Member Info for dustofnations

I understand your thought processes, but Trump does not control the EU (thankfully), which is where the major business impetus for bioMSAR is derived: (i) 'FuelEU Maritime'; and (ii) the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which now applies to maritime.

Relatedly, UK's equivalent maritime ETS scheme is expected to launch in July 2026, so that's another useful motivator [1].

All of the above increase the GHG penalties over time (e.g. CO2, NOx, etc).

I believe the economics and technical characteristics for MSAR and bioMSAR now rather well understood at a theoretical level. It's now about building confidence and pushing for our technology to be prioritised over other solutions being trialled. That requires soft skills, industry standing, and a strong network that can give us access to the right people — exactly what Peter Borup was hired to provide.

As ever, Quadrise is risky, but like many other ULTHs on this board, I will give Peter plenty of time to execute his strategy. I hope he will reciprocate by updating us if he misses his timeline and BD ambitions. As Vince and SemaphorRed have very fairly pointed out, PB did not *promise* end of Jan; it was an ambition. But it will still be something people will naturally notice and criticise if missed.

[1] https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25796930.landmark-regulation-will-mark-power-shift-ports-across-scotland/

> I want to know what happens if he doesn’t get the signatures . That’s an important step to stop us all falling into despair at the thought of more drifting on .

Agreed.

Keeping us updated regularly is extremely important to demonstrate we're moving in the right direction, even if it's not on schedule.

One of the biggest frustrations communicated by shareholders at AGMS is long periods of silence. It's a difficult balance, as a different group of shareholders complain when the team release too many updates that don't have enough progress (which can cause the SP to blip). So, there's an element of "damned if you do; damned if you don't".

My view is that more transparency is better, and we're at a phase where regular updates are essential. And Peter promised to bring a culture of openness and communication; telling us what we need to hear, even if it's not always what people _want_ to hear.

Fingers crossed for updates demonstrating strong progress, but openness is crucial, either way.

How do you know that?

Agreed, excellent points. Especially with the prevalence of slow steaming, fuel tanks on boxships are generally significantly oversized, as fuel consumption per unit of distance travelled has reduced (there's a non-linear relationship between speed and hydrodynamic friction, meaning that modest increases in speed cause enormous increases in fuel consumption, and vice versa).

Because we need positive momentum, as Peter outlined the AGM, where the announcements lead to tangible business progress and a clear timeline towards a result.

A nice RNS followed by years of silence, or things stalling because they're stuck on a lawyer's desk, does not benefit the share price, as the market starts to become sceptical, "hmm, is this actually going anywhere?".

That was one of the reasons that Peter said he will prefer to announce things only when he believes they have real substance (i.e. no fluff).

Well said, @TechyRob - I've never known QED (fka QFI) to be leaky. Of course, that doesn't say anything definitively as proving a negative is almost impossible. But, one would hope they are wise enough not know that they should be exceptionally disciplined when interacting with the 'characters' you refer to.

And yes, fingers crossed that we hear some news of significant progress from Peter and the team 🤞. Even if it's not the signed contracts, hearing that we've taken the key steps Peter outlined in the AGM would be wonderful (e.g. signing up the bunkering barge provider, renewed progress in agreements between counterparties, meetings with OCP team, etc).

Vince, I think you've succinctly identified the 46G modus operandi. Correspondingly, we must begin to wonder what the reasoning is behind the message and timing. And the benefit someone might derive from this unusual pattern of behaviour? Thoughts on a postcard...

> The SP has been going down for months ol boy

Why are you suddenly talking like this lately with this "ol boy" thing? What's going on?

Yes, Peter said he wants to meet the OCP management team in combination with our Morocco agent, and make a go/no-go decision.

He was clear that if it doesn't show promise, he will drop it.

But he was also cognisant that OCP offers a great opportunity, and that he doesn't want to drop the project prematurely.

So, he's going for a balanced approach.

I hope it comes off, but I certainly understand if we are at a complete impasse, then at a certain point he'll have to shelf it. I know Jason says it isn't using any company time, but from a shareholder perspective, it keeps appearing in the 'active projects' updates.

One might suspect the fact the prevailing price of oil is pretty low at the moment means people aren't as motivated to move quickly.

In marine it's different due to carbon emissions regulations guaranteeing a higher baseline price and making lower carbon options much more competitive.

Sn88/hf14 - there are at least two projects running in parallel that Valkor are involved in (probably more).

- The downhole project that you are linking to - drilling down into underground resources and heating up the underground formation until it liberates the oil.

- A surface tar sands processing facility, which is more like surface strip mining (they then separate the sand from the oil in a special facility.

AIUI, both of these are looking at MSAR as a possibility.

AKHM (and several others), I completely agree that Leandra's day-to-day movements are not currently important until a LONO agreement is signed.

As Jason and Peter mentioned several times, it will take a few months of work between signatures and beginning sailing, hence for now, her day-to-day movements do not signal anything, as the operational team will not do anything significant with her route and activities until the signatures are done.

As an aside, I do think the current geographic assignment is quite plausible for the POC/LONO because it's mostly within EU waters, which would be a good real-world test of the savings achievable via EU's ETS and Marine FuelEU scheme (see: calculator tool). She's cycled through several different routes, but mostly EU-Med.

What you say is important context, as we had a huge ramping session in previous years as Leandra went around the Baltic and other areas, with oft-repeated claims that she might be undergoing a "HAZOP test", listing all of the local drydocking facilities and speculating that she was going to visit, etc.

For example, the repeated "interesting/unusual manoeuvres; clandestine POC/LONO" claims were complete nonsense, but I kept getting messages from people asking whether it might be true given the huge volume of posting on the topic. Eventually "might" and "could be, dyor" starts becoming fact through sheer volume of exposure and repetition.

I hope we don't end up with the same again, it was just exhausting and flooded everyone else's content off the boards.

Anyway, here's to hoping 2026 is a better year for Quadrise.

It's a superb tool, Jackg123 - you can easily see the strong economic case for bioMSAR in EU particularly. You can even select a specific vessel, which gives excellent resolution for potential adopters.

I agree with Vince, semaphorRed, etc. Why trumpet loudly and publicly that you've met the management team and suggest you've heard something tantalising... then go quiet, or as previously, even invite select people to email you privately to hear what you were told?

Why not share and let everyone benefit? There are plenty of questions the community would like to put to the team.

Or at least say nothing and not sound like you're up to something.

I must say, I think the various ribbings are thoroughly deserved after years of manipulative postings. The 'private cryptic garden meeting' with Andy Morrison took the biscuit.

Those who've been QED shareholders for a long time know this kind of behaviour goes back many years.

Anyway, as I've always done, if I get the chance to meet the team in the future, I will be transparent, share openly, and put the community's latest/thematic questions to them. It benefits *all* of us that way.

And plenty of you have done the same, sharing responses from IR, your interactions with the team, etc, etc. It's not exceptional to have a basic sense of community and not behave in this strangely furtive way.

Have you ever taken a short position against Quadrise, including via derivative instruments such as CFDs or spread bets?

Someone else mentioned the 'new' vessels today, which prompted me to have a deeper look. Please check out the referenced thread if you want more detail, albeit I think I have covered what 99% of people will be interested in.

Sadly, the state of the paint on these recentlyish-acquired Maersk vessels is quite poor. It seems that MSC look after their vessels better than Maersk.

Perhaps that explains why MSC have overtaken Maersk in terms of reliability: https://www.ifssac.com/blog/msc-overtakes-maersk-as-most-reliable-carrier/

No doubt MSC will have them undergo the same overhaul procedure as Leandra and Bremerhaven: scrubber installation, BWTS, bow modifications, engine mods, fuel system upgrades, etc.

Anyway, having more "Leandra clones" is naturally beneficial from an MSAR/bioMSAR/MSAR Zero testing and rollout perspective, as it eliminates as many uncontrolled variables as possible. And they already have a template for how to convert the vessels, amortisation of software and integration costs for custom engine controls, fuel controls, etc.

Before anyone gets too excited — clearly, these are also good ships, so if the project were not to ahead for some unexpected reason, then MSC won't have lost out.

Thanks to "LeandraWatch" thread on The Quadrise Shareholders' Forum.

IMO 9313929 MSC RITA V (formerly Maersk Bentonville)

IMO 9313931 MSC INIYA V (formerly Maersk Brooklyn)

Both transferred to MSC on 01/06/2024.

So, MSC now has Leandra, Bremerhaven, Rita, and Iniya, all of which are the same Maersk B series and use the same Wartsila 12RT-Flex96C engine.

A clearly AI-generated slop 'poem'.

Even short trolls can't be bothered to write original content these days...

Yes, and from our perspective (and those of our customers), the 'uglier' and more difficult the bio feedstock is, the better (to an extent). We face much less competition, as they aren't amenable to road transportation, aviation, or other alternative marine fuels.

As some examples: heavy and oily heterogenous molecular structures (e.g. HTL residues); relatively crude, water-soluble sugars, such the jumble of plant sugars that emerges from solvolysis (e.g. Vertoro CSO).

Naturally, there are limitations on what we can put into MSAR, the above feedstocks are unattractive for conventional fuels because they don't burn well and can cause engine damage. Most engines are tuned for very narrow fuel parameters and would not appreciate you injecting sugar.

These kinds of feedstocks would need considerable additional refining to make a useable product for conventional engines, or are just useless in the transportation industry (but could be useful in others, such as farming, cosmetics, etc).

Alternatively, even further refined, often a smaller-but-heavier residual fraction is produced (the same pattern as with conventional refining).

So, the fewer alternative sinks for these kinds of 'ugly' feedstocks, the better the economics are for us — albeit, we need producers to get commercial production off the ground in the first place.

Also, less refining means more carbon ends in the fuel, rather than wasted during refining/processing.

The opportunity seems to be there, but it's fairly nascent in some sectors. Clearly, someone like Quadrise getting a deal with MSC would be a game-changer for these players as well, and create a market for some of these waste products that doesn't currently exist.

Yes, it could be possible. I did have some discussions on this topic in the post-AGM informal chat with the team. Before I answer fully, I would like to preface this by saying that the team are very open-minded, and it's still early days for BoB.

For ships in the pure tramping trade, operating on the commodities spot market, BoB *could* make sense (especially for MSAR Zero). Vessels in this category really have no idea where they're going to be from one week to the next.

For ships with predictable and semi-predictable patterns, bunkering would likely be simpler and avoid additional mechanical equipment to look after.

For bioMSAR the economics may be a bit more challenging, as some of the economic benefit comes from the resid element — you can't just carry this on board (generally you want to emulsify it while it's still hot after coming down the line from the refinery). But there could still be a decent economic argument with bioMSAR with high levels of biofuels, where the conventional element is less important from a pricing perspective.

It does add operational complexity and extra conversion/equipment costs though, so I got the impression that Peter was attracted to the idea of MSAR/bioMSAR being available in the traditional bunkering hubs, which would enable most vessels to bunker bioMSAR as a "normal fuel" and minimises CAPEX/OPEX associated with the product.

This is hopefully the moment where the QRF team's research work on feedstocks will pay off greatly. Glycerine, hydrothermal liquefaction, solvolysis, pyrolysis, cellulosic plant sugars, FAME, tyre pyrolysis, etc.

Quadrise can abstract the difference of those fuels via the bioMSAR platform and just offer "cheap low-carbon calories", even it's a blend of different sources.

As always, easier said than done, as some of these technologies are still in the process of reaching commercial scale, but the breadth of feedstock validation means we can benefit from whichever succeed/scale first.