Member Info for dustofnations

There are a series of bilateral agreements that pop out of the master agreement that was signed on Tuesday, as described in detail during the AGM presentation (i.e. they are finalised, but need signing by senior stakeholders). Jason will also undoubtedly be pushing the counterparties to sign those ASAP so that timelines can be compressed as much as possible.

No doubt he'll pop up for some interviews when he has some time, but I don't mind him prioritising these important matters!

It's publicly available information, just can be a bit difficult to find (engine models are all disclosed on public ship registry data).

I asked Jason during the informal chat session this very question, and he said there were currently around 20 Flex-powered vessels that looked good candidates in MSC's fleet.

So, plenty to get started with. They will all be sizeable vessels.

As a follow-on, I asked about the WinGD X series engines and how that would work from a LONO perspective. The X engines are extremely closely-related derivatives of the Flex series (Wartsila sold its 2-stroke marine diesel business to WinGD). WinGD X engines power many of MSC's newer vessels.

In short, it is something Quadrise will engage with WinGD on once the LONO is more advanced, but hopefully there should be plenty of useful data and learnings that can be transferred over to make any approval process for X engines much easier. It is not possible at this stage to say what level of testing/validation/etc WinGD will require, but they have a good relationship with Quadrise and completing that pivotal Flex LONO will be a major string in their bow.

Then, of course, Quadrise will need to tackle MAN at some point; they are the dominant player in the market — though Wartsila/WinGD are very significant players in the very largest vessels, MAN are dominant below that level.

I was reassured that the team have a strategy on this important subject and there appears to be a pathway forwards.

@Fyoz — I think the "Focus Motor Yacht" project with Vertoro is being underrated.

Having a floating marine testbed for our bioMSAR and MSAR Zero products is a huge benefit for Quadrise.

IMO, Vertoro's process to extract crude sugars from waste biomaterial is one of the most promising approaches for generating low-cost feedstocks for bioMSAR. It [Vertoro's process] requires very little energy input, so it is highly efficient compared to traditional pyrolysis approaches — the tradeoff is that it produces a jumble of sugars with different molecular structures and lengths. But with Quadrise's emulsions fuel platform technology, we don't care about that heterogeneity.

Plus, it proves that our product works well in small-to-medium sized marine engines (not sure if 4S or 2S, but we can do both). That could prove a new market/niche for us.

Of course, Vertoro's process is much less mature, so it's going to take a while before they can scale up and produce the millions of tonnes of feedstock we could potentially consume if MSC comes on board.

> you'd think they would stagger that news

They have to release the news as soon as possible, artificially holding back material news with no good reason is illegal under market abuse regulations (and helping "optimise" the SP by spacing out announcements in a certain way is definitely not a good reason according to MAR).

Quadrise are a technology company, they don't own any oil wells, ships, etc.

The oil well assets you are referring to are owned by a key United States customer, Heavy Sweet Oil, LLC (aka. HSO).

HSO are closely associated with Valkor, LLC / Valkor Group, which is an EPCI, and Lafayette Energy Corporation a soon-to-IPO energy exploration and development company.

These customers wish to use Quadrise's MSAR technology to enable them to: (1) sell to their bitumen directly into the marine bunker fuels market as an ultra-low sulphur marine fuel (probably similar to MGO); (2) to local industrial consumers.

As an EPCI, Valkor are well-placed to help their end-customers use MSAR/bioMSAR.

Kolonic: the point you're hitting on is the key to the "fuel platform" concept. Whether you want to go down the biofuel route with waste plant sugars, tyre pyrolysis oils, glycerin, green ethanol, Quadrise should be able to facilitate.

For most customers, they won't care — as long as it's cheap and hits the emission reductions targets.

But, if you're ideological like Maersk, there's no reason we can't make something special that's more focussed on their preferred technologies.

So, let's see where it goes.

Plenty of tonnage to convert just from MSC.

The EU regulations are doing us a huge favour by adding in some time pressure, as well.

Sorry, I replied to the wrong thread on this topic earlier.

TL;DR is that you'd be better off consulting tea leaves or entrails than listening to Zak Mir.

Krak Mir is the AIM version of Jim Cramer: his picks tend to be worse than rolling a dice, and most of his 'successes' are when he jumps onto stocks that have just released news guaranteed to continue making the SP grow for a while (and not actually because his silly chartism predicts anything).

Best ignored...

Some nice comments from our new channel partner in Finland, Auramarine (or "Aquamarine", seemingly).

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/auramarine-oy_marineindustry-partnership-decarbonisation-activity-7267143700625903618-L6ob

"Great news!! Congratulations Quadrise Plc! We are pleased to start collaboration with you."

1) It is engine work hours, hence the variability in timelines. Basically, they want to know whether there will be excessive wear and/or any technical problems. When the engine is stopped, that would not generate any useful data.

2) Yes, we will be paid. But, the terms are commercially sensitive, so nothing being disclosed. It was mentioned that the price paid during the trials will reflect the small volumes involved, so the full commercial deal will obviously offer a more compelling per tonne price, but everyone understands that.

3) It's more complicated than that. The trial is binding, in that the parties have obligations and responsibilities that are legally enforceable, and people can't just pull out willy nilly. AIUI, they've drafted the binding terms for the full commercial agreement, but there will obviously be a load of contingent criteria required before that is effective, such as succeeding with the LONO, all parties being satisfied, and then they'll finalise and sign.

The deal has been posted up on LinkedIn. Throw it a 'congratulations' like and reshare if you are feel able.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/quadrise-international-ltd_marineindustry-partnership-decarbonisation-activity-7267122131904204800-wBWm

"""

Quadrise is pleased to announce the finalisation of our long-awaited collaboration with MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company and Cargill for a groundbreaking operational trial of our cleaner fuels.

[Read more at the link]

"""

> "somewhat vague or contingent"

Not sure what else you could expect?

If it were concrete, then they would have been announced in an RNS as signed contracts.

Inherently, they can't march up to Geneva and force Mr. Aponte to sign on the dotted line, so it remains contingent until then.

Hence the huge SP discount currently available.

Safe trip to anyone making the journey.

Definitely not new, we've been following it for a few months on the forums (you probably missed it, which isn't a criticism — we all have better things to do, I suspect).

Here's the initial version of the Lafayette website that I submitted to the Wayback Machine back in early/mid-September.

It appeared a bit earlier, but I wanted to save this version for posterity: https://web.archive.org/web/20240913154527/https://lafayetteenergycorp.com/oil-and-gas-targets/

You can compare to today's snapshot (or other subsequent snapshots by using the arrow):

https://web.archive.org/web/20240926162145/https://lafayetteenergycorp.com/oil-and-gas-targets/

Various discussion on Quadrise Shareholders' Forum if you are interested, but the long and short of it is that they mentioned Quadrise tech from the beginning of publishing their full website.

It's been in filed status since around September. It pulls the information from the SEC's EDGAR database, AIUI.

Keep an eye on the updated filings using SIC 0001936031

Yes, ongoing revenue sharing is the most important revenue stream for Quadrise to build a sustainable business.

Upfront lump sums are just a 'sugar rush' in comparison, and probably tempting at the moment to get additional capital into the business to lengthen the runway (i.e. pay wages and other costs), but possibility of recurring revenues is what it is all about to realistically build a business to the point it can stand on its own feet and/or be tempting for acquisition.

> So not in a totally unsimilar position to Quadrise then? No money and no revenue-generating services as we sit here and currently a 32.5% spread (as I write).

There's really no sensible comparison.

TomCo has an mcap of £1.71 million, Quadrise around £30 million. TomCo is essentially worthless at this point.

Quadrise has unique IP that it created in-house, i.e. its own skills and technology. TomCo has zero.

Quadrise has enough money to last well into next year, and should still be able to raise money in advance of that if they need to. It would not be pleasing to me if they needed to raise at the current SP, but I have no reason to think they would not be able to.

TomCo needed to resort to brutally dilutive methods of financing that have increased the number of shares in issue by an order of magnitude in a relatively short period of time.

Quadrise has been struggling to close things out, but has a pipeline of several serious prospects with big name partners that they have sufficient funds to execute on. TomCo doesn't even currently have enough money to make use of its last remaining lease, it's used its current funds to pay outstanding trade debts. Quadrise doesn't have debt problems.

I don't think Quadrise are are doing fabulously at the moment, but any comparison with TomCo is completely financially illiterate.

Sadly, Crownos is correct, in my opinion.

The driving force behind TomCo is gone, and according to the company's filings, the money the company recently raised by selling back a lease is being used to cover expenses already incurred. That is on top of brutal dilution over the last few years.

TOM have no full time staff, no significant financial resources, only a single lease left after the sellback (AIUI), and are not providing any revenue-generating services.

Volume is very low and volatile, spread is very wide (22% as of writing). Perhaps those conditions are nice for speculative traders where small trading volumes can move the SP significantly.

I genuinely wish TOM the best of luck, but they are in a difficult spot and people should be aware of that extreme risk.

Also, they no longer have any active agreements with Quadrise (a question someone asked at the last AGM, if I recall correctly).

Don't forget to request your Letter of Representation if you are attending the AGM.

Most brokers will send you a physical letter.

According to some info posted on The Quadrise Shareholders' Forums, HL does it a bit differently. If you request your letter of representation, they will put your name onto a list provided to the company (I believe you still need to request it, it is not automatic).

Wishing us all the best of luck.

Phlandomobalpus - to be clear, these are dual fuel vessels, so they can use HFO or MSAR, etc. So they are keeping their options open, which is the only sensible thing at this point.