Member Info for dustofnations

Try telling the unlimited number of people in the future we buggered the planet to save some money today.

Honestly, this is an argument that we could go back and forward on indefinitely, and nobody will convince anyone to change their mind by this point.

I'm personally just really pleased to be holding a stock that I feel can make a tangible positive difference to GHG in a hard-to-abate sector.

Just to clear up another common area of confusion, "HSDL" is the nominee for Halifax Share Dealing, Lloyds, and iWeb amongst other retail-focussed brokers.

The majority of the company is (proudly) held by retail investors.

Typo: Wed is 15.2%

SemaphorRed, a while ago I crunched the numbers for RNS days going back to October 2019 (arbitrary cutoff). I removed noise like automated RNSes about auctions, etc (they don't do them any more).

Some useless info for you all to enjoy.

Monday - 27.4%

Tuesday - 19.5%

Wednesday - 15.5%

Thursday - 14.6%

Friday - 23.2%

All days have a decent probability, but Monday and Friday are the most frequent, accounting for a smidge more than 50% of RNSes in the period measured.

Erm, please nobody bank on this information of extremely dubious usefulness 😂. I threw it together very quickly; it hasn't been checked thoroughly for accuracy.

Kildonan, you are correct. The annotations say as much. I think it's an Alfa Laval FOPX 613 or something very similar (perhaps a newer edition).

Agreed, Alfa Laval are pretty much the 'Rolls Royce' for their sectors.

Here's the LinkedIn version. Please throw it a thumbs up and your thanks if you can: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/quadrise-international-ltd_qrf-team-at-msc-vessel-trial-activity-7283060949610074112-xUu7

Vertoro's lignins are currently not going into bioMSAR, as they have a high value a potential drop-in fuel in many different industries.

We're taking a *byproduct* from Vertoro's solvolysis process, which is crude sugars (a whole mishmash of different plant sugars).

These sugars are then blended into the water phase of bioMSAR as a super cheap additional source of low-carbon calories which would otherwise mostly be wasted (e.g. by going into biodigestion, animal feed supplementation, etc).

Other fuel technologies can't readily use that waste sugar feedstock.

(they call it 'crude sugar oil', which is a confusing brand name — it's not actually an oil at all).

@WongaFC, I know you were not directing that at me, but I just wanted to add something.

At DOGM hearings SB hinted they had Utahn industrial clients interested to trial MSAR.

But, that has to be tempered with some context: SB also made the now infamous claim that he was supplying the MSC marine trial (which we now know was mostly salesmanship, albeit it may become true in the future once they establish supply to Gulf or west coast)... So, one must account and adjust for SB's "ambition vs reality" factor! He's American, after all; a smidge of exaggeration and puffery comes with the territory.

I am not personally aware of anything concrete (pun not intended), but I do think they have excellent opportunities to make this work. Especially using their EPCI expertise and the ability to offer turnkey solutions (including maintenance).

I don't see how Lafayette can get that much further along without completing their IPO in the coming weeks/months, so we should see a clear answer to soon, you'd hope.

Their issue with the downhole heaters was unfortunate, but they have resolved that and should be going full steam ahead soon (pun intended).

But, I agree with @WongaFC, we need to look at it in a clear-eyed way and assess their progress by looking at their demonstrable progress on the ground, rather than just their ambitions.

Speaking frankly, for a medium sized business, Steve Byle and his teams/associates [1] are taking on a truly groundbreaking project that is undoubtedly all-consuming in terms of time and scale.

Then consider that they're heavily involved with Lafayette Energy Corp (LEC), which is attempting to complete an IPO soon.

I don't blame them for not finding the time to update the Valkor website frequently. In terms of priorities, it's probably far down the list!

[1] Valkor, Heavy Sweet Oil, Lafayette, CrossTrails Engineering, etc.

Yes, that is the Valkor we are involved with.

The Chinese domain squatting is some IOT business they were previously involved in that is linked to an external website. They probably forgot to remove the link.

No handwringing necessary.

Post by "ElonMusk77" that links to TikTok is spam/scam; don't click. Report his post.

Hopefully the post will be gone by the time most read this...

On that theme, semaphorRed, I had a quick look at his account and he's made the same accusation of forward selling against numerous companies in the past. Evidently a go-to scare tactic.

It is no secret that we'll raise money at some point this year, probs Q1. Any genuine investor in Quadrise already knows that and has priced it in.

Forward selling ahead on non-public information would be illegal, so one has to question why you are so keen on promoting that idea.

Completely unrelatedly, the CFD trolls out in force last days, haven't they.

What the brokers fail to mention is that for decades they've been lumping the cost of negative externalities (such as pollution) onto the planet, while netting all of the profits for themselves.

Until relatively recently, they could pump loads of sulphur into the atmosphere, high levels of methane slip, high levels of carbon dioxide emissions. Maersk et al get to enjoy the profits, and everyone else gets to enjoy acid rain, climate change, etcetera.

So yes, funding next gen fuels has an inflationary effect, but it's for a good reason.

Also, freight rates are sky high at the moment, and it's widely acknowledged that the shipping companies are super profitable, so there's profit that could be cut instead of jacking up the prices. But, there's a squeeze in capacity due to the Houthis. These companies are for-profit, so they are going to squeeze it for what it's worth.

These EU regulations will enable technologies like bioMSAR to compete and thrive, achieving the policy goal of displacing carbon intensive fuels. At some point they will withdraw incentives when biofuels have achieved efficiencies of scale and become cheap enough (in combination with taxing negative externalities).

This is likely just the beginning. There are also rumblings of further regulations on black carbon (soot), dangerous micro-particulates (PMx), and nitrous oxides (NOx).

From 1st May this near, a new Mediterranean sulphur emission controls area will come into effect (0.1%). They will also discuss NOx emissions controls within the next couple of years.

https://marine-offshore.bureauveritas.com/newsroom/sulphur-emission-control-area-seca-mediterranean-sea-2025

All of this benefits our technologies, so watch this space!

https://marine-offshore.bureauveritas.com/newsroom/sulphur-emission-control-area-seca-mediterranean-sea-2025

Ultimately, MSC are likely getting a special deal of some sort for helping us bring MSAR and bioMSAR to mass market at commercial scale. Maersk aren't going to get that now. They wanted to change tack, so it's their loss.

But, they can buy it at market rate (or negotiate) like anyone else.

The idea is that our fuel will eventually be available globally to all-comers, and hopefully we won't need to rely on any individual counterparty.

Yep, ETS kicked in more fully 1st Jan 2025, so the pain for GHG producers (which includes methane slip, BTW), will be much more painful. The cost the EU Is imposing on polluters is our opportunity, and that's a deliberate "polluter pays" measure to encourage the adoption of low carbon technologies to alleviate that cost (and the negative externality on the planet).

From the article V72 linked, "EUA procurement can be seen to have added 15.7% to VLSFO consumption costs at the end of 2024, versus 27.5% at the start of 2025".

This is a very healthy margin for us to work with, and that does not include subsidies available in places like Netherlands.

You can see why getting access to low-cost feedstocks is a critical step for the Quadrise research team — we can help customers like MSC both avoid GHG penalties, and save money via increased efficiency and lower costs than competing products.

Sedaka, I know some ULTHs who still have double digit SP averages because they bought heavily back in the earlier days. While there are 2.3x-ish shares in issue today, I do believe the potential of the company has expanded considerably due to the EU's GHG regulations (i.e. bioMSAR solves a problem that other products can't currently solve).

It is impossible for shipping companies to solve the GHG problem with conventional fuels alone — the regulations are deliberately designed to exceed what they can achieve with efficiency improvements alone. They're starting modestly, but are ramping up quickly.

The MSAR emulsion fuel platform unlocks vast amounts of untraded biogenic waste that we can 'valorise' (make valuable), but which can't be readily used by any other technology. That means those feedstocks should be cheap, diverse, and economically detached from the regular hydrocarbon fuel market.

One of its superpowers is that it can combine oil-soluble and water-soluble feedstocks into the same fuel, while remaining stable.

For example:

- Glycerine as a byproduct from food processing and biodiesel.

- Biogenic sugars from pyrolysis (BTG Bioliquids) and solvolysis (Vertoro), derived from waste biomass that is currently left to rot or fed into biodigesters for methane. We offer a much more valuable market for those feedstocks. Think of all the waste from crop stubble, bagasse, sawdust, tree bark, low-grade waste cardboard and paper that is too dirty and mixed to recycle, etcetera.

- A long pipeline of other waste feedstocks which all seem readily compatible with the MSAR emulsion platform (e.g. certain outputs from sewerage treatment plants can be converted into an oil via hydrothermal liquefaction; tyre pyrolysis oils; methyl esters). There are likely more the team haven't discovered yet.

The key takeaway is that the platform has good compatibility with a wide variety of feedstocks and hence we should be able to access plenty of calories from a diverse range of sources, which should both help us serve the market but also keep the price attractive.

The fact this all works in existing 2 stroke marine diesels is the final killer attribute. Many modern vessels are expected to have 30+ year lifespans. The industry needs solutions that can work with existing vessels, and that's exactly what we're offering.

There are incumbents that want those vessels scrapped or engines reengineered for ammonia, methanol, etc, etc, but the costs there are orders of magnitude higher.

(In some ways the name bioMSAR is a slightly misleading, because it turns out we can use non-bio feedstocks quite happily as well!)

They do need a minor retrofit, but its CAPEX payback time is minuscule and they retain full compatibility with existing fuels.

There was literally an RNS this morning

Lafayette/HSO are now planning to build an on-site processing facility, which is going to be fairly expensive. That was not in the previous IPO Prospectus. I am speculating, but processing facility is what Jason was referring to at the AGM (it is exactly the same terminology and purpose); however, previously Jason advised that this would be funded separately of Lafayette — but, it seems to have been pulled in now.

I don't think that's a negative at all; in fact, it probably simplifies things.

No idea when Lafayette are finally going to execute on the IPO, but one would hope it's not too far away.

I suspect the most recent delays are explained by the downhole heater problems. As you will see from the prospectus, these issues have been resolved by using a new vendor.

Unfortunately, the first vendor advised them to inject 1,800 barrels of water down one of their wells, which has also taken ages to extract.

You will also note some significant changes in terminology on the release of $2.5 million of funds from a strategic investor (tranche 2). Previously, it just stated "100 barrels of oil produced". This has now changed to "100 barrels of oil in full production" (which they then go on to say they have not reached full production).

At any rate, they appear to have worked out the various technical gremlins and the second downhole heater from Vendor 2 will arrive on site mid-Jan, and hopefully enable the second well to begin continuous production by end of Jan.

(More on that in the IPO Prospectus, please don't take my précis of this segment as canonical)

Lafayette released an updated IPO prospectus recently.

I wrote an in-depth summary on the Quadrise Shareholders' Forums a few days ago with a bunch of quotations, etc, but if you prefer to look at the source directly yourself, you can find it here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1936031/000165495424015928/lafa_s1.htm