Member Info for dustofnations

Not necessarily. The wheels on this raise would likely have been in motion a while ago, and undoubtedly they thought at that point that definitive Utah signatures and the Morocco trials would be over the line by now, so this would be a safe point to raise.

They obviously duffed up the first attempt at the Morocco commercial trials, which didn't help.

As for Utah, I've mentioned before that I thought QED were being overly optimistic in believing the timelines proffered by HSO:

i) given the unprecedented nature of projects that HSO/ACO are trying to get approved they had to get law and regulatory changes — that was always likely to take quite a lot of time (and it did!);

ii) it became clear a while ago that Hoodoo were sniffing a business opportunity by interfering in the board approvals process — which isn't an uncommon business tactic in USA, and something QED should have been aware of as a huge potential source of delay (see: lawfare);

iii) previously overoptimistic timelines from Valkor/HSO/et al that they've repeatedly missed over the years;

iv) QED shareholders with deep professional experience in this type of field development warning (correctly as it turns out) that HSO's timelines seemed excessively optimistic at the last AGM;

v) that the Hoodoo "dispute" relates to interpretation of contracts, which is not within the jurisdiction of the DOGM Board, so that gives Hoodoo plenty of time to inject additional delays should they wish to (and should HSO/ACO not just decide to settle and make Hoodoo go away).

I am not saying Utah is not a tremendous opportunity — it is. Just that the QED needed to be more cognisant of the warning signs that the timelines HSO were suggesting were very aspirational.

Ah, OK, manu19. Yes, it's absolutely critical QED get the Morocco trials completed sharpish, as:

i) QED need to get into commercial negotiations with the Moroccan client; so far negotiations of all varieties have tended to be much more protracted than they've planned for.

ii) QED need to get a supply arrangement done with a third party refiner (possibly another tripartite agreement). As we've seen, they have been struggling with closing out that aspect in a timely fashion with MSC, so getting started as soon as possible would likely be extremely beneficial. Having long-term, guaranteed commercial volumes would obviously be more attractive to a refiner than a Marine LONO or POC.

In Utah, HSO's unitization permits are not likely to be up for board approval until approx end of August, and that's assuming that Hoodoo doesn't clog things up at the hearing and drag it into the courts (which they appear likely to do).

But you were (and are still) wrong 🤔.

WongaFC, I agree the performance data being gathered now should be very valuable to do a 'before and after' comparison once QED get underway with bioMSAR and MSAR PoC and trials.

Even if the supply agreement were finally signed and announced tomorrow, there is still the long process of designing and performing an bioMSAR/MSAR installation/integration at the agreed location(s), arranging the logistics, storage, bunkering, etc.

Many different components must come together before sailing can commence, but of course, the supply agreement itself is the absolute most important part that unblocks all of those things and makes them a matter of time and scheduling.

It's my personal opinion, but I think the technical and economic merits of the technology are extremely well understood; I believe if we can get the POC and LONO underway, we will pass the OEM's performance requirements/barriers without issue.

Thanks again to @Maggulus, photos of Leandra heading laden towards Goteborg (Gothenburg) where she is now — https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=790862816110460&set=pcb.3491982327684855

I believe this picture was taken from traffic cameras on the famous 'Great Belt Bridge' (55° 20' 32.7" N, 011° 02' 28.5" E).

Leandra should be in Felixstowe on Tuesday afternoon. If anyone of you live nearby, perhaps worth heading down there with your cameras 📸?

The images people have posted of Leandra leaving Klaipeda *did* show containers on board (and likely more underneath the deck) — https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=222778897376456&set=a.222767580710921

Lithuania is a tiny country and the start of the route where they will be accumulating containers, you wouldn't expect loads of stuff on board.

Thanks, TILondon.

Page 14 as labelled, rather than PDF page.

PDF page is 9/16.

H/t to @maggulus who posted this on the shareholders' forum. Some lovely pictures of Leandra leaving Klaipeda by Gena Anfimov — https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=222790930708586&set=a.222767580710921

@sempahorRed: Correct, AIUI, this HAZID/HAZOP relates specifically to the risk factors and operational elements of bioMSAR and MSAR for the ship in the upcoming POC and LONO trials. They rate how likely a particular failure mode is, and the severity of the impact should it occur, and then put in place mitigations and procedures to mitigate that (e.g. extra redundancies, safety procedures, software).

@StockCheque: As far as I can tell, visiting Klaipeda is just because she's being put on the ScanBaltic-USA route and that's one of the ports she's due to visit during that route. The HAZID/HAZOP specifically relates to the upcoming trials, it is not required for her normal operation on standard fuels. I expect her visit to Klaipeda will just be to offload and collect containers, and to get to the start of her new route. I can see from MSC.com that she's due to leave back towards Poland tomorrow, and then onto Gothenburg soon after (you can use the p2p routing facility on msc.com in combination with the link below to get routing estimates).

https://www.msc.com/en/newsroom/customer-advisories/2023/march/msc-upgrades-scanbaltic-to-usa-service

And she was already inspected and had her certifications issued by an LR surveyor after her dry dock period, which you can verify from yourself on the LR website.

This is a HAZOP/HAZID specifically relating to the handling of bioMSAR and MSAR fuel when bunkering, operations on the vessel, fuel switching, de-bunkering, emergency procedures, maintenance procedures/requirements, special handling requirements, etc.

For example, the fuel should not be allowed to become excessively hot, or its phases will separate.

What to do if the fuel spills, and how dangerous is it to the crew and environment, and how likely are those risks.

How the fuel should be pumped and stored (e.g. using diaphragm pumps instead of aggressive impeller pumps).

As I understand it, it's that kind of stuff.

Anyway, PharoahRocher has professionally been involved in those studies on numerous occasions, so his writeup is worth a re-read.

Doubt it, Leandra uses Lloyd's Register classification society, not DNV.

As far as I can recall, JM has advised that HAZOP/HAZID is a paper exercise (well, video meetings), and the challenge is getting all people involved to be available at the same time. They need representatives for QED, engine OEM, flag state, classification society, insurer, ship operator, onboard engineering (e.g. a chief engineer), onboard leadership (e.g. a captain), etc.

Check out PharoahRocher's post about HAZOP/HAZID.

I doubt her current location is specifically relevant to HAZOP/HAZID, other than they are putting her onto her new route (ScanBaltic to USA), which appears to be aligned with what JM advised probably over a year ago as the one of the most likely routes.

No again.

Hoodoo will undoubtedly continue to argue that the contract is ambiguous, and that the matter must be resolved in district court.

DOGM's advice to the DOGM Board is that they should continue (delay) HSO's request for agency action (re: unitization) until the contractual dispute has been resolved in court. The DOGM Board does not have jurisdiction to interpret contracts.

From what I have seen, the contracts are clearly mutually exclusive, but Hoodoo (in my opinion) are exploiting the procedural and legal mechanisms available to them to punish HSO/ACO with costly delays. No doubt they are kindly offering to desist in their assertions in return for a free slice of the pie 🙄.

Agreed, Vince.

Just my opinion, but it rarely benefits a company for its shareholders to publicly discuss the idea of engaging in malfeasance that would get the company into serious trouble.

That is not true, yesterday's hearing did not approve anything.

Approval for the original pilot well programme was given last year, but the unitization request has not yet been heard nor approved. This has obviously been enormously delayed by Hoodoo's interference.

In short, all yesterday's hearing looked to establish was whether Hoodoo had standing to participate in the HSO/ACO unitization hearings that will occur in August.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

The board passed a resolution establishing that Hoodoo *does* have standing, but that the facts established at the previous hearing are conclusive.

So, Hoodoo can't relitigate anything that was established as fact previously (they didn't participate when they had the chance).

ColdFishPie, I don't think it was a slam-dunk for either party.

Here is the resolution the board passed (my transcription): "I move the board to recognise Hoodoo as a proper party with standing as to Heavy Sweet Oil's request to unitize subject lands, under the condition all facts within this board's December 8th 2022 order be conclusively established regarding lands within the pilot project moving forward".

Hence, AIUI, Hoodoo get to participate (and probably try to impose additional delays), but they will have to accept the facts established by the DOGM Board during previous hearings they did not participate in. That means certain findings and facts are 'locked in', which will give them less room to manoeuvre and argue.

Of course, if as we suspect, their modus operandi is to delay, then they'll always find a way to string things out by focusing on topics where the board does not have jurisdiction (i.e. nonsensical interpretation of contracts requiring litigation in district court). This is purely my opinion, but Hoodoo appear to be using delay tactics to coerce HSO, rather than actually expecting to win.

Anyway, fast forward to August, and will be interesting to see what happens and whether litigation on the contract is initiated in parallel.

She previously worked for SILTA (schools land that HSO and Hoodoo are leasing), and was involved in the drafting of the contract that Hoodoo (and others) use. The contract, from what we have seen, appears to clearly state that Hoodoo are not entitled to the resource HSO want to extract and have a separate contract for.

I don't see evidence for your statement that she was biased in any way. She offered to recuse herself if anyone objected, which they did not.

Part of the issue is that contractual interpretation is generally not within the jurisdiction of the DOGM Board.

Crownos, one standout to me was that in response to board member Moon's question, Hoodoo's counsel appeared to confirm that Hoodoo are not currently doing any drilling or other activities.

This is purely my opinion, but I believe Hoodoo are deliberately slowing the regulatory process using knowingly absurd arguments that will take a long time to resolve. They presumably know the difficult financial state of some of the project participants and that their funding is contingent on the unitization approvals.

I expect they are demanding a share of the revenues from the HSO/ACO projects in return for dropping their 'objections', which may drag on for many months through various board hearings, district court, and then back to the board again.