Member Info for dustofnations

It is too early to understand whether this will be a benefit or disbenefit for Quadrise, in my opinion.

But it did highlight to me that if you take a protracted period to get started, then real-world events that are beyond your control can overtake you. That has happened to Quadrise a few times now.

Given the civilian suffering, I hope the situation is resolved speedily, but the initial signs are that it may be several weeks at the very least.

There's a large element of non-determinism in situations such as these. It's like stepping into a dark room. Nobody can be sure what the situation is until the lights turn on.

What precisely will happen cannot be known yet; there are so many different factors interacting with each other and chaos has a habit of throwing up surprising outcomes.

I think we all agree that the people of Iran deserve so much better than the klepocratic theocracy they have been living under, but whether this intervention will deliver them anything better is unknowable at this time.

Maybe he'll bless us with another very useful update about how much the SP has declined since Peter joined... I have no idea what his agenda is.

Not sure if I'm reading the tealeaves incorrectly, but I got the impression that the specialists may be particularly relevant on the downstream/refining/supply side. This could make sense as Peter was talking about the importance of getting refiners committed by providing them with a comprehensive business case.

Each refinery and region is going to be different. For example, due to different crude feedstocks, different labour costs, regional demand profiles, etc. So, it makes sense to produce a highly-customised set of economic projections and a plausible plan of how it could be implemented in a practical sense (e.g. how it would fit into a refinery turnover schedule).

Ensuring low-cost residue is available at sufficient volume, and in the right locations, is critical to the MSAR Classic business case, so I can see the logic that Peter is pursuing.

That's informed speculation; I'd like to hear which gaps need filling when we next receive an update. Peter's repeated comments that MSC's priorities have changed slightly seem important context to suggest that MSAR Classic may be more important than previously assumed (a key juncture being the US interference of the IMO GHG session which is likely to delay worldwide GHG pricing until the next US administration).

Where does 15+ permanent staff come from?

The_adams trying the ole "accuse people of what I'm doing in order to deflect", I see.

I actually have met several of the posters you are accusing of being the same person at AGMs and other events.

They are, in fact, definitely distinct human beings.

Thanks for sharing. Some useful context there.

It does potentially sound that US interference at the recent IMO GHG session that MSC's priorities have shifted back slightly towards MSAR Classic.

I am interested to get some clarity on that. Ideally via RNS for the LONO, but if not, at the March business update.

Apologies if I'm repeating myself. Valkor have two separate major projects ongoing in Utah/Vernal area whose output is applicable to MSAR technology.

1) A downhole project with HSO and Lafayette et al, for which they are presumably developing a new field plan.

2) Surface sands project with other partners. That has already been permitted, AIUI. https://www.valkorgroup.com/news/valkor-clarifies-ar-pioneer-project-status-and-technology-independence

These are independent from each other.

The permitting process for the surface mining/retort project falls under the Utah mining regulations, as I understand it. So those permits would pop up elsewhere (not sure what the transparency requirements are for mining).

Tuckman, you are making an important point. There's no point in trying to have a debate with the astroturfers, they aren't acting in good faith. They're here because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that they can benefit their trading position by manipulating sentiment. They aren't going to give you an honest answer.

I also agree that Peter's 'Nordic directness' is exactly what we need at this juncture.

Yes, it's been a very long road and with significant opportunity cost. I take full responsibility for my investment decisions, of course. I know it may not work out.

Like everyone else, I'm rather fatigued and would like them to make some real progress.

That said, I strongly believe in giving Peter Borup his opportunity to execute, because his appointment was in part a response by the BoD to shareholder pressure to appoint a new marine-focussed CEO, plus a slight strategic pivot to broaden our opportunities to bring in at least 1 smaller shipping company.

i.e. I'd like to see "our" preferred strategy given a good chance to play out.

The share price clearly isn't impressed by the delays, but I don't think there has been a material negative change to justify such a huge drop. So, part of it is possibly that negative share price movements breed negative emotions that can feed on themselves.

I personally think the time for this technology is now, and we're in a "now or never" situation, as the opportunity to enter the nascent marine alternative fuels market won't be there in another 5 years.

> In approximately 7 weeks our new CEO will have been with the company for 6 months. I recall may posters said they would give him 6 months.

Peter was appointed on 1st October 2025.

Hence, he has been in charge for only 4 months and 4 days (or 5 days, depending how you count).

Add 6 months, that's 1st April 2026.

Where we stand today isn't anywhere near 6 months.

> approximately 7 weeks.

Interesting definition of approximately.

05/02/2026 to 01/04/2026 is either 7 weeks and 6 days, or exactly 8 weeks, depending how you calculate it.

You decided to round it down to 7 instead of up to 8, despite the latter being mathematically logical.

Wonder what the motivation is? Answers on a postcard.

He has many handles...

Whithorn appears to be the latest Tim Kempster sockpuppet.

This "woof woof" dog schtick is part of his standard modus operandi, which he did regularly when using the handle "hughjampton" (har har), called in to troll the company during a conference call, amongst others.

His previous accounts, inc "hugh" identically called QFI/QED shareholders poodles, saying shareholders roll over for management, woof woof, tickling shareholder bellies, etc.

It's a shame that the company's slowness is giving opportunities for parasites to profit.

> If they expected to be busy with the MSC and Morocco trials why employ somebody looking for futher business.

Hmm, I wonder why Quadrise might hire a refining and downstream expert?

For example, you might imagine that Quadrise needs supply of residuum for potential customers of MSAR in multiple geographies.

And to convince the said refiners to come on board and to commit their resources, hence you might — crazy as it seems — want someone with deep knowledge of refining economics to present them a compelling economic case for their specific sector.

Haha, no, this is crazy talk. The residuum will just magically appear.

Come on, guys...

1) Many sustainability reports are released in the calendar year after the one they are covering. The fact we did it differently in previous years is probably the unusual thing. i.e. 2025 sustainability reports are typically released in 2026 to capture and process all data from that period. I'm sure they would rather have wrapped in some good news on MSC, etc, but a sustainability report is *not* the avenue for releasing for that kind of information.

2) Sustainability reports are not (relatively speaking) super important compared to the BD tasks we've asked them to focus on. I'd rather our team prioritise other tasks relating to MSC, Morocco, etc, and deliver us a business update ASAP. If that means the sustainability report comes out a bit later, so be it!

3) We don't have constant eyes on what the team are doing, so people like HF are making increasingly wild and baseless assumptions. Do I think the company should update us in short order; yes. Do I think it's okay for HF fill the vacuum with nonsense; no.

Noting that HF criticised the sustainability report for: being late, being pointless, and having "no impact on anything".

So, why bang on about a completely fabricated deadline for the sustainability report (no deadline was ever offered), whilst *also* simultaneously saying it's pointless and has no impact (and never will)? If it's pointless then just ignore it.

But no, it's yet another topic of infatuation.

I've been very open over the years about my criticisms about lack of BD progress and communication, but in the 'top 100 things to criticise Quadrise about', this is not even making the list!

> AKHM...the timing of the report was that it was overdue and she was probably told to get the damn thing finished. The report will have no impact on anything.It never has done and never will.

Thoroughly disrespectful. We don't have enough insight into the context to make such strong and sweeping statements.

> I mean it’s a lovely report but still does nothing for shareholder value.

I think it is 'stealth sales material' as much as anything, so I have no problem with it.

That said, I suspect many of the the views they counted of the 'MSAR calculator' tool are probably mostly us rather than potential customers!

MadDogMc - Quadrise weren't sticking their noses into the direct "Cargill - MSC" negotiations, which are theoretically standalone. Peter was gently explaining at the AGM that this strategy was a mistake (he put it more diplomatically), because we didn't know why things had stalled, and going forward we need to be more proactive in helping counterparties solve problems, because that's in our interests.

> Yes, agree with all you say DoN but they have readily available customers for their heavy bitumen in asphalt. Maybe 2027 will also be too soon for Valkor's low sulphur msar production/supply. Certainly not worth banking on just now.

Completely agreed that we shouldn't bank on it.

The asphalt industry is highly seasonal and roads departments basically don't do any resurfacing during the colder months of the year other than emergencies. Utah is extremely cold during the winter (regularly -10C).

There's also not an endless market there.

As Valkor said themselves at their DOGM Board sessions, they are looking to find higher value destinations for the material as it's extremely low in sulphur for a bitumen (meets IMO2020 0.5%S standards without scrubbing).

So, that's where Quadrise comes in, as the local refineries are not set up for that kind of oil. They're configured for the medium-to-light waxy crude that's been the main resource tapped in Utah so far.

I definitely agree it's a much more contingent opportunity than the others. There are a lot of hops between "here" and "selling MSAR". So, your caution is completely rational.

I neglected t mention it in my previous post, but there are at least 2 opportunities running in parallel that Valkor are running on, and as far as I can ascertain, they are looking to valorise all them using MSAR technology:

(i) the downhole project with Lafayette et al, which is tapping into an underground reservoir of heavy bitumen that is locked in sandstone formations that must be heated and drilled, this the enhanced oil recovery opportunity with downhole heaters, etc;

(ii) a surface tar sands opportunity, which basically uses heavy loaders to pick up tonnes of oil-impregnated sand and dump it into a special processing facility that separates the oil from the sand using both chemical and mechanical techniques. This is much more akin to conventional surface mining, and is similar to the (in)famous Petroteq process.

Both of these are innovative and high-risk opportunities, which the Valkor teams believe can be best valorised using MSAR technology. And they are well placed as an EPCI to provide full support and turnkey services to potential MSAR clients (i.e. convert boilers, run trials, etc).

They've also said they are keen to supply their MSAR/bioMSAR to the marine fuels bunkering market, i.e. to underpin MSAR at a US port (e.g. Texas, US West Coast, etc). There are well-established rail services that can transport the fuel to those bunkering hubs.

I'm trying to be as balanced as possible, because it's clear to me that although the opportunity is crystal clear, it's not an open goal that Steve and his team just need to tap the ball into. They are innovators and pioneers, so there are significant risks associated with that unrelated to Quadrise (especially technical, timelines, and financing).

We should not conflate the ability for customers to theoretically use MSAR, and the logistical/operational prerequisites to actually make it happen. The team have said that MSAR Classic only has attractive economics when a cheap source of feedstock is available. For example, residuum from a refinery, cheap unprocessed bitumen, minimally very heavy crude oil, etc.

My conversations at the AGM only reinforced that understanding.

That's why Jason says that bioMSAR may well be faster to establish commercial supply than MSAR Classic, as it is still highly economical with HFO as its conventional component. Whereas in Europe, MSAR Classic likely needs a refinery integration, which will take several months once an agreement is reached to perform an installation. The team believe installation can be done quickly, but it would still likely need to coincide with a refinery maintenance window, which is why the time window is so wide (e.g.. if you get lucky and the nearest maintenance window is close, then it'll be super fast).

Having those parallel product tracks definitely helps us at this stage, I reckon.

Still, seeing some tangible progress is essential. So that would be nice :-).

@WongaFC just a comment on this:

> Valkor as far as I know it still do not have any customers for our fuel, despite JM telling us ages ago, the search was underway.

Firstly, I hope my attempts at 'fair-but-sceptical' commentary and research on Valkor over the years meant you weren't surprised by the significant delays in their progress. It's a real opportunity, but they have needed to overcome many unknowns.

Valkor et al haven't yet achieved consistent pilot production, and AIUI, they are reworking and re-permitting their plans based on the learnings from the exploratory wells (e.g. potentially using THOR Cavitas with long laterals, if the LinkedIn posts are accurate?).

Looking for MSAR customers is a few steps down the line from where they are today, IMHO.