Member Info for dustofnations

@Vince72, broadly agreed.

@dgdg1 - as Vince alludes to, MSAR Classic (i.e. no biofuel components) is only economically attractive if there is either:

(i) a full refinery integration such as the one Quadrise previously had at Cepsa San Roque to give access to cheap refining residues (e.g. heavy residues that come out of the bottom of a hydrocracking unit).

or...

(ii) a very low-cost natural heavy oil or bitumen that can be transformed directly from the ground into MSAR ( such as HSO's projects in the Vernal, Utah region).

So, even if we were to assume that MSC is happy to proceed on a pilot basis with MSAR after the POC, we need one of the above integrations to actually do anything commercial.

As I understand it, this is where the OCP project could be particularly useful, as it provides a basis to establish supply for MSAR Classic in the Med, which in turn can then be used to kickstart supply of MSAR Classic to the marine bunker fuel market. Naturally, the situation is currently complicated somewhat with the Houthi/Suez situation.

In the slightly longer term, I hope that once bioMSAR supply and bunkering has been established in ARA, this may open the door to direct resid supply from an ARA refinery, which could allow for MSAR Classic supply from ARA and cost optimisation for bioMSAR (i.e. replace HFO in bioMSAR with resid).

A small caveat that I think worth mentioning is that certain ultra-heavy residues from advanced refining units are apparently better suited to Power MSAR / Industrial MSAR rather than Marine MSAR. But, I don't think this should be a blocker for any of the above, as there are usually plenty of sources of residue in a given refinery.

@dgdg1, I suspect a lot of this inconsistency boils down to LONOs being a fairly arbitrary process negotiated between the different parties, including the operator, OEM, insurer, flag state, classification society, technology provider, etc. If MSC + QED can get those entities to agree that the interim LONO + POC + reams of other data generated since the last LONO is sufficient, then that is great.

The point I'm trying to make is that some of the hoops we have to jump through are a bit "squishy" and seem to depend on the people involved, negotiations, industry practices, whether all parties can be convinced, accepting temporarily paying a higher insurance premium, etc.

Leandra's engine has been modified since the last LONO, so doing an MSAR POC again makes sense to generate updated performance/efficiency data based upon today's setup.

Bremerhaven has not been converted to use MSAR yet.

I agree that word of the year is 'patience'.

Timelines have always been a weakness for Quadrise for various reasons, including dealing with huge counterparties that don't care about such things, poor estimations, world events, etc.

This will likely continue to be a theme, and we shouldn't panic or become overly negative if there are further short delays.

That said, protracted delays may be problematic, as shipping companies are now well into the process of selecting their candidates for compliance with the EU's CO2 regulations (e.g. some options such as gaseous and cryo H2 have broadly been rejected).

"""

In simple terms, those who have access to the SETS order book and have shares for sale will enter a sell order on to the book. Those who wish to buy will enter a buy order into the order book. The system will automatically match up buyers and sellers who match on price - often one large order will be matched up with several smaller orders on the "other side". The matched orders are removed from the book, and a transaction is executed between buyer and seller. Again, each transaction is both buy and sell, and again, only one transaction report is required. These automated trades have a trade type of AT.

"""

Source: https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/81/idiots-guide-to-the-london-stock-exchanges-setsmm-0379.html

During the AGM they said they were waiting for the last bits of Aquafuel data to be collected and crunched before they finalised the sustainability report, so the key data on bioMSAR and bioMSAR Zero could be included. So yes, I expect they will be releasing it soon. I don't know which day, obviously! But, I don't think there are any remaining blockers.

Sorry, it's late and there were lots of typos that I didn't notice.

Corrections:

"like an target MSAR" => "like an MSAR target"

"The Heavy Sweet Oil bitumen from the Quadrise has been collaborating" => "The Heavy Sweet Oil bitumen from the Vernal site that Quadrise has been collaborating"

Hi @jackg123. Can never rule anything out of course, but the description of Canyon Energy doesn't sound very much like an target MSAR.

"""

Our first refinery will be located on 400-acres in Utah, designed to produce 50% fuels (diesel and jet fuel) and 50% non-fuels, which includes industrial lube oils and refined wax that provide the products we need for everyday life.

"""

"""

Canyon’s first refinery will be located in Utah’s Uintah Basin, where the production of a unique waxy crude oil has more than doubled in the past two years, with well performance now surpassing Permian Basin wells. Canyon also expects to benefit from a large oil price discount in the region and the ability to separate wax to produce lubricants and refined wax.

"""

Utah's traditionally extracted oil is light-to-medium waxy crude, as referred to in the above quotations taken from Canyon's website.

The Heavy Sweet Oil bitumen from the Quadrise has been collaborating on is an extremely heavy bitumen that has essentially no wax.

And my understanding was that HSO's idea is not to refine the bitumen, but instead lightly process it to separate off diesel, and sell the remaining bitumen-based MSAR directly to consumers. Canyon sounds like their whole proposal is a refinery.

As always, I am perfectly happy to be wrong on this.

Speaking to nobody in specific, I would just add a note of caution. Steve has been overoptimistic on his timelines for years. He delivers the results, but rarely to the anticipated schedule.

[And yes, we've been the same.]

So if it doesn't happen in December, don't immediately be excessively worried.

Hi @boyporche, same for me, around 2011.

I used to read the posts by TheHog2, TheAncientMariner, and Rob79, but I didn't start getting involved in posting for a few more years. When I started, it was over at the old Interactive Investor forums, which were eventually closed down — though, I had moved over to the Quadrise Shareholders' Forum and LSE before the closure.

I agree the SP is still very depressed, but that reflects the fact we haven't actually signed a commercial deal yet, and the market is understandable a bit skeptical about whether the projects will go ahead (given then long delays).

I've waited this long, a bit longer shouldn't make much difference.

As I've posted many times over the years, I think the regulatory environment is shaping up perfectly to push marine operators towards our solutions. It is also coinciding with the commercialisation of other complementary enabling technologies from companies such as Vertoro and BTG Bioliquids.

Fingers crossed we continue to get strong newsflow over the coming weeks and months.

Regarding bioMSAR Zero timelines, from speaking to the team informally at the AGM, it's clear that their opinion is that it's a case of "when" not "if" for releasing the product. As everyone will understand, Quadrise have to be guarded, and not promise anything at this stage for legal reasons, but they've proven almost everything that needs to be proven. This will be especially true once the bioMSAR POC and LONO are underway.

Now begins the process of undertaking the 'boring but essential' task of validating the many different feedstocks and putting them through the engine test rigs (the 4S Cummins engine, larger 4S VTT engine, etc) — this is my speculation, but I think they are trying to define a rigorous process that can become the officially accepted pathway in future for all new MSAR residual feedstocks before they are offered to customers in a real fuel blend.

Naturally, the focus is mostly on bioMSAR for the short-medium term, but this work is a key element in proving the idea that MSAR emulsion technology is not just a marine transition technology, but could be a credible long-term 'energy-carrier platform' that should have legs for decades into the future.

Well done to the team, and hope to see more news soon on Morocco, bilateral marine deals, etc.

@testpack3 this is such a bizarre and disordered response, I'm not sure where to even begin. I didn't say anything about your username, you seem to be confusing me with someone else?

You then go on to accuse us of being in hoc with big oil. If big oil were backing Quadrise, why is the share price 3.5p? And why has big oil never invested in Quadrise? It's been mostly retail investors like us that have kept the company going through the hard times. We believe in the environmental potential of the technology to decarbonise shipping (especially the vast existing fleets).

Big oil wants to survive, hence they are dabbling in all kinds of different technologies from hydrogen to biofuels to wind farms and solar. We're not involved in some sort of conspiracy theory.

At various points you are conflating or confusing energy density per mass and energy density per volume. The same parameters for being a good rocket fuel are not the same parameters as being good for long-distance shipping. Cryo H2 8 MJ/L vs HFO at ~35-40 MJ/L.

We aren't stacking Leandra on her backside and blasting her into space. If that were the mission and you were trying to escape Earth's gravity well, then specific impulse, power density, and other parameters might be more relevant. For our long-distance marine market targets, low-cost, improved environmental performance, unproblematic fuel storage (i.e. don't spend energy to store the fuel), and at least reasonable volumetric energy density, are extremely important factors.

Cryogenic (liquid) hydrogen needs to be stored at -253C; it takes an insane amount of size and energy to maintain those conditions, which is especially important for long-distance shipping, you have to look at the whole well-to-wake performance, not just the moment of combustion. People in the industry have said the same for years about gaseous or cryo hydrogen, and hence why they want to use alternatives like ethanol as a carrier molecule for H2. I know that you disagree, but the entire container marine industry says otherwise.

You mostly ignored all my other points about decarbonising existing fleets, waste biogenic source, able to support non-biogenic ethanol, etc, so I won't rehash them.

Anyway, I can see from the responses you've made to me and others that something isn't quite right with you, so I'll just leave it there.

Quadrise have said it is a refinery that can serve the Singapore region, but is not in Singapore itself. Malaysia seems likeliest to me, but there are probably a few candidates.

> The good news is that Big Oil would rather see this 'green' technology used, rather than the much 'greener' Hydrogen Fuel Cell power units for commercial shipping.

Bit of a sour comment at the end there! I take it you are an investor in some HFC company?

The problems with hydrogen fuel cells for long-distance commercial shipping are so extensive that it would quickly become an essay.

There's a reason that nobody has seriously adopted HFC technology for reducing carbon in container shipping, especially for the tens of thousands of existing vessels that have up to 30+ operating lifespan left.

Even when held in cryogenic conditions, hydrogen's energy density is very low, which causes serious range limitations; it causes hydrogen embrittlement to anything it touches on the ship; it requires extensive infrastructure onboard that uses a lot space, energy, and weight; most hydrogen produced today is from reforming natural gas and is not even vaguely green.

I think you can more cogently make an argument for methanol or ethanol produced from hydrogen onshore and then used in liquid form on vessels. The energy invested in hydrolysis is very high, but with enough renewables it eventually seems plausible.

Nobody can predict the future completely, but there's a massive amount of residual biogenic waste that is currently just left to rot or used in biodigestion which can be integrated in to bioMSAR. There are vast amounts of biogenic energy that is currently being wasted or going to low-value sinks that we could utilise to reduce carbon for shipping.

bioMSAR can use many different water or oil soluble energy sources, so it could also include ethanol from green hydrogen. The flexibility of the technology is its real magic.

Hi Vince, yes, I understood the same from the AGM, as well (and subsequent IMC Q&A).

AIUI, the idea is minimally that MSAR Classic would be supplied to the marine sector from same Mediterranean refinery/bunkering location as OCP — I also agree that Cepsa/Moeve are the likeliest, and probably San Roque or La Huelva. Having multiple independent purchasers of the MSAR fuel would surely make the proposition more attractive for a refiner.

Secondly, Cepsa/Moeve have been investing very heavily in biofuel capacity, which should consequently produce plenty of residual/waste biofuel that we can use — that should offer a great opportunity for establishing bioMSAR supply at some point in the future, as well. I don't think the current tax and incentives situation is as good as ARA for biofuels, though.

My understanding is that the initial focus for ARA is bioMSAR, but there could be an opportunity to permanently supply MSAR Classic in the future by, (i) adding in a refinery integration; (ii) using one of the heavy residual fuel streams that is used for blending at the terminals. Option 1 being more optimal from an economics perspective.

Interestingly, these same optimisations would also benefit bioMSAR economics, as they currently use HFO for the fossil component, and would be able to swap this out for cheaper residual streams.

Sorry, this is getting deep into the weeds on this last part, but I think the takeaway is "there are plenty of operational and supply-chain optimisations left". That's definitely a positive.

Interestingly, Maersk have ordered several more large LNG vessels.

It's quite funny when you consider that the previous boss, Soren Skou said that:

i) they would never order LNG (they did)

ii) they would never use scrubbers, as they were "pollution factories" (they did)

iii) the future was methanol, and all the other approaches were just nonsense (seems not!)

IMO, part of the change in tack here is because of Vincent Clerc, the former head of France's CMA-CGM replacing Skou. As many of you undoubtedly know, CMA-CGM is famous for its LNG-powered vessels, so undoubtedly he's been encouraging some exploration in that area.

I think I posted this over on the Quadrise Shareholders' Forums a couple of days ago, but Maersk is going to fall to 3rd place in the world rankings for TEU very shortly (behind CMA-CGM, ironically).

These new vessels they've ordered are not arriving for a long time, so it seems entirely possible to me that they'll end up in 4th place within a few years.

Certainly Maersk have suffered quite the fall from their pinnacle 5-10 years ago, where they seemed absolutely unstoppable. Even the 2M alliance is on the way out.

I know it has been a horrifically long wait for Quadrise, and we still have a long way to go (and plenty of risk), but our big 'second chance' being with MSC has turned out to be doubly fortunate because we've backing a winning horse — and, IMO, they're still on the way up.

Fingers crossed we get the bilateral deals soon and can crack on...

Source: Alphaliner Top100 https://alphaliner.axsmarine.com/PublicTop100/ — also check the "orderbook" column at the very right-hand side.

I guess you were stewing on that response for a long time given the gap between your posts.

The entire shareholder community naturally breaks down into many different subgroups, some of which overlap in the venn diagram, and others don't.

I thought it was always a positive thing that people cross-posted references to content, so holders can come across and sign up to the Quadrise Shareholders' Forum (QSF). Or we reference stuff on LSE that is not on the forums, and people can pop across. The formatting available on the QSF is much more sophisticated, and you can do attachments, images, tables, embed YouTube videos, etc — for more sophisticated content, it's really good.

The reason the Quadrise Shareholders' Forum is private is so we could provide effective moderation that enables us to spend much more time talking about Quadrise, emulsion fuels technology, business cases, financial analysis, etc — and much spend less time debating back-and-forth with angry people, argumentative people, professional "put-downers", people attacking other people, no rampers, no derampers, etc. [FWIW, I've not personally been heavily involved in that, as I wasn't an admin until much more recently].

I do really value that calm venue where people can talk about the business and many related topics without it getting personal.

I emphasise that anyone is welcome to sign up, as long as it doesn't trigger Tapatalk's mechanisms about dodgy or abusive accounts.

TBH, I only really engaged here with you today because I thought it was out of character for you to be having a go at other LTHs like that.

You do you; I promise I won't say anything more to you. Water under the bridge.

Interesting post about Stolt tankers using a biofuel blend in their 30+ inland tankers.

Overall, I think it's good for Quadrise bioMSAR that operators are becoming more comfortable with using wastbiofuels/alternative fuels. Ultimately, we should be able to offer a significantly cheaper alternative by making use of residual 2G streams with minimal processing and no other high-value sinks (e.g. low-grade glycerine that might otherwise just go into bio-digestion).

https://shipandbunker.com/news/world/315014-stolt-tankers-to-use-hvo20-bunker-blend-on-more-than-30-inland-tankers

Fyoz, I really don't what you've been saying these last few days about the Quadrise Shareholders' Forums, tbh.

We're volunteers running the forums in our spare time, and we try to be fair within the rules. None of us get paid and it's 100% volunteers, none of us are traders.

I understand you might not like the moderation approach or people cross-promoting their posts, so perhaps you should start your own forum and invite likeminded people?

Folk put a lot of time and effort into the work they publish. If you don't like that approach, that's cool, but I don't get the need to make the sharp and hateful responses. Why not just ignore it?

We're all shareholders in the same community, and want this company to succeed (with only rare exceptions).

Fantastic, well done Prep. Very important clarification. 120ktpa is a very sizeable amount of MSAR to get started with, and that just covers the basic use-cases at Jorf Lasfar, AIUI.