Member Info for dustofnations

Once a vessel is converted for bioMSAR, it works with all other MSAR types too (i.e. many different bioMSAR formulations; MSAR; MSAR Zero).

In my opinion, we need to stop thinking about each product in isolation and instead as different variations on a theme. They all just sit on top of the MSAR emulsion fuel technology.

Once we have a beachhead into the market, the customer can use whatever they want/need to meet their commercial and ESG requirements. For example, if 30% of the shipper's end clients have paid for carbon-free freighting (or if the shipper needs to get under a CO2 budget for visiting a European port), they could bunker bioMSAR with 40% glycerine to match the requirements exactly (made-up example).

Whether it's 5% glycerine or 60% glycerine + CSO, it doesn't matter; it's all MSAR.

And for routes where there's not the requirement for bioMSAR... they can use Classic MSAR.

There's no reason shippers couldn't bunker multiple MSAR fuels if they really want. For example, if there's a shortage of waste biofuel or there's no requirement for it on that route — then, bunker plain MSAR.

Getting the technology approved via LONO, installed onto vessels, and available in bunkering ports are the main obstacles, in my view. The proliferation of the fuel would sort itself out after that point — albeit, this is a non-trivial undertaking.

This is a long-winded way of saying: our products are on a continuum — they are fundamentally the same technology. We just need give the customer and market product options that solve their problems — let shippers decide what they want to bunker.

We win whether it's 5% glycerine bioMSAR; 100% classic MSAR; 100% CSO + glycerine MSAR Zero.

Shows how worn down Quadrise shareholders are that they’re complaining about the missed December deadline while it’s still December.

Tirelire: Given how often I write, and how often I reformulate, it's not unusual for me to create an error when editing.

Or just, you know, occasionally make a mistake.

But, rest assured, I know the difference between 'count' and 'mass' nouns.

Fingers crossed for some relevant topics to discuss in the coming week 🤞.

The problem is that Maersk want the protection of the major western navies without having to reflag or respect western labour laws.

In the good times, Maersk are happy to flag their ships via open registries like Liberia, HK, Marshall Islands, Panama, etc, because of the incredibly low fees, and the ability to apply that country's low labour standards. They can pay very low wages and the flag state fees are minimal, which boosts their profitability. Incidentally, this has tended to mean there are much fewer merchant mariners from western nations.

But, funnily enough, those bargain basement open registries don't have the money to fund blue water navies that are large and powerful enough to safeguard shipping globally.

So, Maersk want to have their cake and eat it: pay almost nothing in flag state fees and have incredibly low labour standards , but also be escorted by the navies of Western major powers whilst someone else funds it.

The solution is for these carriers to reflag to nations that actually have navies that can protect them.

Hi Kolonic, not sure if you're on the shareholder forums, so apologies if I'm repeating myself: I mentioned over there that during a side conversation at the AGM with JM and PH, they mentioned that bioMSAR has the potential to offer a higher profit margin to Quadrise than MSAR Classic.

Probably difficult to know for sure until we're further along the commercialisation pathway, but it looks promising.

As you allude to, the economic model is different with bioMSAR; it can be made to work economically with HFO as a stand-in for residue. Substituting HFO for resid in bioMSAR is an economic optimisation they can do later on, as the majority of the margin is generated by using valorising cheap, waste-based bio components (glycerin, plant sugars, etc).

Conversely, MSAR Classic absolutely requires a resid-like [1] component to be economical, as it derives its economics from the spread between resid and distillates.

[1] Heavy residue from refinery units; bitumen/asphalt; naturally heavy oil directly from fields; etc.

Likely has CFD or SB positions against HVO and is suffering from bruised walletitis, hence flooding us with his inane rubbish, hoping to push the useful comments off the first page and give the false impression of negativity to passers-by.

The company has stated it is ahead of the already excellent financial guidance.

Thank you Mo' and Team hVivo, you're all doing a fantastic job and it is greatly appreciated.

On a related note, I do recall that JM mentioned during the AGM that Valkor are involved in multiple projects across the Uintah region and it's not just the HSO opportunity to which MSAR/bioMSAR would be applicable.

Personally, I'm very sceptical about the Valkor timelines, but I wish them the very best of luck navigating the bureaucracy and legal hurdles (which has been tangling them up for years at this point).

Yes, HF is confusing DOGM and DOGM Board again.

The DOGM Board approval for the pilot downhole project has already been received, as they needed an exemption from certain rules to be able to proceed (e.g. spacing). The DOGM Board is an independent board that does rulemaking, resolves disputes, and can grant exceptions to certain rules (amongst other functions).

To further confuse matters, HSO later applied again to the DOGM Board for approval of a larger project, but this was refused, as the board wanted the aforementioned pilot project to be completed before making any further approvals.

HSO/Valkor still need permits to be issued by DOGM (the regulator) to actually begin drilling activities; the board does not grant those. Those will not appear in the DOGM Board minutes unless something unexpected happens that requires them to ask for additional exceptions. It should be a matter of Valkor/HSO working with DOGM to get approval for their plan and various related items such as underground injection permits.

Unfortunately, as per the Utah Data Explorer when I looked earlier, it does not appear these permits have yet been granted. Fingers crossed that happens soon.

For some context — at the last hearing, the DOGM team complained that they are severely under-resourced after several team members left. So, it may well be due to that. Obviously, that under-resourcing is proving extremely expensive for Valkor as they continue to need to pay for staff, leases, etc, whilst waiting.

@jackg, I know who you are referring to.

The guy is showing as working full time for both Nouryon in Houston/Texas and Shell in Miami/Florida at the same time.

I strongly suspect from the dates that this is a simple case of forgetting to click the "I have finished this job" button on LinkedIn when he changed from Shell to Nouryon in 2021.

Spam rubbish, don't click; report for spam.

I think it's just a matter of definition with some claiming you can't say 'client' or 'customer' until they've paid for something / signed up commercially.

I guess we should say 'prospective client', but everyone knows what you mean.

Status page available here: https://liveservice.lseg.com/node/288

Hmm, tomorrow is Saturday. Guess you'll have to wait a bit!

My understanding is that it's a global commodity trader, think Cargill, Glencore, Trafigura, Vitol, etc (examples, not saying it's one of them specifically). Not a household name, but huge in the industry and with a global reach.

I'm pretty sure we'll all be very happy with whomever it is!

People with a proven track record and of a high calibre. I expect the company has made this move as they expect Poolbeg's commercial activity continue ramping up. Exciting times, and a great use of Cathal's connections to get us a ready-made team that has worked together previously.

That's a good question, but I'm not aware that such a granular level of detail for the proof of concept (POC) has been disclosed yet.

Pure speculation => I imagine they would need to do a short in-situ inspection after each POC (perhaps also pull one cylinder to look at wear). The POC is just to sanity check everything, validate procedures work (bunkering, fuel switching, etc), and ensure nothing untoward appears to be happening in terms of mechanical wear and engine configuration.

In theory they could bunker both fuels at once at switch between them, but I'm guessing they'll do a smaller loop segment and inspect + bunker (e.g. Belgium/Netherlands to Balts and back again which is about a week).

But either (or some similar variant) seems plausible.

I sure hope we hear more soon 🤞.

> How much of the Morocco test setup consists of components provided by QED, I always imagined it would be just the fuel ?

If you refer to all of the Morocco RNSes and segments in the reports, you'll see Quadrise provided the PHU (Pumping and Heating unit).

There are pictures on this article (search for "Pumping and heating unit on site") https://www.edisongroup.com/research/the-clean-solution-to-a-global-problem/28303/

The original pump design used has failed multiple times now.

I might be confused and you are referring to something else entirely.

I suspect you are right @WongaFC.

And agreed @manu19, my view is that because LinkedIn is a platform where Quadrise engages with customers, partners, and peers, we should be very careful what we post there. We all want Quadrise to succeed, so berating the team in front of their potential customers is only harming ourselves by damaging their critical relationships.

IMO, nothing wrong with making views known via IR, IMC, email, AGM, etcetera — platforms that are focussed on us shareholders.

From previous advice, it should take at least a couple of weeks to complete the tests if everything goes to plan.

On that basis, let's hope and expect the news falls towards the latter part of the month (i.e. uninterrupted).

What is the claim about next week based on?

Hi All,

I was asked to share this response by a regular poster on The Quadrise Shareholders' Forum that was just received from QED — they felt it was useful for wider circulation.

===

“Hi *,

Apologies for the delayed response, it’s annual results season and there’s a lot going on behind the scenes project-wise hence I can imagine the frustration given the state of the markets in general.

Regarding your question re MSC fuel supply, this is definitely in the category of “Somebody interested but sorting out detail”, so please bear with us.

The FOWE system is a water in fuel system using 10-15% water that is very similar to a product that MAN already supply themselves (and many others), hence the apparent ease of approval.

KR, Jason”

Probably multiple factors, including operational efficiency and building up relationships of trust and demonstrating value of the product.

Both of those should improve into the future as we consolidate locations, bring certain services in-house that are being outsourced, and are able to charge more as we repeatedly demonstrate to clients the value of challenge trials in expediting approvals (and de-risking programmes with early go/no-go decisionmaking, more broadly).