Member Info for dustofnations

SZ — Once you factor in market spread, trading fees, etc, it's about the same (as of writing, 27.85 + spread of about 0.4). Respectfully, you're overthinking small fluctuations.

Steady delivery and growth is the name of the game for HVO (esp. with increased II shareholding); not worth fretting over.

How long can Maersk investors tolerate below-par performance, wonders Linerlytica

https://container-news.com/how-long-can-maersk-investors-tolerate-below-par-performance-wonders-linerlytica/

Wah wah waaaaah

You aren't likely to see anything reported until after the offer has closed. Large transactions typically qualify for deferred publication anyway, and you'll see from the flags that on London Stock Exchange website.

And as we can see from the RNS just published, there was plenty of demand as they far exceeded the minimum of 14 million shares, with nearly 30 million of their shares sold to IIs.

Just FUD being needlessly spread.

All trades have to be reported, even if they do not take place on the exchange itself.

Likely won't leave until Saturday morning. But nothing official has been published yet. Be aware that schedules often change at the last minute, so it's always a bit of a gamble.

Crownos, I could publish your pictures on Quorum if you want somewhere permanent to share them publicly. If you're interested, PM me on the forums.

Wazaaa, as others have pointed out, it is 1/3rd of the required agreements. A critical and necessary step forward, but by itself it is inoperative. It seems the parties decided to split things into parts instead of trying to make one mega agreement.

JM hinted that we should see regular newsflow given what's in the pipeline. Let's see...

That was already outlined in the RNS:

"""

Subject to the conclusion of the remaining required agreements, **including a toll manufacturing agreement between Cargill and Quadrise in respect of fuel manufacture**, Quadrise equipment is expected to be delivered to the MAC2 site to enable the Trials to commence in Q2 this year

"""

I suspect the arrangement is more likely to be:

- Cargill provides raw feedstocks at their own expense;

- Quadrise processes them for a fee per tonne (tolling);

- Cargill still technically owns the resulting fuel and it is sold to MSC (hence need for Cargill and MSC to agree terms, as per RNS).

- Fuel is created and stored at the MAC^2 marine terminal facility, with some fees presumably going to MAC^2 for that service (in addition to the other elements mentioned).

- Bunkering by Cargill from MAC^2 to POC and LONO vessel(s).

Usually the party performing tolling is responsible for all of their own capital and OPEX costs. So, Quadrise would need to provide their MMU, chemical costs, operational costs like staff and maintenance subcontracted, etc.

The upside of tolling is that we take a larger slice of the pie than with a pure licensing agreement. The downsides are that there are numerous costs and responsibilities involved in establishing and maintaining the facility, as well as various risk factors (operational, counterparties, etc).

Featured in DM

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/quadrise-international-ltd_market-report-daily-mail-activity-7160960860826255360-fkaw

Hi, Brian.

Very important to note that Maersk Tankers are a completely independent company to APMM the container ship company. APMM divested of Maersk Tankers way back in 2017.

https://www.manufacturing.net/supply-chain/news/13118856/ap-mollermaersk-divests-oil-tanker-business

Hi Willswag, you can find a standalone website here: https://www.mac-2.be/

Https://www.linkedin.com/posts/quadrise-international-ltd_marine-project-update-activity-7160562108210794496-SYLQ/

"""

Quadrise is pleased to announce that it has signed a collaboration agreement with Cargill and MAC² for the production of our MSAR® and bioMSAR™ fuels for our forthcoming marine vessel trials with MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company.

We look forward to playing our part in the decarbonisation of the shipping industry.

"""

Cargill are amongst the biggest privately owned companies in the world. They have a revenue of over $165 billion USD (much more revenue than an oil majors ENI or Cepsa).

I do believe these commodity traders should be better partners for Quadrise than an oil major. Though not a household name, they are extremely well-known within the industry. These companies are extremely well-connected across all regions globally and can get us access to renewable feedstocks from across the whole marketplace (including obscure places).

Fantastic news. This is hard evidence that the persistent excellence from the team is paying off.

That 5% (3.215703% directly, 1.829392% via swap instruments) is worth approximately £10 million. That is a real vote of confidence in a company that is maturing and has a bright future.

GeordieChris, thanks for your post on deferred revenue recognition.

As a simplified example: imagine you have a project where a customer pre-pays for services delivered monthly over the course of a 24 month period.

You receive the cash upfront, but you can't recognise that as revenue until the service corresponding to it is delivered. Instead, a corresponding entry is made into liabilities for the amount of cash received, and you add revenue as each month goes by (or each milestone, phase, etc — as per the deliverables contract with the client).

In our hypothetical example, you receive £100,000 up front, and can recognise 1/24th of it each month as the service is delivered to the customer.

It is more complicated in HVO's case because they have non-refundable elements, each project has its own schedule for deliverables and payment (as agreed with the customer), and, not all of the cash is necessarily received up front.

But, hopefully that gives a rough idea.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deferredrevenue.asp

Listen to this video as it addresses your questions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSwH4RRPzms

UK Govt won't fund any projects that use biofuels, even waste-based biofuels.

They've already done a huge range of tests in the OEM's static test rigs and laboratories.

A LONO approval requires you to use the fuel at sea in real-world conditions for 4000 hours. That means the fuel is ready operationally (safety, fuel switching, maintenance procedures, etc), as well as technically (cope with real-world weather, rocking, pumping, etc).

Relevant crosspost on methane slip shared by Bod100 on The Shareholders' Forums:

"""

Damning report also in BBC news app on methane slip ‘Inside the world’s largest cruise ship as it sets sail’

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68118822

All this must help

"""

Because our fuel isn't approved by marine OEMs, nor in test nor commercial usage yet.

That's what the MSC LONO trials are all about.

THAT'S WHY, I THINK.

Gordony's post history consists of just three posts. All are to this board.

Yet all are saying how great methanol is and that it's going to be the winner over Quadrise's technology.

All posts can be summarised as "Wow, it's nice that you guys are enthusiastic about Quadrise, but methanol is great and you've lost the race" 🤔.