Member Info for dustofnations

## Mood

Cityfile: as others have stated, the mood was good. There was recognition of shareholder frustration that the timelines have slipped, but genuine progress being made, and appears that nothing is 'stuck' as some had been concerned about.

## From an R&D perspective:

It appears that bioMSAR Zero is our "net-zero halo product in waiting" — formal proof still required by undergoing rigorous third party testing, but I personally believe that the probability of success is high.

From a marketing and positioning perspective, this will make a huge difference. The MSAR fuel platform technology can offer the full gamut from high-efficiency convention fuel to full net zero - all with the same equipment on board, and using existing 2-stroke marine diesel engines.

Combined with MSAR's unique economics of using waste streams, it's a really exciting offer that I don't think anyone else can match.

## Equipment/manufacturing

Yes, there is a very capable engineering team at QRF that is capable of design, manufacture, and refurbishing — amongst other talents. They have a full workshop with lathes, drill presses, saws, welding equipment, etc.

This saves QED a lot of money, by allowing complex equipment to be fully handled in-house, where otherwise it would need to be outsourced for 6 or 7 figures to John Zink.

Furthermore, they are able to rehabilitate second-hand equipment for trials (both in QRF and at customer sites), where a bit of mechanical work is required to replace seals, remove residues, manufacturer-approved repairs, etc. Some of these pieces of equipment could be hundreds of thousands of pounds new, but are available for a fraction of the cost second hand. It just needs people who know what they're doing!

I suspect this capability is an under-appreciated aspect of QRF — the engineering team do a lot of practical engineering work, which saves the company a lot of money.

This is just one aspect of their roles. The engineering team are also the key figures in customer trials, from installation and commissioning, to physically helping run the trials, producing fuel for tests, etc.

As in many smaller companies, the key is that they are flexible and very smart; they perform a lot of functions that would normally be covered by several different teams in a BigCo.

I hope that gives you a flavour!

> Hotfinance14: "I doubt there will be an IC after the interims now (due to the visit and q&a) so others cannot air their views and questions to the management. Hopefully i am wrong."

Just to reassure everyone, this is yet another lie from a serially discredited dissembler and should be ignored.

It has been made crystal clear — this event was *in addition* to any of the company's usual engagements with the shareholder community.

We would *never* do anything to deprive our fellow shareholders of their ability to interact with the company. That would be utterly immoral and unethical.

This is a smear dressed with "hopefully I am wrong" tacked on for (im)plausible deniability.

As promised, this is now hosted on Quorum for wider consumption for those of you who aren't on The Quadrise Shareholders' Forum.

https://quorumzine.gitlab.io/quorum/content/2024/02/28/quadrise-research-facility-retail-visit-biomsar.html

Thanks to Burble61 for being the main author of the report, which pulls together the information provided by all participants.

All of those who attended are AGM regulars known by the company.

All are long-term shareholders.

Yes, plenty are LSE regulars, but I'm not going to violate anyone's privacy by "outing" them.

The report is not private, be patient so it can be distributed more widely very shortly.

You know what is a shame? Every time one of these events is organised, sour comments are left with bitter and unfounded accusations.

It really makes no sense to me, because the attendees spent their own time and money to travel across the country, gather notes, and ask the team questions questions sourced *from the community*. It's access we wouldn't otherwise have, and we try to do it ethically and transparently.

The report was put together EXPLICITLY for the benefit of the retail shareholder community.

I don't know of any other shareholder group that goes to the extreme effort to act in the collective benefit of retail shareholders, even when some respond to these efforts by leaving resentful remarks before even seeing the work.

We're trying to provide retail shareholders the same level of access that IIs and large shareholders get. Where it's obviously not practical for 1:1 interactions with many thousands of retail shareholders directly.

We're also trying to get the message out there about Quadrise's fantastic technology and its promise for decarbonisation and improved economics. That benefits ALL shareholders.

So, I'll try to speak also for the overwhelmingly decent Quadrise shareholders and say thanks.

Although the service offered by hVivo is unique, it uses the same business model as all successful CROs (e.g. IQVIA, Icon, Syneos, Parexel, ...). Contract-based. It's in the name, after all.

Hence, the insinuation that having to win new contracts implies a "questionable" business model is objectively wrong and is mere concern trolling, designed to plant FUD into the minds of passing investors who are not fully informed about the company or the business model.

I strongly suggest people block this chronically bad faith individual.

True, Whiskyman01. Good points to ponder.

If Quadrise had £5m sitting in the bank, I'm suspect the market would view the current situation differently. Albeit, we need to factor in UK market malaise, previous near misses (Maersk, KSA, ...), Quadrise timeline "snakes and ladders", etc.

But the marine market conditions still look excellent for our products. The EU emissions trading scheme for marine is further enhancing our proposition.

If Quadrise can get going, I suspect there'll be a virtuous cycle, whereby additional processing capacity for waste biomaterial will be funded and come online by virtue of demand instigated by the product's adoption.

And the key thing about the MSAR fuel technology platform is that it's not "all or nothing" with regard to renewable components; customers can start with a modest blend using whatever available and increase the ratios as more economically viable waste material become available.

For example, it might be that they run many vessels on just MSAR Classic, but moving to bioMSAR and then MSAR Zero requires no new equipment.

Here's a little video from Vertoro explaining their output streams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTxHnVRAzTI

Different waste feedstocks likely have different output ratios (e.g. woody biomass vs herbacious biomass), but I don't know whether their process tends to breaks some of the larger molecules down from the cellulose/lignins into sugars also. I'm sure the information is available with enough digging.

Great series of posts, Crownos. I generally agree with you.

One minor note: the majority of the waste bio-feedstocks that Quadrise has mentioned are not lignins, as these are comparatively valuable.

Instead, QED are tapping a byproduct of the processes offered by the likes of Vertoro and BTG — an ugly mishmash of C5 and C6 plant sugars.

These are produced as waste streams from BTG's FPBO and Vertoro's "CSO" (NB: CSO is a brand name, and does not contain any oil — it's all plant sugars).

I haven't seen any hard numbers from either company, but my understanding is that sugars are very significant proportion of the output — and currently, it does not have any real value (other than biodigestion or being discarded).

I realise none of this guarantees success for Quadrise, but a key aspect of the bioMSAR proposition is that it can "valorise" (make valuable) these streams that currently have no demand.

You can't just bung sugars into any old fuel and make them safely usable on 2S marine diesel engines.

V72 — I admit, this is possibly motivated reasoning, but I do feel that the market acceptance generated by FOWE's Cavitech and Scorpio (water-in-fuel blend inline emulsion fuel technology) could benefit Quadrise by demonstrating to OEMs and ship owners that emulsion fuels are safe and effective in their marine engines — and that blend-on-board is a viable concept.

Fundamentally, FIW has similar uplifts in efficiency to OIW, but it can't do the complex blending of (normally) incompatible oil-based and water-based fuels that bioMSAR achieves.

And of course, BoB/FIW can't handle cheap heavy residues that MSAR Classic specialises in (these can't be practically stored onboard as they require a huge amount of heat to become liquids).

4,000 hours equates to ~167 days. That equates to approximately 60tpd, which sounds right for a single vessel of Leandra's size and current-day steaming speeds (i.e. much slower than a few years ago).

Not sure why the numbers appear to have changed. It might be due to the calorific density of the bioMSAR fuel now that they've nailed down the specification they are going to test (which would change the tonnage).

Cargill have a huge fleet of over 650 vessels (mostly on long charter). Potentially an interesting usecase for Quadrise Blend-On-Board as they are mostly tankers and bulkers which operate on tramping model, meaning they don't have a fixed schedule and will travel anywhere worldwide to serve a customer and/or as the commodity markets demand.

Cargill are one of the largest private companies in the world. By revenue, they're probably the third largest (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_private_non-governmental_companies_by_revenue).

Of course, commodity traders do tend to have very high revenues and their profits are slimmer, but it gives you an idea of how much trade they are doing, which feeds directly into how useful they can be to us as a partner.

Easter 2022 Potter said TOM were anticipating closing out on financing. One has to wonder whether this has become a lifestyle company in the intervening time.

Far from it, Pigfase. Betrays you how little you know about the sector.

Leandra has one of the biggest and best two-stroke marine diesel engines ever made (and it's digitally controlled). And she's only 17 years old.

The average age of scrappage for container vessels is now about 30 years, and is trending higher. Better materials, engineering, and upgradeability means longer lifespans.

So, she's likely only at the midway point of her anticipated lifespan, and probably less given the trend for longer service lives.

Thanks Crownos, I've got your 2 pics! Will compile them together with the others who are looking to snap pics in Glasgow and Bristol, and give you full credit for your contribution. I'll let you all know when I pull it together and post the article/images.

BTW, her she was before being put into dry dock (almost 1 year ago 😭): https://quorumzine.gitlab.io/quorum/content/2023/03/07/msc-leandra-test-vessel-pictures-in-durban.html

Crownos — would be glad to.

I suggest uploading them at the best quality you have into WeTransfer and drop me the link via private message on the Quadrise Shareholders' Forum — or whatever is the most convenient way (e.g. username at outlook.com).

She's going to be in Greenock soon, and a few people seem interested in seeing if they can also snap some shots.

Can put together a little article/album of Leandra's UK visit.

If you look at the structure of a sugar vs a hydrocarbon molecule, they aren't actually that different structurally. For example, hexane vs glucose.

It's fascinating that their properties are so different due to different intermolecular bonds, and no doubt other factors that quantum chemists might weigh in with.

Either way, they both contain a lot of energy per mass and volume.

BTW, VBL's post on LinkedIn that jackg is referring to can be found here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lee-vicky_quadrise-highlights-key-partnerships-as-it-activity-7164315912991432704-iI50

Great comment from the Chief Operating Officer of the Euthenia Group, Mr. Luis Lopez García:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/luis-lopez-garc%C3%ADa-09338533_business-strategic-agreement-activity-7163919759674073090-KSqo

"""

It is amazing!!!! Great BUSINESS STRATEGIC AGREEMENT between QUADRISE & BTG & EUTHENIA. The Future for our Biomass is closer. It is a pleasure to work for this important Project in Spain.

"""

BTG Bioliquids Managing Director - Mr. Muggen's , comment:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gerhard-muggen-11a519_project-development-agreement-with-euthenia-activity-7163887283870384128-sTo0

BTG Bioliquids Business Development Manager - Mr. Bevers' comment:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7163936728804757504-PLxu

Vid here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5l77HOUx6s

I gave you the data, review it for yourself. You can find constituent companies there on the XLS download.

You pulled your bold assertions from thin air, but expect me to serve you additional data on a platter. Absolutely not.

The data simply says you are wrong.

And yes, CROs, trials companies, and similarly categorised organisations need to win new contracts every few months in order to fill their pipelines into the future. I'm not sure how you can try to spin that as being a negative, it's getting silly. The model is sound and well-proven.

e.g. IQVIA = Heathcare Information and Technology category (4.76 P/S ratio category)

Kilman — it isn't a crazy valuation at all. Especially when you consider the £80m weighted orderbook.

Typical biotech p/s ratio is around 6.4 for biotech and 4.5 for pharma. Our margins are pretty similar to a pharma company, but certainly some biotech elements. We're not close to either of those p/s ratios even today (~3.57), and the results demonstrated very healthy margins.

(BTW, figures are in GBP/£, not €; I'm sure that was just a typo in your post.)

Data: https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/psdata.html