED, and have to confess I was pretty disappointed yesterday.

To work it all through I think we need to try and second guess what the thinking is inside the boardrooms and investment committees in companies across the world. Not just Marine but Fuel Supply, For what it is worth my take is they think something like this:

- Frustration – this is not a yes or no but a deferment. Worse still it could all be deferred again, or even ditched, in 12 months’ time.

- A lot of pending large scale investment decisions were dependent on clarity. Not just regarding the technical decision but also long term funding (and there was/is an expectation that some funding would eventually arise from the fines/levies arising from the proposals). All that is on hold for 12 months at least - with absolutely no certainty on final outcome.

- I understand that despite all this a different set of rules will still apply to shipping lines using Arctic/Nordic type routes – so there is now a mix dependent on the routes used. A sort of two tier outcome – albeit marginal for the majority of marine operators.

- My guess would be an assumption that the general direction is still towards decarbonisation – but real uncertainty over timing, penalties and of course cost. Biggest fear will be a) making the wrong technical decisions and b) making the wrong assumptions regarding both ROI and how best to fund major projects.

On reflection I think – perhaps naively – that this set of circumstances presents the most compelling sales line ever for QED. The whole industry is now caught in the headlights of uncertainty for an undefined period of time. So the implementation of a low cost, minimalist infrastructure, and easy/quick to deploy (relatively) transition fuel is a no brainer. Adopters buy time, are seen to be doing something, reduce emissions, reduce costs and against other solutions now surely see a compelling ROI.

Just my thoughts

Have to agree with that one SR. Can’t remember a poster ever getting up my nose as much as HF. A self pontificating “guru” who claims to know everything about anything - but comes across like a wet wipe version of Mr Angry.

Free advice - to avoid any risk regarding the Trade Descriptions act you really should change your name. Hot Finance is edging towards a breach of the rules.

I must admit on Monday I was slightly disappointed about the appointment. I had been expecting a slightly younger person with either previous experience of developing a fledgling business or a young high flier from one of the big corporates out there. I questioned whether our man might have been at the wrong end of his career and had settled for a consultancy lifestyle over the last 4 or 5 years.

However the more I read and research the more confident I feel - and thanks SC for the deep dive summary. PB is seriously well connected and it would seem that his contacts are not just passive - they are positive about him and about him taking up this role.

Time will tell as always - but he has decided to take a risk that could be career defining. JM is the heart and soul of our intellectual property but just maybe PB really is the catalyst that converts the undoubtedly compelling science into a worldwide industry game changer.

Best of luck PB. I am sure we are all behind you

Yep - a very positive step forward. As Jackg123 said it ties up nicely with the recruitment of a Spanish speaking engineer - and it would appear that the relationship between the two companies is developing nicely.

Interesting that at the International Shipping conference today the key subject concerns IMO rules and implementation of decarbonisation strategies. Hopefully our team are there and able to use today’s news to good effect.

HF - you clearly have no experience of how it all works. As demonstrated by most of your pathetic and continual dribble. End of.

HF - you do talk a load of tripe. Have you ever conducted senior executive interviews? Have you ever been interviewed for a senior executive role?

A series of informal and formal processes will have taken place - each getting into more detail. And for the lead candidates there will have been a pretty deep dive into the many issues facing the company. And most critically into how the lead candidates would handle them. And again critically for the chosen candidate ensuring that on appointment the picture painted is pretty much the actuality encountered. Contracts and interview protocols cover the confidentiality aspects.

If you think that they only get the information that we get then you really are naive beyond belief.

The jury will be out for me until we see him in action. However the comments and likes on linked in are an extensive and pretty impressive cross section of the industry. Hopefully an indication of the breadth of his network.

From Google……..

The Fulbright Program, including the Fulbright–Hays Program, is one of several United States cultural exchange programs with the goal of improving intercultural relations, cultural diplomacy, and intercultural competence between the people of the United States and other countries through the mutual exchange of persons, knowledge, and skills. The program was founded by United States Senator J. William Fulbright in 1946, and has been considered as one of the most prestigious scholarships in the United States.[1]

Well I said well north of £60k! The key for me is QED will not have committed to this unless a) Sparkle were very positive about taking things forward and b) there are other related prospects. If MSC /Cargill suddenly moves forward then there will be some serious stretch - but I assume Jason will deal with MSC directly.