Member Info for dustofnations

Sometimes use broker nominees*

You would need to request a copy of the Quadrise shareholder register to find out whether there are IIs and who they are. Even then, it can be difficult to know because IIs also sometimes use brokers, so their holdings would not show independently of other purchasers/holders until they exceed the exchange's mandatory disclosure threshold.

Hotfi... Thanks for your response.

What would be your examples of low-skilled staff that are employees of Quadrise? They contract out stuff like cleaning and don't presently have receptionists, etcetera (as I understand it from previously asking, the offices they operate from provide that kind of service bundled in). I doubt they have any/many low-skilled employees. For example, the lab workers at the QRF lab facilities have degrees in chemistry, some have masters.

I gather that NEDs are only counted if they have a contract of service; I don't know what the situation is with Quadrise, so I happily withdraw that point.

I maintain the same arguments as before.

Let's say you have 5 employees on £55k, and then 3 key staff (COO, Head of Projects, and Head of Finance) on £100k, then your mean average is around £72k. I completely accept that the figure is useful and important for beancounters, but it can be misleading in this context (I own a business). Hopefully I didn't mess up my figures!

If it's a topic you are passionate about, perhaps it's worth asking for more detailed salary statistics breakdown in future (median, statistical distribution of salary, etc)? That would be illuminating.

The roles at Quadrise are not a run-of-the-mill bean counting jobs that any old troglodyte with a pocket calculator can do.

We need to retain good staff to give the company the best chance of executing; they are the backbone of the company. Getting lower quality staff in order to save a modest amount of money won't help us. We've already seen turnover of some younger talent who were poached by larger companies.

Exactly. Many of these are roles that demand highly skilled people, and whether you feel they've delivered sufficiently or not (likely the latter), finding cheaper people isn't going to give better results for shareholders. Especially not in regions of England where QFI are based.

A few other factors...

NEDs are probably in those figures numbers, and as part-timers, but don't count as a whole person for the purposes of filings. They are likely to skew the figures, if they are included as NEDs often only formally only commit a few days per month (in reality, they usually do more, but that's not reflected in the figures).

I suspect there are also some standard employee benefits which are accounted for as cash, which bumps up the mean.

Finally, as a small company, some key staff with extremely high salaries undoubtedly skew the mean significantly.

I guess the point is that the mean average isn't an especially helpful number.

Anyway, we need to accept the roles are not a run-of-the-mill bean counting jobs that any old troglodyte with a pocket calculator can do.

Fyoz, as you imply, as a growing green fuels technology company you'd expect Quadrise to attract a much higher PE ratio than a matured company like Shell whose business growth would not to be as rapid (proportionally).

That said, I do think tempering expectations that huge mcaps/SPs are easily attainable or around the corner is probably healthy.

One step at a time, friends!

Getting back anywhere near double digits so that many long holders I know can break even would be wonderful.

Have a good weekend, all.

On 30th June 2013 Quadrise had 772,543,391 shares in issue.

Today we have 1,562,478,823.

That's a little more than double (not that bad all things considered). So the 48p of 2013 is a smidge less than 24p today, at equivalent mcap.

Probably not worth worrying about too much until we're over the immediate hurdles!

Much of the time taken, if you believe JM's explanation, relates to the complexity of establishing relationships with multiple glycerine suppliers and validating their products at QRF to ensure they still produce a stable emulsion (each of which will have a minimum round-trip time because one major part of stability tests is just leaving the product for an extended period of time).

JM talks about that at length in the IMC, so it's worth re-listening to the audio, including the Q&A sections.

The latest we heard on suppliers was that the team were visiting marine terminals capable compatible with our requirements. They must have ability and licenses to receive, blend, and store biofuels (e.g. glycerine); handle HFO; can facilitate large marine bunkering operation; etc.

Will QED find more unexpected complications in this process? Probably; they've done it every step so far. But, hopefully we're now far enough along to get it signed in a reasonable period (but I would not dare to make a guess when)...

This is what we raised the money for; buying time for these agreements to get going.

Hypothetically, if they need to raise money again in 1+ year when there are LONOs underway or completed, I don't think they would have any problems raising at a much higher SP than today.

Really, the ball is in their court now, I think the shareholders have gone out of their way to give them the funding required even when the markets are absolutely awful.

I suspect there's also still a residual "Covid effect" that HVO haven't quite shaken off yet, but should continue to do as Mo and his team deliver repeatedly over time and prove the company isn't tied to the pandemic. This isn't unique to HVO, and many biotech companies have suffered post-Covid, despite having technologies that are valuable far beyond C-19.

So, more patience required, but I'm very pleased with the team and their level of execution. It was also great to hear that Mo has been focussing on the long-term health of the business with programmes to retain talent and ensure they can build a great career inside the company without needing to move.

The aim of the trial isn't to break even or make a profit on the trial fuel, just not to lose too much money whilst overcoming the key step of getting formal OEM approval technology whilst making use of multi-million dollar assets at the client's cost (MSC Leandra).

Another benefit of the process should be building relationships with suppliers and understanding the process:

- suppliers of low-cost biofuel feedstocks (e.g. glycerine/glyercol, Vertoro's CSO, BTG Bioliquids' fast pyrolysis oils)

- storage/blending/marine terminals

- bunkering operators

- biofuel and conventional fuel logistics providers

- permitting and approvals process

Success would unlock the market for us in a way that makes it a good investment on our side.

As usual, taking much longer than advised, but that's nothing new 🤷🏻‍♂️.

BryanWAllen — send a message to your broker. Sounds like something went wrong.

Serious answer: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cashlessexercise.asp

Unserious answer: by working very hard!

Have a good weekend, all.

Fyoz — agreed, I was a tad disappointed that they didn't sweeten the OO with some warrants, even at some modest ratio like 1 warrant per 5 shares subscribed to.

It would have been a nice incentive for people to buy at the OO instead of purchasing on the exchange at a small discount. I would be interested to hear what their reasoning was for that (e.g. perhaps balance sheet concerns or potentially exceeding share issuance authority?).

Not a big deal, but would have been nice!

FoMo – it has been pointed out to me that you are quoting the infamous troll 'Sallad3' from ADVFN. Why?

As I understand it:

The site where the MSAR testing is being done receives an order for X tonnes of product to be processed from main office, with about 1-2 weeks of notice (according to JM). They then plan and kick off a campaign, running until they've produced the required volumes. Then they stop until the next order is received, doing maintenance, etc, during the down period.

Speculation: presumably this model used is because further processing and logistics is required to finalise and send the product to end customers; they don't want huge additional volumes of semi-processed product piling up too early.

So QED need to wait for the next production run/campaign to start, they can't just stop the kilns at any old point.

I agree that QED have not been good at closing things out commercially, and I've never shied away from saying that.

But, I don't believe in making up additional points of criticism based on total speculation with no accompanying evidence. We don't know how the client's business operates, other than how we've been advised.

We have no evidence yet for such a strong statement as, 'If as we have been told many times, the Moroccan client is "very keen" then resumption and completion of the trial would have taken place by now.'.

I try my best to be balanced, sometimes that annoys the bulls, sometimes it annoys the bears.

We'll have to continue to suffer and wait for a while longer.

> If as we have been told many times, the Moroccan client is "very keen" then resumption and completion of the trial would have taken place by now.

If the client runs on a campaign/on-demand basis, as we've been advised, then I don't see how there would be any way to resume the trial at any other time than the beginning of the next run.

Found another resource: https://www.imhpa.gob.pa/es/embalses

Hi, @Noob34.

Rains have begun, but I suspect it'll take quite a while for reservoirs to be refilled and normal power generation capacity to be restored due to the protracted nature of the drought.

JM stated that the independent power producers (IPPs) are running at full capacity until the hydropower situation is resolved, at which time they will be able to set a schedule and sign contracts with the IPP, as they will need to take a generator out of service to upgrade and use for the trial.

I've been watching Panama Canal's Gatun Lake as a proxy for understanding how fast reservoirs are recovering. (It is also used for hydropower, but mostly for the canal itself.)

https://evtms-rpts.pancanal.com/eng/h2o/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/drought-hit-panama-canal-restricts-daily-crossings-water-saving-move-2023-07-26/

If you have some better insights and resources, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks for sharing that, HF.

Don't get your hopes too high about the response you received being accurate (politicians, inaccurate?!).

All previous feedback, as I understand it, was as per the scoping documents on the UK govt funding websites — no non-methanol biofuels will be funded.

To quote from the funding scope docs, "We are not funding projects that are focusing on non-methanol biofuels, except for projects strictly focused on inland waterway vessels and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM), which includes port-side machinery".

Perhaps there are some new/additional competitions that do not exclude non-methanol biofuels? That would be great!

The answer is that UK government funding has explicitly excluded biofuels other than methanol.

Scroll back to the recent thread "UK: More Funds for Maritime Decarbonisation Scheme", and see the posts around 13 Jul 2023 12:12