The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Cargill are amongst the biggest privately owned companies in the world. They have a revenue of over $165 billion USD (much more revenue than an oil majors ENI or Cepsa).
I do believe these commodity traders should be better partners for Quadrise than an oil major. Though not a household name, they are extremely well-known within the industry. These companies are extremely well-connected across all regions globally and can get us access to renewable feedstocks from across the whole marketplace (including obscure places).
Fantastic news. This is hard evidence that the persistent excellence from the team is paying off.
That 5% (3.215703% directly, 1.829392% via swap instruments) is worth approximately £10 million. That is a real vote of confidence in a company that is maturing and has a bright future.
GeordieChris, thanks for your post on deferred revenue recognition.
As a simplified example: imagine you have a project where a customer pre-pays for services delivered monthly over the course of a 24 month period.
You receive the cash upfront, but you can't recognise that as revenue until the service corresponding to it is delivered. Instead, a corresponding entry is made into liabilities for the amount of cash received, and you add revenue as each month goes by (or each milestone, phase, etc — as per the deliverables contract with the client).
In our hypothetical example, you receive £100,000 up front, and can recognise 1/24th of it each month as the service is delivered to the customer.
It is more complicated in HVO's case because they have non-refundable elements, each project has its own schedule for deliverables and payment (as agreed with the customer), and, not all of the cash is necessarily received up front.
But, hopefully that gives a rough idea.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deferredrevenue.asp
Listen to this video as it addresses your questions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSwH4RRPzms
UK Govt won't fund any projects that use biofuels, even waste-based biofuels.
They've already done a huge range of tests in the OEM's static test rigs and laboratories.
A LONO approval requires you to use the fuel at sea in real-world conditions for 4000 hours. That means the fuel is ready operationally (safety, fuel switching, maintenance procedures, etc), as well as technically (cope with real-world weather, rocking, pumping, etc).
Relevant crosspost on methane slip shared by Bod100 on The Shareholders' Forums:
"""
Damning report also in BBC news app on methane slip ‘Inside the world’s largest cruise ship as it sets sail’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68118822
All this must help
"""
Because our fuel isn't approved by marine OEMs, nor in test nor commercial usage yet.
That's what the MSC LONO trials are all about.
THAT'S WHY, I THINK.
Gordony's post history consists of just three posts. All are to this board.
Yet all are saying how great methanol is and that it's going to be the winner over Quadrise's technology.
All posts can be summarised as "Wow, it's nice that you guys are enthusiastic about Quadrise, but methanol is great and you've lost the race" 🤔.
My personal view is that the data we've captured from numerous land-based tests, commercial applications (both Orimulsion and MSAR), and existing partial LONOs, objectively demonstrates MSAR does not pose any issues with wear — but clearly, the gatekeepers are demanding we jump through the hoops, so we shall do it...
So, my conversations with Jason on this topic (and this is entirely FWIW, as it's entirely a matter within the OEM's discretion)...
From the OEM's perspective, OIW technology has not been tested in large 2S marine diesel engines for prolonged periods at working loads, so there's a level of confidence that needs to be established, as they feel it's novel enough that the wear characteristics may be different to "normal" fuel.
Chemically and physically OIW is unique amongst tested fuels, because the outermost phase is water, whereas typically oil is contacting the engine surfaces, etc, with other drop-in fuels.
For example, classical WIO emulsions have oil in the outermost phase, and water is encapsulated inside the oil. That means from an engine perspective in WIO it's still mostly oil touching the engine surfaces.
Comparatively, fuels like goodfuels are chemically extremely similar to existing fuel technologies which makes their pathways a bit easier.
A quick Google suggests goodfuels have done numerous short, medium, and long-term tests, so I don't think they managed to completely avoid LONO.
Hopefully this is a problem that will go away once we've got MSC and Wartsila pushing us along with this LONO...
For some additional context, there are some holders at the AGM who believe NDAs are a key thing holding back the company's progress.
I don't agree with that, but I just want to provide some colour as to why a couple of holders were asking so much about such a niche topic.
People asked about this topic at the AGM — various questions in the after-AGM chat with the team whether NDAs would delay/stop our key project RNSes; and the team said no, and they wouldn't be allowed to do that anyway.
No, Quadrise would have to disclose such a material contract to the market in a timely fashion and you couldn't just work around that legal requirement by using NDAs.
Just a thought: if the counterparties' lawyers disappeared off before Christmas and didn't reappear to complete things between Christmas and NY, I wouldn't expect that they're working weekends either.
Don't be shocked if we need to wait a while.
Whoops, I didn't finish a sentence in my last message before posting.
Or to put it another way, the fact there are many key factors out of your control needs to be factored into the guidance issued to shareholders (including perhaps some detail on what the areas of uncertainty are).
While it's entirely true that the legal caveats mean people are incorrect to claim Quadrise 'promised' December, the market has tended to lose confidence in Quadrise's guidance as QED have missed several key milestones by significant time margins.
I'm sure the market will forgive all if QED deliver the agreement in short order, but it's just a fact that poor time-related guidance has become habitual at Quadrise and it has not served us well.
This was brought up numerous times at the AGM, and QED attributed it to factors that were not under their control (that others including Fyoz have outlined well earlier today).
But, given that this has been the pattern of a decade, one would hope that they would build in more margin and have become better at client management in that timeframe. Or to put it another way, the fact there are many key factors out of your control needs to be .
Either way, I personally remain very hopeful that the deal will be closed out soon and we can start learning about the possibilities of bioMSAR and MSAR at MSC, rather than groundhog day on the LONO fuel supply.
Bit of digging from me...
As per Trio's filings, Lafayette Energy Corp also seem to have extensive options in Heavy Sweet Oil's (HSO) Asphalt Ridge downhole project.
LEC is a new corporation that is currently in the process of floating on the stock exchange.
Some common figures between LEC and Trio.
Looks like LEC will be providing at least $5M USD of funding.
HSO/Valkor will try to get RBL sorted once oil is flowing.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1936031/000165495423016103/lafa_s1.htm
@Crownos
Here's what the AGM Statement said on the matter.
"""
US low carbon fuels: Quadrise understands that Valkor Technologies LLC ("Valkor") expects to conclude drilling permits and project ?nancing relating to their primary project site in Utah by the end of the calendar year 2023. Provided a minimum of US$15 million is successfully raised by Valkor, under the terms of the Site License and Supply Agreement signed in June 2023, Valkor will pay Quadrise an initial US$1.0 million licence fee and a further US$0.5 million upon delivery of an MSAR® Manufacturing Unit to the project site in Utah.
"""
With the linked news, it looks like Valkor are getting a maximum of $2M USD from this investor in small chunks (options) for their downhole (EOR) project (bitumen/ultra heavy oil), and Valkor hope to get reserves-based lending (RBL) kicked off by mid-2024.
Doesn't sound like they will be the candidate to trigger the MMU agreement in any short-medium timeframe. Nowhere near $15M USD.
Jason mentioned there are some surface tarsands-based projects Valkor are also involved with (e.g. the Ecqoteq one) that are being funded separately.
As ever, I suggest applying significant skepticism to Utah projects on timelines!
Any other thoughts?
Whether something is marked as a 'buy' or 'sell' is arbitrarily labelled by the platforms that consume London Stock Exchange's trades data.
It is just an *estimate* and should not be considered canonical.
Look at the official London Stock Exchange website trades and you'll see there's no "buy" or "sell" listed, as all trades are both.
On modern trading platforms, the buyer and seller are often matched for trades in a real-time manner, meaning that there is no market maker involved and "buyer went first" or "seller went first" .
Point being, don't spend too much effort looking at it with a magnifying glass as you might just be seeing specks of dust.