Member Info for dustofnations

Here's a lightly edited transcript of Peter's interview with Proactive Investors. I've taken out most of the stutters, etc, half-finished sentences/phrases that were not relevant. Naturally, do not consider this canonical and refer to the video yourself.

It's well worth a read, IMO:

https://www.reddit.com/r/quadrise/comments/1s2dx3r/comment/ocap752/

I posted some of this information onto the Quadrise subreddit, which I would appreciate if people could upvote, comment, etc, to give some visibility that benefits the company:

https://www.reddit.com/r/quadrise/comments/1s2dx3r/interview_with_quadrise_ceo_peter_borup_as_key/

https://www.reddit.com/r/quadrise/comments/1s2c94p/quadrise_interim_results_strong_progress_towards/

Just a small thing, but it helps.

I broadly agree. It was about as good an interim update as we could have expected. Any big news would have been announced independently.

Although this is very much second fiddle to MSC, I was pleased to see that Morocco appears to have been unblocked, which is great news, as it has been a point of significant frustration for shareholders for several years now.

Oh no, would be very sad if Timmy "Tor" Kempster lost his shirt.

A lot of people don't realise that the report continues after the comment and IR section. So they only end up reading the summary report at the top and miss out on 90% of the detail. The bit at the top is only a summary.

Keep scrolling down the RNS to read the full report.

I should clarify that the underlying economics of MSAR and bioMSAR remain strong irrespective of the conflict, so my point was only that this emergency shouldn't be the key factor/reason, and if it were resolved tomorrow (I know, unlikely), the products would still remain very attractive.

That said, there has been some commentary over the last couple of days that Iranian retaliation has resulted in damage to infrastructure that may take 4+ years to fully repair, and therefore may result in sustained/elevated energy prices for a longer period while other producers ramp up.

On paper it always increases MSAR competitiveness. However, a fully operational MMU installation at a refinery is required to produce MSAR Classic. That will take take approximately 6 months once an agreement with a refinery is concluded. And we have no refinery partner yet that we've been informed about, so {unknown period of time} + 6 months.

Putting myself in the client's shoes, it's not really possible to know whether the emergency situation will still be present in 6-12 months, so I'm not sure any potential customers would factor the current spikes into their modelling.

I hope we have better insight into fuel availability timelines once the results come out and we can understand the current status of the MSC marine trials and OCP/Morocco.

Morocco definitely justifies a refiner coming on board, so that could be a nice way to kickstart things. But, we simply don't know whether the project is alive or not.

As Peter said at the AGM, he's keen to get the supply side moving much more quickly, as we need plenty of fuel available to use within a reasonable period.

Sorry, that's a much more complicated answer than you were looking for, but that's the reality as I see it.

@sn88 agreed. Monday has seemed the logical date to me, but let's see.

Frank update needed!

Quadrise does not normally provide advanced notice of the date for release of results, etc, as far as I can recall.

@AKHM certain large holders don't have the best track record with their notifications, do they 🥲.

These kinds of publications are aimed at industry, not shareholders. Not everything is about us.

Laurie is nearly 80 and is undoubtedly retiring; a true stalwart of Quadrise. He deserves a wonderful retirement. In my view, Laurie was one of the best NEDs at sticking his neck out for retail shareholders, especially in years gone by when nobody paid any attention to retail. Vicky has gradually taken up the mantle in that area very ably.

Welcome to Michael. I hope Quadrise will make good use of his skills to advance the MSAR mission. What Michael offers will be very relevant should Quadrise succeed, as they will need to scale the business rapidly via partnerships, financing, etc, (or perhaps be acquired).

For example, if we secured a deal with MSC, we'd need to very quickly expand to ensure our products are reliably available in significant volumes in Singapore, Panama, Mediterranean, etc. Perhaps even the Middle East once that situation is sorted out (e.g. Fujairah). Somewhere like South Africa may also make sense, eventually.

Chairman Andy Morrison's comments were informative:

"We are delighted to welcome Michael to Quadrise. With more than three decades of experience across clean-energy, alternative fuels, infrastructure and industrial technology, he brings exceptional financial, strategic and governance expertise to the Company. His extensive background in strategic capital, complex deal structuring and supporting organisations through commercial scale‑up, together with his deep understanding of the energy transition and major industrial counterparties, aligns strongly with our ambitions as Quadrise enters its next phase of growth and commercialisation."

Oh yes, I definitely fall into that category. Held and only ever sold a small amount to contribute to the fundraisings that kept the company going.

The tech seems so well-aligned to regulatory and economic requirements that it has felt like "when not if". But I keep reminding myself that, of course, the best product/technology doesn't always win. Sometimes there are other non-technical factors that are the deciding elements.

I do believe we are maximising our chances of success by bringing someone like Peter in as CEO. But, given the signatures are still not done, it is clearly proving more challenging than anticipated to get all of the counterparties over the line. If Peter can't do it, I don't think Jason would have managed, either. Clearly, I hope he can.

And, if I understood Peter correctly, there has been some change of focus with the client since the IMO GHG session failed due to US intervention. That keeps making me go back to a point I've made ad nauseam (sorry), which is that 'time and tide wait for no man', so taking too long to decide or procrastinating can cause the situation to change in a way that isn't favourable. (A failure I can clearly identify in my own life, BTW!).

I continue to hope for a strong update from the team. I also appreciate Peter's directness/bluntness in this.

None of us are enjoying the current situation, that's for sure. I know many of us are suffering. But, ultimately, it was my own decision to back this company and continue backing it. So I blame nobody but myself! Hope we receive better news soon.

This is just opinion, but I don't think it is about slow legal drafting, per se; it's about business stakeholders making definitive decisions, prioritising our project, and collectively agreeing on the way forward.

Ultimately, the priorities of MSC's lawyers are set by the business, so one of Peter's jobs is to keep the ball rolling and ensure we are sufficiently prioritised to get this over the line. And that we get stakeholders aligned, including in areas where we're technically not directly involved. It is in our interests to be "the annoying kid" as Peter puts it, and push actively.

We don't know what the holdup is, but Quadrise will presumably update us this month.

With the geopolitical turmoil there will be a lot on their plate. It's not an easy job for us to get ahead of all the other stuff a mega-corp is doing — hence we've hired someone of Peter's calibre whom we hope can break through. I hope he can deliver!

Agreed, @MadDogMc — MSC is so huge that it will take time. They have nearly 1000 vessels, albeit a subset of around 1/3rd of those are initial targets for MSAR according to Quadrise commentary (candidates need to be digitally controlled engines, not at end-of-life, large enough to justify engineering/integration costs, etc).

So, it will take time to perform retrofits (using rider teams), install refinery integrations, scale up production and logistics, etc.

Logically, MSC should start with the "Leandra quadruplets", as they have 4 identical vessels now (Leandra V, Bremerhaven V, Rita V, Iniya V) that are perfect for an initial rollout. That alone would be an impressive start, in my opinion.

Anyway, getting that POC/LONO signed is definitely the priority for now; it'll be nice to worry about these details once we're sure it's actually going ahead!

Several factors to consider here that make me think this current fuel pricing shock situation will not necessarily expedite the MSC agreements (positively nor negatively).

- MSC et al pass on short-term excess fuel price increases to consumers via fuel surcharges. So they aren't necessarily heavily directly affected by fuel price increases. There can be an eventual indirect effect, which is that the increase in overall freight rates can suppress demand, which can then start causing losses via excess capacity.

- The trials will take several months to complete, as we need to get the contracts signed, get all of the final elements arranged for the trial including training and installation of equipment at the terminal, undertake the POC and LONO, etc. Then post-trials, for MSAR Classic, we need to arrange a full refinery integration, retrofit additional vessels, etc.

All of this is very much doable, but it is a total timeframe of 6-12+ months. Nobody can make useful predictions about the current Iran situation that far into the future.

I think the underlying premise remains the same, we can save them a significant amount of money on fuel costs and provide environmental compliance. And I'm sure they would happily charge customers fuel surcharges based on HFO pricing, use MSAR, and then keep the difference!

Well done, thanks for that @jackg123

To mangle a famous saying, "Don't #2 on your own doorstep".

Sigh, wonderful. Yet another annoyance re-emerging.

I thought the guy would have calmed down with age, but it seems not, judging by his emoji-laden harassment of the company on LinkedIn.

Hopefully his post(s) will end up being deleted. Harassing the team will not help them deliver for shareholders. It's just a selfish release of frustration/anger that damages the company in a venue where customers are watching.

Would love for the team to give us some progress so we can just consign these crazies to history.

I hope my commentary on Valkor/HSO filings over the last few years communicated a theme that the Utah project is promising but highly prone to delay, due to its multiple layers of innovation and smaller players involved.

There are several challenges they need to overcome before they produce any of their bitumen at commercial volumes. I do believe MSAR/bioMSAR is the key to valorisation of their product, but they must overcome those other hurdles first.

As some examples that immediately come to mind:

1) New field design to improve heat transfer and make use of a technology such as Cavitas THOR (as an example). Likely requires horizontals to better heat the target formation, and potentially larger bore diameter.

2) Likely need to re-permit for a new design.

3) Would need to secure sophisticated rigs to undertake these more advanced drilling tasks.

I doubt anyone will be surprised if Valkor do not hit Q1 for those renewed samples.

(Yes, I realise this is just trolling from HF, so that's just a note for the rest of you who have genuine interest.)