Member Info for dustofnations

Nothing has been announced yet, so we don't know.

I can't really parse what HF is trying to say, so just to clarify my point -- we've commonly had business updates released on the morning of the AGM, typically as an "AGM Statement" or "AGM Update", etc. Disclosure of the latest status of each key project.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/QFI/agm-statement-c19utsqdb6i06y7.html
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/QFI/agm-statement-yp31iz6fm8lp0ck.html
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/QFI/agm-update-08rxg060i0m1zfm.html

I would, of course, expect a big ticket item like Morocco trial completion to be RNSed separately should it be completed before that date; they won't hold anything back.

But if it's still "WIP" by the AGM (I hope not!), then you should see the latest info that in the AGM Statement. That's assuming QFI continue their traditional approach on this, of course.

AGM is on 25th, so we'll certainly get an update then.

I think they are simplifying the Morocco timeline disclosed in the results for this infographic.

If you refer back, there are various things going on in 2023 for Morocco (2 more site trials, deal refiner, etc), but they've condensed it in a way that loses event-specific granularity; you can see from the original that they don't all necessarily have the same time estimates. Site A trials and fuel supply are in a segment indicating that should approx be in 1Q23.

I guess they would need to do an RNS if there were any changes to schedule of these key projects.

Nice thing is that we'll get an update very soon as they'll update us at the AGM.

Agree with previous comments that MSC Leandra bioMSAR LONO is almost certainly not going to be supplied by TomCo/HSO/etc.

Others have already made good points around preferring a mature partner that is actually producing fuel today rather than awaiting approvals, the fact they are only doing a modest 4-well pilot at first, complexity of logistics from Utah, bunkering, etc.

A further bit of evidence is that JM was pretty explicit a few times during IMC that they are looking at supply from Netherlands to benefit from tax credits for biofuels, and to make use of well-established bunkering suppliers with all of the necessary permits to store and bunker large amounts of marine fuel. He mentioned this was a supplier that MSC had used before. So it ain't HSO/TomCo!

Just to be clear, I don't think anyone is denigrating TomCo/HSO. They should be a strong candidate in the future once the MSAR and bioMSAR LONO programmes expand to more vessels (e.g. additional Wartsila models, MAN engines, etc). By then they should hopefully have some significant volume of product coming out of the ground, thorough testing of bioMSAR/MSAR, rail expansion, etc.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the idea that TomCo should succeed with their application.

People were just correcting your previous statements that all of approvals were completed yesterday and drilling could start.

The division (DOGM) said it will be a very technical process and requested various additional information. That suggests it's not going to be an overnight process.

More patience required.

The video is on YT @ https://youtu.be/FmetjUlELWY?t=17355

Skip to 4h:49m:15s if timestamp does not work.

Appears to be a holding company headed by SB and associates.
Hard to know precise details as Delaware corps are secretive.

https://www.bizapedia.com/ut/highlands-development-group-llc.html

Steve sometimes talks imprecisely/loosely.

Clarified version (after posting, I realised I had used "they" for multiple different parties):

That was my clear takeaway also, Wolferlaf.

AC/HSO needed the independent DOGM Board approval as one hurdle to cross (done), but they still need to get final approvals from the regulator (DOGM is the regulator, referred to mostly as 'the department' in the video). Important to note that the DOGM Board and DOGM are deliberately independent of each other.

DOGM indicated they are supportive and praised HSO/AC for 'bending over backwards to be helpful', but there's still some work to be done before that permit is decided/finalised, including following the UIC process.

As I understood it, HSO/AC already made their filings for all of these processes, but it will take time to review and to go back-and-forth -- it sounded like DOGM wanted some additional data/reviews in a few areas (water, literature review, etc).

That was my clear takeaway also, Wolferlaf. They needed DOGM board approval (done), but still need to get final approvals from the regulator. They indicated they are supportive, but there's work still to be done before that permit is decided/finalised, including following the UIC process.

As I understood it, they've already made their filings, but it will take time to review and it sounded like they wanted some additional data/reviews in a few areas.

It's because they wanted to file addendums to exhibits past the last date which they normally accept changes. So they had to request the chair accept the late changes for 'good cause' (i.e. must have provided a good enough reason). So it's just a procedural thing.

Is cup and handle a cricket thing?

Not really sure what else people can say that isn't pure tasseography.

As folk have outlined: QFI have had plenty of positive progress lately, yet the share price did not respond because of heavy selling from multiple IIs into limited liquidity.

SP appears to have corrected to a degree now that Miton and Canaccord are no longer major holders.

The following is a nicely written article from Vertoro's Dr Michael Boot on MSAR + Vertoro's lignin-derived crude sugar oil (CSO). It gives a little more technical insight into how the integration works.

I've reposted it on Twitter to hopefully give it a bit of amplification, so please do share it around:
https://twitter.com/quorumzine/status/1582309191536250880

Also on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/innovation-news-network_vertoro-plan-to-decarbonise-the-shipping-activity-6988068682136485888-DFYK

Is something strange going on with the LSE forums today? A bunch of posts people made this morning seem to have disappeared. Maybe they are having technical issues again.

I agree Fitzy66, I think QFI are looking better now than at any point since Maersk and KSA. Arguably better from a business development perspective, as our partners seem to be more reliable and the economic and regulatory conditions are better aligned with the benefits of our product offerings (noting that we have 2 product categories now instead of 1).

Clearly, still some questions of funding requirements for 2024 onwards as mentioned in the update, but if QFI keep executing as we've seen in this latest update, then that should open up more preferential forms of financing (e.g. project financing, merchant financing, less dilutive raises, strategic investments, etc).

I also hope that once our Moroccan client uncloaks themselves, their significant name and reputation will lend credibility to our products in the industrial sector. It's a big opportunity that is also quite simple and modular (industrial heat, lots of modest sized rotary calcinators and similar).

Risk as always, but I'm personally continuing to feel positive about QFI (unsurprising, given that's been my position for a decade+ now, but I'm sure you know what I mean).

I agree with dtwin and others that it was a muck-up.

Chip shortages, especially of control circuitry, have been known about since early 2020. I work in IT industry and could have told them that was likely to be an issue.

You say QFI took the word of supplier and so it's not their fault: one of the key tasks of a project manager is to mitigate supplier risk should a supplier not be able to meet their commitments. You plan for *precisely* these kinds of contingencies.

There *are* lessons to be learned from this in the area of project management and risk mitigation; they've said that themselves. Not executing everything perfectly is only human, and I'm glad they acknowledge it; you learn a lot when things go wrong and you analytical about it. If you just say "it was unavoidable" to everything then you are doomed for those issues to recur in future.

They had 2 full-sized MMUs in storage and a research MMU at QRF. Between all of those key MSAR production assets they were not able to produce 60t of fuel in a timely manner which delayed a key trial.

Frankly, I don't quite understand the "goldilocks MMU" explanation, where one MMU is too small, the others are too big. We've produced volumes in the same order of magnitude several times before. But, even if you accept that argument in its entirety, the main thrust of the point is the same: you must plan for these contingencies as a key project risk and bottleneck.

It is *not* about putting blame on individuals; blame culture does not help. It's about honest post-mortem analysis, identifying the fault , and improving processes for future. So, it doesn't need to be understood as a negative that spawns defensive responses.

A problem for larger holders like Miton is that they had a lot of shares to shift in a smallcap stock that tends to have low volume, so that readily pushes the SP down.

So, as far as possible, they wait for events that generate sufficient liquidity (e.g. positive recent results and business update) and sell a bunch. As we saw, that still holds down the SP -- people expected an immediate SP increase from an update that seemed very positive, but it's a case of "least bad option" for these IIs.

And it doesn't help when multiple large holders are exiting at the same time because they are trying to honour redemptions by their punters and maintaining various mandatory balance and liquidity requirements.

Contrastingly, one of the few advantages that retail shareholders enjoy is that we can be patient and wait for conditions to change if we feel there's not a fundamental issue causing the SP depression.

So, at least for my part, I continue to wait (im)patiently.

Read the IMC Q&A and audio section, there's an in-depth explanation