Member Info for dustofnations

I suspect it probably depends a bit on why a given company is doing the reverse split. Example: some company's SP is extremely depressed and they're struggling/distressed (e.g. SP of £0.001) — i.e. they're doing it in an attempt to look 'in better shape' than they really are.

Quadrise is not in that camp at all.

I personally see no reason for Quadrise to do a reverse split; the number of shares in issue is not excessively high, and the (individual) SP is not excessively low.

But, perhaps SemaphorRed has more insight given his finance background.

Hi DPExplorer, lovely to hear from you after so long. Hope you and family are doing ok?

I suppose it's possible Quadrise could consider doing a share consolidation, but the value each share the moment is very reasonable by UK standards — I don't personally see it being necessary/likely.

If Quadrise ever do decide to do a consolidation/reverse split, it should be done on a value neutral basis — meaning it's just a technical change and your shareholding has an identical value before and afterwards.

Let's say Quadrise did a 10:1 consolidation at 7p; each share would now be worth 10x more, but the number of shares in issue would be divided by 10. So your net position would be absolutely identical.

Perhaps you were referring to something else?

It's like playing whack-a-mole with new accounts appearing.

There are more "Definitely Not Brian" than every episode of "Family Guy" added together, times ten.

As an aside, it is great to see some activity picking up on SemaphorRed's https://www.reddit.com/r/Quadrise subreddit. I think it's a great platform to encourage some cross-pollination with people who are not focussed solely on the UK markets like LSE tends to be.

Typo: "That's my basis for thinking Valkor and partners have *not* received the full amount of funding yet, but it is secured and will go full steam ahead."

Hotfinance14, that is a very simplistic understanding of what I was saying (I reiterate, it is only my analysis of the facts and data, not to be taken as canonical).

Others have ably pointed out the 'secured' aspect, so I won't repeat.

Another factor is that Valkor, Lafayette, HSO, etc, also have access to money from pre-IPO sources, such as various rounds of funding from HNW private investors and companies (e.g. Trio). You can see all of that in the IPO Prospectus https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1936031.

Lafeyette et al will look to raise an additional $10+ million via the IPO, but it will take a little time to get SEC approval, cooling off period + roadshow, etc. Once the IPO money comes in, the numbers add up to pretty neatly pass the $15 million target.

That's my basis for thinking Valkor and partners have received the full amount of funding yet, but it is secured and will go full steam ahead.

Also, let's be real... $350k isn't a lot of money to Valkor, and it enables them to get the MSAR show on the road — the key technology to transform their Utah bitumen from "roads material" to high value fuel for industrial and marine markets.

Onwards and upwards.

BTW, my view (and I emphasise, this is purely opinion from following Lafayette progress), is that Valkor et al haven't actually received the funding yet — but they are now confident it will be secured in the upcoming IPO that should be happening over the next month or two.

The latest IPO docs suggest Lafayette hope to secure an additional approx $10 - $11.6 million via the upcoming IPO, in addition to funds from existing pre-IPO investors of around $2.5 million they can unlock with further progress.

It's looking to be making good headway, and you can see from the filings that the plan is for Lafayette to rename to "Heavy Sweet Oil, Inc" at some point, which I think shows the centrality of the Utah project to the company.

Sorry for repeating this. But, Jason did **NOT** advise that Valkor would be paying Quadrise in December / exercising their option in December. Somehow that became a thing with a life of its own.

Jason said Valkor would be seeking to secure financing in December, and he expected the Quadrise-Valkor contract to be exercised in 1H2025 (likely 1Q). You can see that from the AGM slides very clearly (p14).

Things have ended up panning out fairly differently than originally suggested, but personally I'm okay with it from a pragmatic perspective. We'll have to wait, but I believe it better to get the ball rolling now commercially, and get the majority of the money later.

[Over the last few years, there were several times when people expected/hoped Valkor would raise financing and exercise their option and it didn't happen, but I'm just referring to the post-AGM schedule here]

Correction, on the Istanbul peak SFOC was around 50% engine load. I read from the static rig test chart. See: https://www.quadrise.com/references/msar/ (about half way down).

One key reason for the MSAR and bioMSAR POCs first is to achieve a new baseline dataset which they can then compare across time and fuels.

Leandra has been modified numerous times since the original LONO. For example, the engine has been modified with additional energy-saving upgrades (speculatively, Wartsila's Fit4Power radical derating), scrubber installed, BWTS, etc.

The team need to get updated fuel consumption figures so that all of the fuels (HFO, MSAR, bioMSAR) can fairly be compared against each other, and to find where the optimal points lie now in terms of engine load, SFOC (fuel consumption per unit energy), etc — they've probably moved around from the original testing.

For example, if you look at the Quadrise website, the peak SFOC for MSAR at the last LONO was around 25%. But the engine was absurdly overpowered for a vessel of Leandra's size, so it was never run at high loads.

Let's assume for the thought exercise that a derating has been implemented. In that case, the peak SFOC with MSAR would probably now lie at a higher peak engine load (closer to the new normal operating engine load).

So, from a science/engineering/data science perspective it's very important.

Hopefully that vaguely makes sense.

Just to be clear, that approx 2 month period is the POC for both MSAR and bioMSAR fuels. It'll depend a little bit upon which route is in use at the time, etc.

Eh, I don't understand how this relates to the water content of MSAR?

Not sure if you are trolling us and I'm getting drawn in needlessly, but... Quadrise sell MSAR on an energy basis (e.g. per MJ; per calorie), not per mass/volume basis (barrel).

Quadrise often illustratively shown HFO equivalent figures so industry people can conceptualise it better.

You need more than 1 unit of MSAR to produce the energy equivalent of 1 unit of HFO. You just inject slightly more of it into the engine.

The one nuance is that MSAR burns more efficiently, so that takes back a chunk of the energy density difference.

Ultimately, $/MJ or $/calorie is the meaningful metric for us, as the energy density of MSAR/bioMSAR/MSAR Zero depends on the feedstock, % water content, viscosity requirements, biofuel content, etc.

But it's cost adjusted to factor that in, so it doesn't matter.

Https://www.linkedin.com/posts/quadrise-international-ltd_quadrise-is-delighted-to-announce-its-first-activity-7285609076644806657-9ZYv

Read on LinkedIn, and please give it a like, comment, and reshare if you are able to spread the word (and onto other platforms too, of course).

"""

Quadrise is delighted to announce its first technology licensing revenues, having agreed a US$1.5m deal with Valkor following finalisation of their project financing programme.

The award of Quadrise’s first technology license in Utah is a pivotal moment for Quadrise and complements Valkor's low carbon enhanced oil recovery and production methods. Together, our technologies will provide very attractive low sulphur fuels and biofuels with compelling economics and environmental credentials.

"""

@semaphorRed, in the past AGMs, etc, I suggested the Quadrise team consider OTCMarkets as a transitional solution to make it easier for US investors to buy. Not something they pursued, but perhaps could look at it again in the future.

Unfortunately, quite a lot of US retail brokers don't allow the purchase of foreign stocks - or make it very difficult. OTCMarkets provides a bridge to the foreign issuer that lets US-based buy those stocks in USD with a US ticker/symbol.

(Competent brokers like Interactive Broker, of course, allow purchase of foreign stocks)

More broadly, I agree that at some point, if progress continues to be strong, a full dual listing could be a very interesting option to consider.

Sorry to harp on this, but the original agreement was $1 million upfront plus $0.5 million on delivery of a full-sized MMU. Not £1.5 million (i.e. dollars not sterling, and not all in once chunk). Apologies if it seems like pedantry, but people seem to be getting confused.

I agree it's a shame the SP growth was so modest today, but we've seen the in past that these RNSes can be slow burners and take a while for people to appreciate what has happened and how transformational it is.

Plus, plenty of short-term traders have arrived who no doubt saw the news as an opportunity to gather their profits and exit.

My hope is that we can continue building on this newsflow and see the bilateral agreements coming sooner rather than later.

I agree that a raise a the current levels or thereabout should not be troublesome, as the team have finally started delivering on the promised projects. We Quadrise shareholders have always wanted to continue supporting the company and getting this product into the marketplace at scale, they/we just needed to "see a sign", and it seems the signs are now finally arriving in good numbers.

So, one would hope that fundraising success will be a 'fait accompli' when it rolls around and we can push onto the next level.

It has been a battle to get it to this stage, and we shouldn't underestimate how much determination and suffering it has required:

- Legislation required changing to even cope with what HSO are doing;

- A protracted battle with ne'er-do-wells Hoodoo, with their rude and aggressive legal team.

- Lengthy back-and-forth with DOGM and UDOGM, requiring extensive testing and proof-of-concepts because allowing use of techniques and technologies that have never been seen or regulated in Utah before!

- Successfully modelling, designing a drilling package, and extracting a resource that has previously defeated all-comers. It's a first.

- Early difficulties finding reliable partners (e.g. Ecoteq nonsense). Since they met Michael Peterson of Lafayette Energy, it has really turned around.

- First US-based company to understand the value of MSAR and bioMSAR both environmentally and economically. They will be the first to exploit and monetise the "well-to-fuel" model that completely bypasses conventional refining.

- Kept going when things were tough, with failures of key equipment, difficult environmental and access conditions (e.g. extreme cold and deep snow), periods of tighter financing availability, etc.

A huge congratulations to the Valkor, HSO, and Lafayette teams for persisting and it's time for them to knock it out of the park.

As I've mentioned a few times, Valkor has a unique skill amongst our partners: they are an EPCI company, meaning they have full engineering capabilities in-house and can offer a full end-to-end turnkey solution to customers, including warrantying any work required on their equipment.

That's a level of assurance that should make it easier to acqu

Hi Willswag, that's exactly right, a perfect use-case for the medium MMU while Valkor are in a transitional period, ramping up to higher production levels over the next 12-24 months (for example).

The "midi" MMU can still produce a very considerable amount of Quadrise fuels (MSAR/bioMSAR/etc), but I think we can all agree that the full size one that can produce over 1,000 tonnes/day HFO equivalent is massive overkill at their current scale.

Given the number of commercial trials we have going, another midi-sized MMU might be a good thing to purchase. Panama, SE Asia Refinery, Valkor, OCP, etc.

Just a clarification that this mid-sized MMU is not a replacement for the research MMU at QRF, which can still be used to produce modest amounts of fuel.

There are some exciting steps to come from Valkor/HSO/Lafayette, albeit we'll need to have some patience. They can offer a turnkey solution to customers in the region that should make adoption much more attractive for local energy consumers.

I think everyone sensible here already understood from the open source research people like me published that things with Valkor/HSO/Lafayette were progressing well after a few hitches, but at a slower pace than previously expected.

That's often the case with startups, so it is no drama.

I think today's announcement is a pragmatic way of handling things by Jason, Steve, and all of the respective teams.

Start with the midi-MMU, upgrade to full MMU when they need it.

Recognises that Valkor et al will be progressing these projects in phases, and we can mutually help each other by not lumping too much cost on the respective parties at an early stage.

Win-win.

@Metatron: StockCheque isn't allowed to captain Leandra V, because his favourite band is Buoy Zone.

> Aye aye Cap’n… are you driving her?

That might legitimately be the scariest thing anyone has written on these forums.

That is a snippet from a longer video from summer last year.

You can find the full video here: https://mediazilla.com/Y8NNsU9Ak4

I have no doubt they are getting much closer to IPO, but I suspect we're going to have to wait a little while yet for all the SEC approvals, etc, to come through.