Member Info for dustofnations

Yes, they did a technical assessment and decided to go down the no-scrubber + VLSFO route. I think it was completely the wrong decision from Maersk, but I doubt it was anything personal; the result is the same, of course.

At the time there was no bioMSAR and no VLSFO/ULSFO MSAR (that may become viable in future with Valkor's Uinta MSAR -- reopening the unscrubbed market).

So, I think there's a chance of Maersk picking it up again if MSC trials and adopts MSAR & bioMSAR.

We obviously have some extra offerings now that could pique their interest.

Next Decarbonizing Forum conference is towards the latter end of next month. Jason is speaking there.

Maersk and MSC both in attendance, along with a raft of other huge names in marine.

You would hope that MSC and QFI would like to talk about their collaboration by then.

https://decarbonizingforum.com/

Interesting snippet from the interview that nobody has mentioned here yet:

I noticed in the latest update video on Proactive that Jason says, "with bioMSAR we're pushing the amount of renewable glycerine we're able to add to the fuel; we've got in excess of 70% of renewable glycerine to the fuel, if we need to. that offers a CO2 saving of more than 50%...."

I think that's a much higher % glycerine ceiling than previously disclosed. I guess as a result of the new research with Aquafuel. The more flexibility, the better, of course, as customers can choose between 0% and 70% glycerine in order to tune their cost vs CO2 reduction trade-off.

And we've also got the research into renewable waste feedstocks coming down the pipeline, including lignins. More supply means more customers, as the availability and economics of each product individually is constrained relative to the enormous market that we want to enter.

You can see there's a long-term pathway there to the MSAR Zero product that Jason has mentioned on a couple of occasions.

iantoback - this is referring to the idea that MSAR emulsion technology can act as a carrier for lots of different renewable and conventional feedstocks. There are two aspects to this:

First: economically it allows clients to switch between many different low-cost energy inputs without needing to change their engines. That unlocks lots of unconventional sources like lignins, pyrolysis oils, plastic waste, etc, which might not be available individually in large amounts but in aggregate have plenty of supply. This should also work with other conventional fuels which could be emulsified and hence avoiding commodity pricing spikes (if isolated to a single fuel source).

Second: even with existing fuel inputs like diesel and HFO, the performance can be improved significantly using QFI's fuel-in-water emulsification technology platform. If you can get a 6%-10% performance uplift that immediately improves your economics and reduces CO2 per tonne of cargo. That's a win alone. Then consider reductions in NOx, PMx, black carbon/ash, etc.

If you want to hear more of my waffle on this topic: back in August 2021 I proposed the idea of "MSAR marine technology platform", and I think the points I made generally stand up - https://quorumzine.gitlab.io/quorum/content/2021/08/11/intriguing-biomsar-possibilities.html -- I notice the terminology has spread more widely now!

Fyoz - I meant the energy sector in general. It's a conservative industry and there are a lot of entrenched interests. So it's difficult for newcomers. As we can see from the projects that are finally progressing, it has taken the explicit intervention of C-level executives at those clients to make it happen.

After all, subordinates rarely get awarded for taking risks and would rather just do the safe thing (i.e. nothing). Even if their inaction is a detriment their company/environment/etc overall.

However, to the great credit of QFI's shareholders, we've allowed Quadrise to been incredibly persistent and we are hopefully now reaching the moment where all of the factors are aligning in our favour (economic, regulatory, consumer demand, etc).

So, as always, I remain cautiously optimistic.

But, I think it's always important to be realistic and clear about risk. I hope we are rewarded for our extreme patience sooner rather than later.

It's very encouraging indeed.

But, nobody should consider a QFI project nailed-on until the ink is dry on paper (and even then, caution must be applied). It's a difficult sector to operate in.

MSC: "we have verbal agreement to move ahead" [subject to getting things signed off].

Fantastic.

One to keep a close eye on.

Jason Proactive Interview on the business update.

H/T to lobsterman for pointing this out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwAdZd9_X0k

Regular, fully transparent, and clear updates like this are massively welcome, IMO.

We'd rather know where we stand rather than letting speculation build and all kinds of wild narratives take over.

Yeah, we're not as far along as we want, but we can clearly see that progress has been made and that scope has expanded meaningfully in a few key projects. So, as always, QFI is a risky proposition, but I don't think we're in a worse position (a fact that, thankfully, the RNS has made very clear).

Knowing the state of the business we're all part owners of is an extremely important part of a modern and well-run company, so I applaud the company.

For me, it's all about the medium and long-term story for QFI, not short-term stuff, which is mostly emotion of seeing SP go red and/or traders -- which is definitely not my bag.

An excellent video by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder about the health and pollution problems of conventional diesel combustion (NOx, PM10, PM2.5, ash/black carbon, etc).

This is worth watching for those who wonder what all those acronyms are about, and to understand some of the benefits of fuels like MSAR/bioMSAR to reduce all of the above considerably.

She also covers some traditional technologies for reducing PMx and NOx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apbS205t53w

As I understood it, the coal oppo in Utah is for a 'reburn fuel', this is a technology where a second combustion process occurs to help dramatically bring down NOx levels.

It's an old paper, but I think this it illustrates the general principal - https://www.pollutiononline.com/doc/reburn-nox-control-0001

AIUI, it's typically gas that is used for reburning, but there's no reason a fuel like MSAR or bioMSAR can't be used given its high performance (it might work even better with the water element).

It can reduce NOx by about 75% with more modern implementations

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion

Agree with Salinger's take. Jason doesn't really do sarcastic.

It seemed clear to me that 1 of the 3 was the Utah project , and at the time of the RNS that understanding seemed to be widely acknowledged here (i.e. it being the first of those 3 deals they wanted to advance).

JM promised that if they missed their timeline ambition of executing all 3 of the most advanced projects in April that they would revert to shareholders in May after doing a strategic review. It seems he has reiterated that in communications with SHs re-shared here.

During that process the whole BoD and leadership team will be assessing which projects are worth sinking more company time into.

I hope that it's a case of short delays in the negotiations, legal process being protracted, Eid holidays, etc, rather than any fundamental hitches.

I guess we'll find out soon.

One knot is that it's not currently clear how broad a LONO will be issued by the OEM; whether they will issue one that works across a large number of their engine models, or just a particular family/model, and then issues of which model years it would apply to, etc. It's complicated.

4S and 2S engines are very different. I suspect we'll probably have to do a separate Wartsila LONO for 4 stroke marine engine families, such as the ones you have listed. We already have a lot of good data for land-based applications of Wartsila 4S, so I think we'd have a leg up on that. I wonder whether they would reduce the hours requirements once we build up enough data and confidence. The number of hours required is fairly arbitrary, and I think the OEM could reduce that if they wanted.

Quite a lot of these Wartsila engines are used for land-based deployments BTW; you see Wartsila 32 gensets all over the place.

One complication is that we're doing the Wartsila LONO first. As JM has outlined, that's obviously beneficial because of our extensive prior experience with Wartsila on the Flex engine with Maersk. However, the majority of large, slow-speed 2S marine diesel engines are MAN (supposedly over 80% at this point).

So, at first it may make sense to cherry-pick Wartsila engines where they are available.

Of course, this issue will be solved by additional LONOs undertaken with MAN, but will likely take a bit of time.

Clearly, this will be a very nice problem to have.

Worth nothing that on the medium-speed 4S engine side, Wartsila are much more dominant. MSAR/bioMSAR also work very well with that technology platform (marine and land-based).

Yeah, I agree.

I think for Utah the initial use cases are almost certainly local industrial consumers and perhaps power generation (re: comments about Kennecott; use of MSAR as a reburn fuel in power stations; use in heavy machinery; etc).

It makes sense to pluck the low-hanging fruit that is local Utah usage before doing anything logistically complicated. Vernal, Utah is a long way from any coast; especially the east coast, and the railroad does not yet come close (they will build an extension in the next few years).

Based on previous comments from JM, the likeliest routes for the bioMSAR LONO trials are trade routes flowing from China via Med/Suez to Europe, and then to US east coast. Of course, this may change, but they've never mentioned US west coast. Given the location of the company and client management is predominantly Europe, I think what JM mentioned makes most sense.

I know he's said Utah is a good backup option, but considered that a refinery in the Med or British channel area most likely (e.g. Rotterdam). He mentioned Cepsa certainly still a possibility -- and you could imagine that location is useful for Morocco also.

Valkor are TomCo's main technology provider and EPC, so it seems likely to me that any Quadrise MSAR and bioMSAR collaboration would be channeled via Valkor.

Hi everyone!

I have produced a full transcript of the Quadrise 1st April interim results presentation and Q&A.

There are many interesting details and nuggets of useful information within that you might have missed during the call itself. This includes a significant number of mentions of TomCo, Greenfield, Valkor, and Heavy Sweet Oil (and generally in Utah). It may provide some interesting context and information for you all.

Find it below in the latest edition: https://quorumzine.gitlab.io/quorum/content/2022/04/04/post-interims-imc-transcript.html

Hi everyone!

I have produced a full transcript of the Quadrise 1st April interim results presentation and Q&A.

There are many interesting details and nuggets of useful information within that you might have missed during the call itself.

Transcribing JM isn't the easiest task, hah!

Find it below in the latest edition: https://quorumzine.gitlab.io/quorum/content/2022/04/04/post-interims-imc-transcript.html

It's great to see a line drawn in the sand regarding April being the key month; I suspect this is the influence of Andy Morrison, and it was very welcome. I'm excited and hope to see MSC, Morocco, and Utah finally progress. Hopefully the pandemic restrictions are sufficiently behind us that trials will not be interrupted again.

The market is understandably sceptical after many near misses; I do personally believe that once QFI show a strong sign that they are over the hump that people will appreciate the opportunity that is available, and the SP will start to correct in a way that is sustainable.

In general, QFI has a very loyal shareholder base who are passionate about the technology, understand it well, and think it could have a positive impact. Even modest execution would be transformational.

That said, there are still plenty of risks, which include the global events that everyone is well aware of, as well as the crazy market situation (which currently benefits us), and the company's misfortune in the past (or miscalculation) when reaching key junctures in their dealmaking. So, not one for the risk-averse, as always.

Wishing the best for the team as they enter this crucial period.

As promised (and with permission of all involved), I've republished the report on Quorum for people outside of the forum to peruse.

Thanks to all the team who spend their personal money and time to attend this event, which was genuinely to try and get a better voice for the retail shareholder community and ensure that you all received the same colour and context as a large holder or institutional. Some travelled a significant distance to make this happen.

As always, we're committed to being as transparent as possible and not just keeping what we understand private; we want to benefit this community rather than interesting and useful replies being left in the private inbox of a select few.

"Addressing the concerns of the retail shareholder community. An interview with the QFI leadership team."
https://quorumzine.gitlab.io/quorum/content/2022/08/09/retail-investor-discussion-with-qfi-team.html