Member Info for DevonianExile

Good post DoN - and some of these funds almost set themselves up to fail by not stress testing scenarios. But - hey - we have a government that does that. And apparently some pension funds

The key lesson in all this is the importance of liquidity at both a fund and individual level. When liquidity is a problem across a market buyers can be less numerous and sellers ever more desperate. The pursuit of Investment returns can be overtaken by the simple need to access cash.

Obvious I know - but often underestimated in impact. One of the things I like about QFI is the inherent belief in the opportunity by a large core of long term and very patient private investors. It doesn’t stop turbulence but once the company gets tangible results it should allow for some very positive outcomes. In my view!

Pardon the dreadful pun - but Jason really is putting himself around a bit. Geneva two weeks ago, then Singapore and tomorrow Miami.

https://usgreentechshipping.com/

Quadrise are silver sponsors and again there is strong MSC presence (Bob Darr is the keynote speaker). Have to say I am impressed - he/they are really pushing the maritime agenda on a worldwide basis now. The attendee list is pretty cruise ship orientated for this one - but the main thing in my mind is the confidence to promote the offer on a world stage

So a full 5 minutes on Sky News - and committing to everything that is in the RNS. Have done the PR stuff myself in a previous life - you don't get 5 minutes on these channels without a lot of forward planning and persuasion. Well done Jason and team.

Re a JV or whatever there are a host of ways to do this - and as I said on Saturday this is where our new Chairman is clearly well versed. Quadrise need a commercial partner to do all this stuff - the bandwidth financially and resource wise is just too big. Will be very interesting going forward in my view

Next week is clearly going to inform us on the bigger picture. Regarding Morocco and Utah - who knows. But there is no current reason to believe that these are not proceeding at some pace or other. Plus a range of other updates

Regarding MSC - which let's face it is the big one - there is every reason to be positive. Apart from the CEO of MSC Shipping Management - himself a very big player - we also now see public endorsement from very senior members of their Group team. We can assume that progress is being monitored across the entire MSC conglomerate, and we can confidently assume that the technical and research teams are now well into a deep and ongoing relationship. I have no doubt in my mind that the likes of the Vertoro relationship will also be well understood by the MSC technical team.

Plus our non-executive Chairman went to Geneva to attend the conference (and MSC HQ is in Geneva). I have previously suggested that the QFI team probably don't have the band width - or financial depth - to take on such a project as currently resourced or structured. Hence I really do wonder if MSC also recognise this and that we might see some form of JV emerging. Andy Morrison would be pivotal on such a move and his background is all about engineering such commercial developments.

Just musing - but some form of step change will have to take place - in my view - for this to progress

Agree - no pleasing some. He is a current non exec in 6 or 7 companies - and I'll wager he has a holding in most if not all.

Good to see him as a fellow shareholder - who no doubt will have significant share options as part of his deal.

Agree on the thread title change - and very well done to Jason and the team. As they say it comes to those that wait. A few comments from myself:

- I really like to see endorsement of a deal from the top of an organisation. Prabhat Jha is CEO/MD of MSC Ship Management (see one of my earlier posts) and he is rarely quoted. The comments are very warm indeed and are effectively about a potential strategic partnership
- to secure the previous LONO test vessel is extraordinary in my view - and probably the reason for the delay. Not sure why they have chosen this route but I am 100% sure it is not a coincidence. Some effort behind the scenes will have gone into this.
- we do not know the commercial terms for the fuel purchase but I would hope they reflect the investment QFI have made in developing this product.
- the source of the fuel will probably be the next MSC related RNS - that will be very interesting indeed.

Where is Brookie?

Can I just add my thanks again to the Forum team – excellent work and indeed the whole site is a credit to the organisers. Can’t think of any other share where this level of constructive shareholder input or opportunity exists. Also apologies if I jumped the gun a little with my post on Sunday – my main intention was to get more people to sign up to the forum.

I note that the Forum team actually met the 4 key personnel from QFI – Chair, CEO, COO and CFO. That alone is testimony to a level of trust that has been established – and the opportunity for a group of well intentioned shareholders to meet F2F on an occasional basis cannot be underestimated. Mood music is important in my view – and the BoD simply cannot meet or correspond with everyone. Nor can webnars and the like substitute for being in a room with the key people for an hour or two – respecting of course all the legal protocols.

All very much appreciated by myself

Whilst we are all musing regarding progress various QFI Tapatalk threads relate to a meeting on Friday between the key site organisers and the QFI Exec team plus Chairman. Some of the team I understand travelled some way to get there, and I have to say a big thanks to these guys for building a F2F relationship on behalf of PIs – and that QFI are responding. This is our equivalent to an occasional analyst briefing for larger investors – we should be very appreciative that it takes place at all in my view.

Obviously a limit to what would have or could be said – and the Tapatalk team are preparing a summary document to be agreed by QFI for wider circulation on the site. Reading between the lines I would take the following from the early reports (and some will wish to ignore all of this as just idle speculation):

- All three declared projects progressing in line with plan – but clients are in some cases requesting confidentiality at this point in time. As you would expect there are also some changes in scope
- MSC is shifting in “shape” but the first vessel for trial is now identified
- Mexico very complex with some political overtones. Will take time to progress
- Ecuador/Panama also complex but less so than Mexico
- RNS’s will only come when substantive progress is agreed by the counter parties as being communicable

Take it all as you wish – but if you haven’t signed up to the site I would recommend you do. Again – my thanks to the team who run the forum

Even if there is no RNS next week it is difficult to see how Jason can talk for 20 minutes at a Decarbonisation Shipping Conference without mentioning MSC. However the 2 MSC speakers are from very different parts of MSC to the team that QFI have been dealing with (the Cruise speaker will be well away from from any QFI involvement). All of which prompted me to have a look at how MSC operates. Eye opening – and very complicated

So MSC is privately owned with Group HQ in Geneva. There are no less than 700 companies registered within the Group and 44 subsidiaries – and over 110,000 employees.

If you look at the January 2021 RNS you will see that our link is with MSC Shipmanagement Ltd where Prabhat Jha is Group MD & CEO (he was quoted in the RNS).

This subsidiary company employs over 17,000 people and is responsible for the technical and crew management of MSC’s Cargo vessels - based in Limassol, Cyprus. Technical management is a very wide brief and vessel maintenance, fuel efficiency, retrofit projects, optimisation of new and existing vessels design for fuel efficiency, are all part of it.

Since 2019 a blended Biofuel has been used in some vessels – and thus far is the only transition fuel demonstrated by MSC to not require technical adjustments to marine engines. Presumably following trials circa 2017-18. Interestingly MSC also offers these fuels to its customers with certification assuring “proof of sustainability” - to demonstrate lower carbon use (and they put a lot of emphasis on this). So MSC Shipmanagement not only provides services for its commercial fleet of 550 vessels but also fuel supply and other services to non MSC vessels and fleets.

The MSC plan to reach a decarbonised state by 2050 includes a wide array of potential solutions and partnerships – including biofuel, LNG, and non-carbon solutions such as ammonia, hydrogen, solar, electric and so on. They clearly state that no one solution will emerge, that new options may evolve and that a vast and long running R&D effort will be applied.

So what to make of all this?

Well first – MSC have very extended decarbonisation timetables and are scheduling a wide array of trials and initiatives. Eg the ammonia trials are not scheduled to deliver results until 2025. From Jason’s comments last month the trials at MSC and Wartsila will take around 12-15 months to complete and the procurement of fuel booster equipment is underway (I guess the agreement will indicate how the costs of LONO testing are covered).

Whatever - my take is that QFI offers just one of a variety of possible outcomes for transition fuels at MSC. However the prize is to have a solution that extends not just to parts of the MSC fleet but also to other MSC customers. And of course the Wartsila tests take on huge significance in that regard – within and well beyond MSC.

Excuse my ramblings - hopefully a useful bit of context

A few observations.
- As many have said before these sorts of contracts are complex and will have many moving parts – not necessarily around the technology but more likely the commercial issues and local “politics”. The use of a well connected local agent is the only way small companies can progress projects in many parts of the world, and I would guarantee that behind the scenes there will have been all sorts of issues to deal with. Agency payment via warrants is a perfect way to not only enable a sensible reward/risk outcome but also to minimise fixed costs - and also to keep some of the necessary exchanges at arm’s length from QFI as a company.
- Jason says “We are advancing all of our projects to progress them towards commerciality” – I wonder if the Hamburg conference next week might be of significance for news on MSC? At least we will soon know
- I would also assume potential Americas deals are being progressed in a similar vein. For an agent/QFI to be able to say we have 2 – hopefully 3 – initiatives progressing under contract will be a significant boost to the agent dealing with matters in Mexico and Panama.

Progress is clearly being made and at some point the wider market will start to take tangible notice

I see there is some concern already about the real versus communicated position on MSC – partly created by that wonderful egotist Alan Hall. I usually ignore this stuff but I have had to fill in time on a long journey - so…..

First - I don’t doubt he wrote to MSC and got a response. Should we be surprised? Not really in my view.

Core industries are grappling with changes not seen in decades. The Auto industry is alone in being pretty much aligned on a solution – and with legislation driving the pace of change they have agreed on one obvious goal. Their next challenge will be battery longevity and simply sourcing the elements required for the volume growth required. But the single solution is clearly the EV

Marine, Aviation and Power Generation are nowhere near this degree of alignment. Indeed single solutions will simply not be viable – the constraints and sheer economics will dictate multiple innovations. There will be years of battles for interim transition and mitigation options, and of course long term solutions that are currently nowhere near to being obvious.

Inside the likes of MSC all sorts of initiatives will be being proposed, championed and assessed. The Operational, Technical, Commercial and indeed Strategic teams will all have different viewpoints and will be arguing for funding/space/time to test and prove. MSAR will be one of a number of initiatives for which test and prove funding will/is being argued for at the highest levels. Proving both environmental and efficiency outcomes will be critical – and there will within MSC be those arguing for and against such a trial. Fact of life. However it is clear in my mind that JM has secured the advocacy required to enter a serious test trial – and what someone from “the technical team” might have said does not contradict this. JM has simply secured a very serious in depth trial based upon the analysis thus far – and it is for the advocates to now prove their beliefs.

Large companies encourage advocacy arguments all the time. That does not mean that full alignment exists – that only come after the results are known.

Finally – have no doubt how important the Wartsila testing is. Engine manufacturers are intensely precious on protecting their warranty risk. The MSC and the Wartsila testing of MSAR will be inextricably linked – and the commercial terms will be thrashed out in tandem. Complex stuff that requires multiple supports and approvals

My mind keeps returning to the Hamburg conference next month. MSC and Quadrise on the same stage with perhaps some common messages to share???

Just my interpretation folks

I think this RNS is different in a number of ways. The Nomad will have had to clear this in detail given the very specific written comment re future company specific contract extensions. At the very least the Nomad will have wanted to see documentary evidence – and I suggest will have also wanted the counter parties permission to publish. I think it is pretty rare for an RNS to be so specific on as yet unsigned contracts.

I personally am happy with this – as I have said before this is really complex stuff and as someone who has experienced counter party management changes mid contract discussion this can be a really tedious process. I also feel that confidence is now growing regarding the Americas element

Interestingly my take is that because of the specific detail this RNS also releases the directors/management from any closed period. Whether the Nomad would agree is another thing

Re revenues yep - but the only project they expect to create real income in 2022 is from Utah - and I guess the big question is when, how much and the rate of climb. These things take time to materialise.

My point is that MSC feels like the project with the most upfront cost and the longest proving timeline. But also the most revenue potential. So there is a trade off on upfront costs versus future revenue - but quite frankly if MSC are up for this what a nice problem to have. Assuming they get the 3 contracts, followed by whatever the Americas offer, the whole focus moves to expectations for future revenues going out at least 5 years. So a short term cash requirement is offset by a mid term revenue assumption, and that is where another third party might just emerge. (It is not just about money - a company of around 10 employees plus advisers has real bandwidth issues).

Get the 3 contracts signed off a credible solution to the cash/bandwidth challenge and we are off to the races. And Market Cap prospects get very interesting. Just my view!

Just listened to the recording – and Iantobach – way back it was TOT who got me into this share as well! Have to say the update does sound very positive and I have just a few comments to make:

– it kind of re-enforces my post of a month ago. This is complex stuff with all sorts of moving parts – we need to give them space to get on with it. And it seems they are

– the various agents appointed some years ago seem to be doing their job. And that is how the commercial focus is meant to work, particularly when cross border initiatives and complex commercial agreements are in play. Each will know their market far better than any QFI employee

– For the slides and the verbals to be so clear on the timeline suggests either very high confidence or foolishness. I’ll take the former – but I do wonder what the Nomad will have thought. Anyway – the directors are clearly in an extended closed period.

– The financial “runway” is interesting. So to late 2023 just on monthly running costs – but of course project costs will be incurred. As I said once before I think QFI are too small to handle all of this lot and in my view MSC is potentially the most costly project. So either MSC take up a bigger cost share in exchange for better long term commercials, some form of fund raise, or another third party enters the fray to support QFI. I wouldn’t discount the latter.

– Finally, as said by others, the Wartilla engagement is a pretty significant – and MSC has surely helped here. Plus we have the Decarbonising Shipping conference in Hamburg in June – MSC as Gold Sponsors and QFI as Silver Sponsors.

Interesting times indeed – but we still need pen to hit paper.

A very long time since I posted – but recent ODR posts have prompted my input. Like ODR I was completely taken in. I met ZM quite a few times, had email exchanges and fell for it all. I deeply regret it now and have long since written off a very significant amount of money.

For info to all intents and purposes FSHG is now largely defunct. However Looed and a number of others have evolved and shown fantastic perseverance and commitment – and have worked tirelessly behind the scenes. Whether and how this evolves remains to be seen, but if any of us ever see a return there are some who we should very deeply thank, acknowledge and remember.

I have to say I have moved on to other things in my life – but the FSHG database remains intact and can be used instantly if required. Best wishes to all (and PS – has anyone ever seen a post on a share – delisted for 3 years – receive 136 tick ups?)

Good post Crownos – I can relate to all that. These days QFI is my only High Risk/High Reward share – but I have had quite a few over the years. Mostly ok or good, but one spectacular failure (as one or two readers here will instantly recognise).

I was also in JLP for 5-6 years and lost patience in the end. Got out unscathed – but a little more patience and I would have been very well rewarded.

Re Director shareholdings - in my experience -it is quite rare for non-founding directors to buy significant holdings. I would expect our new Chairman to be awarded a stock option – and this is the way most non-execs initially get exposed to the new stock. The directors here have varying stock options – with Jason’s being the most substantial at around 15 million. We can add this to his 4 million “paid for” shares which cost him well into 6 figures.

Most interestingly Jason has 5 million options vesting on 1st April – and you can be sure that the strike price is well above the current SP. So we all want to see something materialise in the near future

Have to say I have held off commenting for quite a while here – and like all holders I would very much like to see news of tangible progress. However some of the recent comment is simply naïve in my humble opinion. This always has been a high risk/high reward share and the reality is that our destiny will be the result of complex and long winded commercial agreements – most of which will be negotiated behind closed doors.

As others have stated many times this is not about selling a product. It is entirely about convincing technical and commercial teams to adopt a new process that has not been proven on a commercial scale. This requires working with partner company teams to convince them of the integrity, sustainability, benefits, risks etc of the new process.

So in the example of MSC there will be a face off MSC team dedicated to this work headed up by an MSC PM. Within MSC this team will compete for airtime amongst the ranks of MSC senior management - and will have to convince senior commercial and technical teams on every aspect related to adopting any new process. (Eg our finance team will present and then re-present finance models, options and scenarios to cover just about every single financial outcome that might be envisaged). This takes time and will constantly adjust. The Senior MSC team will include all functional heads who will need to be convinced amongst other things on the technical requirements and scalability of the initiative, the risk profile, the financial strength of the supplier and the quality and depth of vendor support.

My view is that Quadrise are simply not big enough to do this on their own – and certainly in the case of MSC some sort of partnership/joint venture will eventually emerge. To get to this point the QFI team will require deep understanding of corporate leveraging options – and any CEO, FD, COO would and should be totally immersed in looking at the likely scenarios. Assisted of course by the Non Exec team.

Andy Morrison does not seem to me like a non-exec “box ticking” governance appointment. His background has been steeped in Junior AIM capital restructure initiatives – and this may indeed be exactly what we need when working at deal positioning

Philip Hill sounds precisely the sort of person we need to manage the technical team and engage with potential partners – who will ask and require convincing on a myriad of technical and commercial realisation issues. They will not want gloss – they will want deep understanding – and a person who understands their needs. Hill has extensive experience of representing BP on JV initiatives – as a partnership director - in his previous life. Quite apart from his technical expertise.

So on that basis I will agree with 46Gillingham – we need to let these guys work all this through the projects initiated thus far. As there is no negative news at this point I will also give them quite a bit of slack.

Glad to see the local expert commercial business gurus are at it it again.

Proof of concept commercial deals are not sold. They evolve through endless highly detailed test and retest phases, with similarly endless financial models being reviewed in parallel . They almost always involve third party input - technical, commercial and financial. The last big technical deal I was responsible for took a full 2 years to evaluate plus nearly a year on the final contract . Through this period "without prejudice" payments were made - and commercialisation evolved. My board and the supplier customer reviewed progress every month for around about 18 months. All under a blanket of confidentiality agreements

That's the way it works - and traditional marketing is simply not part of the process in this highly technical world

I am very happy to let the many excellent posters get on with it regarding how to make MSAR into a viable sector solution. My focus is more on the commercials and in this case the dynamics of this business. One way or another we enter the most crucial phase in QFI history - where fortuitously the market has evolved in our direction - creating in my view a now or never opportunity.

This issue of a sales director or not is a complete distraction at this time - the challenge here is about QFI being one part of a complex proof of concept leading to a collective commercial proposition. Be it Utah, Morocco, MSC, Mexico or some other place. Indeed I really don't know what a sales director would be doing all day - apart from absorbing much needed cash. Perhaps a sales role will emerge once we have both commercially viable production in place and end users - but even then that may still be a part of a collective effort. At this moment the key players here are the technical team aided by external expert input - and changing the team would in my view create more issues than it solves. Behind the scenes there will be a multitude of complexities - and the bigger the potential partner the more voices that wish to have a say. Just the way it is.

Next week will be very telling - as much about mood music as anything else.

(And for the record I have nearly 40 years of Sales and Marketing under my belt - about 30 as a Sales Manager/Director)

From the Tomco LSE board "Sounds like Jason Miles the Quadrise Chief Executive was also at the AGM now that would be interesting"

Definitely interesting.