Member Info for dustofnations

Sorry, that point was meant to be referring to Andrew Left. And apologies, I've already moved this discussion far off Quadrise topics now!

> I'm talking about the Ryan Choi sub element of the Left situation which is a little more nuanced and interesting to me

Thanks semaphorRed, I'll check that out. Sounds like an intriguing new element to the story.

This kind of "selective disclosure of positions/trading and misleading targets" manipulative behaviour is extremely common, so I suspect he will argue this is selective prosecution. We see it all the time here on AIM and the regulators do nothing.

I have been enjoying listening to Patrick Boyle's YouTube videos on the topic, for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdBTuwmsx3Q

I notice that the company/investor that provided an initial large tranche of funding for Lafayette Trade (Trxade Health Inc) has recently merged with another company.

Trxade are/were due to release another set of funds after 100 barrels of production, but we will not know the current status of affairs until Lafayette release an update to their IPO documentation and/or actually IPO.

I imagine they will update their filings soon, but I have no special information there.

If you're talking about the Andrew Left situation, a key detail is that Left would published buy/sell targets on stocks that he was looking to trade.

However, after publishing his research, Left would almost entirely exit his position — often after a matter of minutes — despite being absolutely nowhere near the target he published and was promoting; he continued to appear on TV shows, social media, etc, claiming he had a strong position.

He never informed anyone he was using that approach, and hence even took steps to reiterate the misleading and/or selective disclosures.

Whether it's illegal shall be determined by the courts in due course, but it was extremely dishonest in a layperson's sense of the word.

However, anyone here would certainly not find that kind of behaviour surprising (selective disclosure of trading activity and issuing of faux price targets in order to benefit one's position).

Sadly, Mystic Meg died last year, so you might need a seance for her Quadrise RNS predictions.

OB — while I don't disagree that speculation about tax changes may be a factor, UK stock valuations have been horrible for several years now, it's definitely not a recent phenomenon.

Giffer, I agree a takeover is amongst the possible outcomes if Quadrise can get some significant commercial contracts signed, including proving out marine MSAR commercially (I wouldn't dare assign a % estimate, but you would hope it is high).

Companies like Quadrise always need to plan for a 'business as usual' scenario though and not rely on a takeover, to avoid being snapped up for an unnecessarily large discount — I think the partnership approach is the solution there to avoid the huge capital requirements of a '100% going it alone' strategy.

Mentally for me, this all falls into the "nice to worry about if/when we get there" category.

From my vantage point today, Quadrise getting those fundamental trial and commercial contracts signed is absolutely critical–path in terms of prioritisation (e.g. if you're at a risk of a heart attack, worry about sorting that first before spending time booking a holiday).

> Thats a shed load of MMU's around the world

A single full sized MMU can produce a vast amount of MSAR: Quadrise advises about 350,000 mt/year or 1000 mt/day, the former of which includes assumptions for maintenance downtime.

There are only a handful of major bunkering hubs worldwide that the majority of large container vessels take on fuel. And if they need a top-up of a different fuel, they can store it in a separate tank (fuel switching is performed routinely nowadays).

I think the major challenge is more about getting these LONOs done, clients committed, and getting ourselves into each major bunkering hub — e.g. setting up the supply of resid with a refinery (alternatively HFO for bioMSAR), sourcing and supplying residual biofuels, finding bunkering partners, getting all permits, etcetera.

That's where partnerships should come if Quadrise are able to get over the painful sticking points we've been waiting on for ages now.

I agree that the Utah project should be more straightforward, but the key moments there will be if/when Valkor reveal they have local customers willing to try and buy MSAR, and of course, signing the license agreement.

(p.s. not sure why folk keep writing Utah in all caps? 😅)

Thanks for your thoughts, Willswag.

> Steve Byles has slso told the Utah DOGM that he proposes using the (MGO) derived from asphalt ridge to fuel a marine trial. He means well and I agree that he is a fabulous partner for QED,

Not sure if I quite understand what you are getting at.

As I understand it, there are a couple of separate things here:

1) I think sometimes Steve mixes up ULSFO/"marine gas"/MGO when he's speaking informally about marine fuels. But, it's somewhat irrelevant as MSAR can be made to a wide range of viscosity specs — especially if the feedstock isn't too heavy (i.e. keeps the water:fuel ratio reasonable in the MSAR). It seems plausible to me that with the HSO asphalt not being particularly viscous by MSAR standards, Quadrise/HSO could produce a lighter MSAR fuel if needed (albeit, the HSO bitumen is heavy by 'natural bitumen' standards, but much lighter than resid from the bottom of a cracking unit). Perhaps there's a niche market where this could be useful (i.e. some engines not compatible with heavier fuels?).

2) Separately, HSO have said there is a very small light fraction in their bitumen they can extract using simple inline atmospheric distillation equipment. Basically, they boil off some light stuff. According to Steve, it is roughly equivalent to a marine diesel (MGO/MDO), so could theoretically be sold into that market or to refineries.

3) If you are referring to SB's claim a few years ago that they might be supplying the MSC trials, then I agree that was some salesmanship semi BS — although goodness knows what's going to happen considering SB's project has moved ahead apace, whilst the MSC LONO is moving excruciatingly slowly...

This is strictly "as I understand it", as I have not confirmed any of this with Lafayette/SB/etc.

> We don’t really need many more references to our tech from Utah

Respectfully disagree with this. Having a *commercial* reference for MSAR is going to be a game-changer for us, in my view.

Somewhere Quadrise can point to and say to any potential new clients, "These guys use MSAR 24/7/365; they have no problems; the economics are solid. Want to go and have a look for yourself?".

@Willswag, my understanding was that asphalt that is ripped up/replaced is typically recycled, so you don't need to use all virgin material. https://utahasphalt.org/asphalt-and-recycling/

Your point is well-made. During roads season Lafayette may be able to sell a great deal of asphalt binder, which is a good off-take destination, albeit it is not achieving premium pricing of an ULSFO/MGO emulsion fuel product.

The challenge is to convince US customers to accept an emulsion fuel, and make any necessary engineering tweaks — this is where I believe Valkor as an EPCI are well-placed to provide a 'turnkey solution service' to potential MSAR consumers.

It is worth noting that Steve Byle has a background in the marine industry, as he was the CTO and large shareholder in DockWise (which in turn was acquired by Boskalis). They were involved in the heavy marine transport.

You can see a bit of the background here:

https://www.valkorgroup.com/about

Hopefully SB can apply some of that knowledge to MSAR Marine in the US, which he's hinted at by saying that MSAR produced from his resid in Utah could be used in US inland waterway vessels due to its extremely low sulphur.

I do think we have a good quality partner in the shape of Valkor/Steve Byle (SB) and Lafayette/Michael L. Peterson (MLP), and that was something I did not say about Ecoteq, Petroteq, TomCo, and various others.

As always, risk abounds, but I see it as a positive sign that we are working with serious people like SB and MLP who have a good track record.

It has been a very frustrating year for LTHs (even by Quadrise standards), as the timeline guidance has been terrible. I hope that some positive newsflow can give us a bit of the momentum our patience deserves.

Fyoz — agree with your comment re: MSAR/Lafayette. Lafayette would be completely mad to pin their entire business model on MSAR at this early pre-IPO stage, they need to plan multiple ways to generate revenues that are as independent as possible. That said, I certainly believe Lafayette/HSO need MSAR technology to extract the true value of the asset they are working on.

It is unclear to me how Lafayette could sell massive volumes of bitumen binder to the roads department during the winter when it's -10 to -20C in Utah, with 2 metres of snow, etc. Clearly the department's storage will become full at some point, and typically it's a fair way into spring until they start operating again. I may be missing a key part of the analysis here, so I would welcome anyone who can add some perspective.

Of course, we don't have the same market data that the Lafayette/HSO team have, so this analysis is all "for what it's worth", but if they can crack some local industrial use-cases for MSAR, that alone would be a wonderful demonstrator.

As always, we wait impatiently...

(Cross-posting from The Quadrise Shareholders' Forum as suggested by nico66)

Quite a comprehensive new video from the Lafayette Energy Team about the company and their ambitions. It references MSAR a few times (as their emulsion technology for marine fuels). Well worth watching.

https://mediazilla.com/Y8NNsU9Ak4

Some chunky late-reported buys yesterday, so probably more accumulation going on in the background.

Gentlemen. Please, don't be baited by Sealion Singh into responding.

He acts in bad faith and parrots points that have been debunked ad infinitum.

He will come back with incessantly and ignore what you have said. That's part of the sealioning strategy: derailing real conversation by provoking people and clogging up the boards.

The stock has performed well over the last 5 years, so there are probably long holders sitting on significant gains at the current SP who are willing to sell down for a large profit.

The incoming institutional holders have been able to continue building their stakes and have found enough sellers at the current SP, so why bother paying extra if a bit of patience can snag them a bargain. We've seen Octopus happy to pick up an extra percent every few week or so.

If institutions continue accumulating and the company continues performing well, the sellers willing to part with their shares at 30p should eventually dry up.

BTW, a detail worth paying attention to in the RNS is that Octopus passed this latest threshold on 20th September, which corresponds to the period of very high volume/trading that we were chatting about around that date.

I'm sure IIs will keep buying HVO while the price remains discounted versus non-UK peers. It is a very good value proposition.

The IPO documentation should be taken as canonical, rather than an offhand remark from a third party (Jason) during a real-time interview; the details in the IPO docs are legally significant.

And no, I'm not calling up Jason. That would be an extremely weird thing to do.

That is not true. Lafayette/HSO just need to produce 100 barrels of oil to trigger the $2.5M investment milestone, that's it. It is a simple proof of viability.

You are inventing extra conditions around the 100bbl that do not exist (the full detail is in the IPO documentation).

Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1936031/000165495424012070/lafa_s1.htm

My understanding of the other marine company was always that they are a major bulker operator, so almost certainly not Maersk. Bulkers move stuff like wheat, corn, iron ore, etc, often on the spot market using tramping, hence the interest in "blend on board" as they don't necessarily have predictable bunkering in the way container vessels do.

But, that's just informed speculation, please don't take it to the bank.