Member Info for dustofnations

Replying here to avoid amplifying Sealion Singh's concern trolling.

Agree with your general points @oilbagger; I also believe that European Green Transition is where CF likely has his sights for this cash.

If you have a look over at LON:EGT, you will see they've announced some discoveries/results recently which will likely require considerable capital to execute, given the capital heavy nature of the extractive and/or remediation industry.

(see recent RNSes: "Metallurgical Results from Olserum REE Project", "Initial Sample Results – Copper Tailings Project")

Logically, one would expect this to be where CF is putting that cash.

CF seems to like making high-risk early stage investments where he can have a big impact, retains control, and has the opportunity to (for example) 20x+ his return very quickly. That's fair enough.

Yet back with HVO, I am very pleased with Mo and the team, and the serially successful results speak volumes about the direction of the company — but, it's not a high-risk early stage business any more. HVO has become a mature, steady growth company, which is held as a 'core portfolio' asset by various IIs and punters like me. Heck, it even has regular dividends! This is all about building significant value over time.

Lafayette's IPO docs were just updated:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1936031/000165495424009110/lafa_s1.htm

Per the above, on HSO 2-4 and HSO 8-4, "... expects to begin production of the HSO 2-4 well during the last week of July 2024 and expects to install a down-hole heater and begin production of the HSO 8-4 well during the first week of August 2024."

Do not engage with Sealion Singh, his oxygen is bad faith engagement, clogging up the forums with annoyed responses.

Bad faith interlocutors are never going to respond to your calls to reason.

Sealion Singh knows what he says is rubbish, and is just toying with people to waste their time and energy — and to deny space to genuine conversations.

Add Sealion Singh to your block list.

Do not respond to his incessant demands to engage in a faux debate.

Fantastic update today.

Well done again to Mo and the team.

Some of the H2 revenues pulled into H1 by making use of the lease overlaps between old and new facilities, which meant we were maxing out 3 sites at once!

A smart move to bring in cash earlier and get it working for us, rather than with the customer. Some intelligence is required to interpret this aspect properly.

Importantly — as Mo was repeatedly emphasised — we operate a WEIGHTED order book. This means that bookings which are further into the future are given a lower weightings, as there is inherently a higher chance of cancellation.

As those projects draw nearer, they will be assigned higher weightings — and, of course, new projects will be won, as clients often don't like to join long waiting lists.

Obviously this is an area that is prone to misunderstanding, hence need for Mo's emphasis.

Consider that even over this transition period to the new facilities, HVO have grown cash and revenues very considerably. This reflects superb operational performance, with a the notable improvement in EBITDA.

With the streamlining of sites now complete, there should be latitude to improve EBITDA even further.

I agree with others who have suggested that a special dividend is in order once the acquisition is completed.

Fabulous work, and long may it continue.

And great to see continued 3%+ disclosures from institutional shareholders. There will undoubtedly be plenty below the threshold, but it builds our reputation as a "core portfolio holding".

Kolonic — aiui, there were some parts needed, so production was delayed slightly while those were ordered and delivered.

The move to the new study site is a huge step in the right direction to maintain our long-term healthy growth trajectory. It makes sense to invest now, especially as clients are willing to eat much of the cost — that's an opportunity HVO should not turn down.

Looking forward to the results tomorrow.

And that our marine partner was MSC before that was formally announced.

And that our Moroccan partner was OCP, long before everyone started saying it was obvious.

And that MSC were acquiring Leandra. And others dug up that Bremerhaven was being acquired as well.

And accurate information on Quadrise's partners in Honduras/Panama re: Sparkle Power.

And a variety of information about relevant marine technical topics such as Leandra being fitted with scrubbers, etc, before that was formally announced by the company.

Accurate research and analysis on Utah/Valkor situation, including the interference by Hoodoo. Several others contributed extensively to that, as well, over time (crownos, blackwash, etc).

Other people in the past also dug up a variety of accurate information on our partners, projects, and so forth. Rob being a key source back then.

I completely accept — as an uncontested and plain matter of fact — that a vast number of opportunities have sailed by Quadrise over the years. But, I would say that a lot of the research people dug up — only one of which is me — was actually correct. But, Quadrise let it slide. That's their failing rather than the research being wrong. I realise in retrospect the distinction can seem fine, but I hope it makes sense.

I freely admit that this is open source research for which I am paid nothing and I offer no guarantees. I do it in the hope that people find it interesting. I don't trade stocks, so I have no ulterior motives. Spending time on stuff like Quorum costs me money, but that was my choice.

I also agree that anyone can do what I've done and it's not some special skill. I just happen to have a technical background that gives me some proficiency in digging stuff up on the Internet and analysing it.

I just say all of this as I don't want to discourage people from contributing and researching. Albeit, I share the general frustrations of all shareholders, and that certainly believe we deserve better from the company.

I would also credit the shareholders for being far ahead of the curve on the low-carbon applicability of MSAR technology, and pushing the company on it at least 5 years before they finally picked it up.

Ultimately, none of the research, analysis, number crunching, or other topics will be worth anything unless the company finally delivers. And it won't be the fault of any of those offering their research if the company fails; that's entirely on Quadrise.

Naturally, I would not challenge your personal preferences on the matter. Just putting out my view like anyone else.

I was under the impression that a key part of the POC and LONO was that they need to demonstrate the viability of operational aspects of the trial such as fuel acquisition, production, storage, bunkering logistics, etc.

So, whatever happens should approximate a "real" commercial deployment as far as possible, which to me precludes using fuel produced at QRF.

As ever, we shall see and I would be delighted for it to happen as PharaohRocher theorises, but I shan't hold my breath.

[I do agree this route seems perfect for POC and LONO, and it may well be a step towards that happening — I suspect the first we'll hear is announcement of contracts finally being signed, which will kick off the process of transferring and commissioning an MMU].

Don't engage with the sealion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Thanks, LedZepper, that is exactly what I was querying. I have never heard that turn of phrase before, and many different options turned up in Google (about half of which were positive, half of which were negative).

Hmm, what does that mean?

I think you are talking about slightly different things.

Jason has previously claimed that the total Moroccan client (OCP) usage is covered by 1 MMU, and the *income* from that one project would let Quadrise break even, or perhaps even a small profit depending on the prevailing prices of the underlying commodities, (i.e. price of oil and the spread between heavy residue and distillates).

Revenues and profits are very different things. The (profit) margin on a product like Power MSAR is not massive, as per guidance from the company over the years.

TL;DR — It's entirely possible that OCP could generate considerable revenues for Quadrise, but that doesn't translate into megabucks profits.

Depending on how the agreement with OCP ends up being structured, it will also make a difference in how much of that revenue actually flows through Quadrise (e.g. BOO vs tolling vs licensing deal).

Anyway, for some context — in FY2023, OCP spent ~892MM MAD on heavy fuel oil, this is ~£70MM.

FWIW, the company has guided that margins for bioMSAR should be considerably higher than MSAR Classic, but that's not what OCP are interested in, they want the "nice-n-cheap Power MSAR".

[One would hope that over time Quadrise can optimise the cost of the project as they tune the formulation and find cheaper sources of residues, but I don't think people should expect OCP project alone to be generating vast profits].

> We are awaiting updates on so many things now we should be in for a busy couple of months.

Well indeed AKHM, we must hope so.

It's a jolly good thing that Quadrise raised money when they did, as if they had relied upon their own timeline guidance they would have been deep in the 'brown and sticky' several months ago.

Things appear to be moving in the right direction, but much slower than we hoped.

Entirely speculatively, I personally don't think the royalty is the issue at all. It's probably Cargill being extremely slow and/or negotiating excessively aggressively.

But we need and deserve an update.

@Crownos — totally wrong; there has regrettably been so much misinformation about this topic.

The 2019 deadline was extended to 31st December 2022, and then superseded by a change that meant the agreement expired on 10th anniversary after first commercial Marine MSAR production following trials.

"The term of the Royalty Agreement has been extended from the previous expiry date of 31 December 2022 to the tenth anniversary of the date of first commercial Marine MSAR production following the Operational Trial."

However, QFI have strongly asserted that Maersk did not hold up their end of the bargain which required Marine MSAR commercialisation, promotion, etc.

Source: https://www.investegate.co.uk/quadrise-fuels-intnl/rns/half-year-update-on-major-active-programmes/201509160700171622Z/

---

Separately, AFAIK, Maersk were only involved with Marine MSAR, and none of the other variants. I'm not aware of Maersk having a stake in the IP/technology itself, rather than just a royalty agreement — but we've never seen the contract so I do not know.

Wow, my attempt at a parody of charting was absolutely nothing compared to this word soup.

@Willswag — Wow, that sounds like a double cat's ears diamond crossover gooblegobble formation! I learned that rare pattern during my stay at the Charting School of Brane Dam Auge.

Kildonan, are you a petrochemical engineer?

Yes, the old Petroteq Oil Sands Plant struggled to be economical because of a similar issue, they had add diluents to their bitumen bought from the local refinery in order to sell the resulting syncrude back to the same refinery. Part of the issue was that none of the refineries in the region are set up to cope with large amounts of very heavy feedstock — they're mostly configured to process light/medium waxy crude, which has been the traditional material extracted in Utah.

Something like MSAR completely bypasses the refinery and is the energy equivalent of direct-to-consumer. A whole lot of cost and carbon avoided.

I make it sound simple — which from a technical perspective it is — the challenges are non-technical issues such as the need to build customer acceptance for a product like MSAR.

> How does this relate to Quadrise ?

I'm not sure if this is a windup question, but...

Valkor and Heavy Sweet Oil (HSO), Quadrise's partners, are funding their drilling programme in Utah in partnership with Trio Petroleum and Lafayette Energy Corp.

The hope is that HSO are successful enough to raise the required $15MM for their full field plan, which will trigger the conditions to pay Quadrise for a license, and transfer of a Quadrise MSAR MMU to HSO's site in Utah so they can produce MSAR directly from bitumen they've extracted from the ground.

Ecoteq is not a company we should want to be associated with and I'll leave it at that.