Member Info for dustofnations

There's no immediate dilution. Shares are only payable upon execution of the 5k project. I suspect the market might miss that fact!

"""
Issue of the Acquisition Shares is subject to Greenfield receiving funds from, or drawing upon, a loan or credit facility in connection with the construction of an oil sands processing facility as specified in the FEED Study dated 21 July 2021 (as amended or superseded) ("Financial Close"). In the event that Financial Close is not achieved within 3 years of the Effective Date no consideration is payable by the Company to Valkor and the obligation to issue the Acquisition Shares will lapse.
"""

Ofc, I would hope and expect that the project will be underway in dramatically under 3 years, and this is just a very high upper bound.

Earache - sigh, you really are increasingly clutching at straws.

I think other readers on this BB will have to draw their own conclusions about what your agenda is. Whether it's narcissism or whatever, it is really getting completely out of hand. I recall the time you told a corporate accountant that he didn't know what he was talking about when analysing the books; same all over again, isn't it?

So, let's break it down...

You are making extreme, bizarre, and entirely unfounded assumptions that the dataset Open Orphan have collected is highly vulnerable to the specific kinds of deanonymisation/reidentification attacks that Imperial wrote about in their papers. You have literally zero evidence for that.

Deanonymisation attacks are an issue with literally all anonymised datasets to some extent (whether a tiny amount or a lot); it's not in any way unique to ORPH or DIM. Furthermore, no anonymised datasets have been hindered by this phenomenon, as long as they are complying with today's best anonymisation practices (which is a rolling process).

Again, you have literally zero evidence to support your claims that this is going to be a problem. It won't be; your points are completely ludicrous and require us to make extreme negative assumptions and wring our hands about a hypothetical worst-case situation.

As repeatedly emphasised by other posters with knowledge of data and software, the fact this was an opt-in anonymised dataset provided by volunteers, rather than scraped without consent, is hugely different.

In summary, you are also expecting us to make extreme and negative assumptions about:
(1) the consenting process and legal framework used to collect the data
(2) the actual use of the data by the vendor and customers
(3) a hypothetical vulnerability to an attack on anonymised data that all anonymised datasets are impacted by to some greater or lesser extent

It's a shame that your hogwash has dominated the BB for the last couple of months, but I guess this kind of nonsense is your pastime.

The idea is that over time more green hydrogen will be introduced into the feedstock via electrolysis of water from renewable power sources. There's still a fair way to go on this, and even with the advances seen it is possible that it will always be too inefficient to compete economically. Methanol is basically just a carrier molecule for H2 (as hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store and handle).

One of the attractions for companies like Maersk is that the current way of accounting for carbon is tank-to-wake rather than well-to-wake. This means that they get to claim it's 0% CO2 emissions, even when it has been generated using natural gas reforming (grey hydrogen -- "blue" hydrogen is just a misleading BS marketing term) which is extremely energy intensive and prone to methane slip.

Same for ammonia right now.

I would not be surprised if methanol were another candidate for the "low viscosity/water" part of MSAR along with glycerine. Another potential element to blend in, and it could be scaled and blended according economics and availability rather than all-or-nothing and fleet fragmentation.

Software engineer here, we deal with data protection stuff often.

There are multiple layers where data protection could apply. The TL;DR is that it won't be a problem.

All of the relevant GDPR consents would be built into the process that captured the data in the first place for insertion into the database (and the predecessors to the GDPR, such as Data Protection Act, where relevant). That will cover them for all uses of the data that they are proposing now; this process is obviously considerably easier as it uses anonymised data and the subjects volunteered and explicitly consented. A standard part of the consent process is to acknowledge and consent that your anonymised data may be used for future purposes such as these, which would include commercial and research usage.

As others have pointed out, there is likely to be additional consent required between the tech company and the user of the smart device, but that is absolutely standard practice as part of accepting T&C when using a platform (particularly health). This is completely separate to the first element.

In short, the data protection-related arguments are completely spurious, and are (ab)using technical terms to try to sound credible and scary; in truth they are just yet more guff floating in the breeze.

one solution, sorry, not 'on solution'.

There isn't going to be on solution (at least, not for the foreseeable future). There isn't enough of any single economically-viable renewable feedstock to support the marine industry. That's where something like QFI's emulsion technology could be interesting, as it should allow several different feedstocks to be blended into a final bioMSAR product.

There are likely to be several winners for the next decade or so.

Facec, I think that's largely correct.

The RNS is just because the commercial trials agreement (CTA) between Greenfield and Quadrise to test MSAR was presumably nearing expiry. In order to avoid that, a short extension has been signed (I would imagine this has been set to more than cover the anticipated time required).

The CTA will enable around 100t of MSAR to be produced using the full-size MSAR manufacturing unit (MMU) that has been prepared for the harsh Utah winter weather (with trace heating, etc). Quadrise will provide full engineering and operational support for the trials.

It is not currently clear when or where Greenfield will undertake the tests, but perhaps it will be at POSP in a trials capacity (POSP seemingly no longer running full-time). I guess we'll learn more around the time of the AGM?

No problem at all.

I think the key message from the CEO's recent interview is that patience is required.

STX are (in his view) moving at breakneck pace, but it will take some time to get the message out there and get onto the formularies of insurance companies and other payers. Any income from direct sales will mostly be on a discounted basis to help introduce the product to prescribers and patients, and to meet patients needs before negotiations with the insurers concludes.

So, things are well underway and he hinted that the feedback so far has been very good. But, we'll have to just wait and see what happens over the coming months to see the key milestones hit (good number of off-insurance prescriptions, getting onto insurance formularies, pick-up in prescription numbers from key prescribers, etc) .

We've taken a big hit in the short term to hopefully win a much larger prize in the long term.

For those that want to avoid providing your details, here's a direct link (PDF) - https://www.hardmanandco.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/210820-Hardman-Shield-Therapeutics-STX-Interim-update.pdf

Posted this over on the TOM board yesterday, but probably relevant reminder here too (all IAUI):

The MSC vessels under consideration for MSAR & bioMSAR LONOs are equipped with high-end scrubbers that can easily reduce SOx levels below 0.1% Sulphur Emissions Control Area (SECA) levels, versus 0.5% in IMO-regualted international waters.

They mentioned that their preference is to use one large 4S or 2S MAN engine and one Wartsila (WinGD-Schuler) 2S engine, like RT-Flex.

The only exception might be ports of call that have banned scrubbers (almost irrelevant for LONO purposes as you don't run the engines much there, anyway).

So they will chew through the LONO hours very quickly.

The MSC vessels under consideration for MSAR & bioMSAR LONOs are equipped with high-end scrubbers that can easily reduce SOx levels below 0.1% Sulphur Emissions Control Area (SECA) levels.

They mentioned that their preference is to use one large 4S or 2S MAN engine and one Wartsila (WinGD-Schuler) 2S engine, like RT-Flex.

The only exception might be ports of call that have banned scrubbers (almost irrelevant for LONO purposes as you don't run the engines much there, anyway).

So they will chew through the LONO hours very quickly.

We are certainly due news within the next 3 weeks or so, as QRF finish analysing the TomCo POSP samples for their suitability for MSAR and bioMSAR and generate commercially guaranteed formulations. I would say it's certain to succeed unless there's contamination.

On the list of things I expect to hear about in Q3 or so (off the top of my head):

-- Morocco:

AIUI, this is just waiting for MSAR supply and logistics to kick off the next phase of trials with the famous 3-letter fertiliser giant. This will be the so-called 'industrial trial' which is meant to immediately precede the full commercial trials, which we should hear more about.

-- MSC:

VTT's results just formally returned to QFI (even better than expected). As bioMSAR was pushed massively up the agenda by MSC, this has delayed things; significant supplies of both MSAR and bioMSAR are now needed (i.e. need logistics and infrastructure for glycerol + residue + manufacture + bunkering).

So, logically the next things to be announced should be:
- Residue supply, likely a refinery in the Med or North West Europe;
- Glycerol supply and logistics, likely via the commercial contracts of our partner Aquafuel;
- MSAR & bioMSAR manufacture and bunkering logistics;
- MSC full LONO agreements and schedules for bioMSAR and MSAR.
-- Decisions on which ships will be involved and which routes -- this is key, as the specific engines that the LONOs are achieved on are those that receive approval; it's not particularly broad. Has been hinted one is likely to be MAN and the other Wartsila/Schuler/WinGD (basically, the ultra-large 2S division of Wartsila [Schuler] was sold to the Chinese, and now exists under the WinGD brand. Flex series, etc.).
-- Ship retrofits and fuel system upgrades (small software + hardware upgrades)
-- Crew training, logistics, routing, interim and full LONO assessments, etc.

Exciting times. The shipping industry is under insane pressure at the moment due to high demand, so they will want to minimise downtime as far as humanly possible.

It's likely, in my opinion, that several of these elements may be rolled into a single RNS, possibly using multipartite agreements (i.e. binding multiple commercial parties together for an agreement).

At this very moment, TomCo's crude samples are going through Quadrise's research facility (aka QRF) so they can produce optimised formulations of MSAR and bioMSAR. Guidance is that this should be completed by the end of August.

The few weeks required is not because it should be difficult for QRF to emulsify an 'easy' bitumen like POSP crude (i.e. not absurdly viscous like an SDA residue). However, part of the QRF process is to produce a highly-optimised formulation that has all of the best combustion and stability characteristics possible (a qualification process, if you like).

Verifying stability is something that simply takes time. They need to take small samples of the MSAR test samples produced with a given formulation and store it for a period of time (e.g. a week), and they can then verify the sample after that time to ensure it's still within specification and the phases have not separated (i.e. water and oil still in emulsion).

So, the amount of time taken is more about being rigorous and ensuring they can meet those commercial guarantees for the customer rather than any sign that there are difficulties.

As guided, by the end of August I'm certain we'll get some good news on that front, unless there are unexpected oil contamination issues again (which seems very unlikely).

QRF have emulsified residues that are so viscous that you can literally walk on them, so this should not be a problem.

This is an article I wrote about about QRF from a couple of years ago that is available for those that want some more detail and a virtual tour of sorts. Hope it's of interest. https://quorumzine.gitlab.io/quorum/content/2019/12/09/qrf-key-to-qfi-tech-advantage.html

dpsandison -- back onto your original topic for a moment before it was derailed -- the results will take a few weeks. Let me explain:

That's not because it should be difficult for QRF to emulsify an 'easy' bitumen like POSP crude (i.e. not absurdly viscous like SDA residue). However, part of the QRF process is to produce a highly-optimised formulation that has all of the best combustion and stability characteristics possible (a qualification process, if you like).

Verifying stability is something that simply takes time. They need to take small samples of MSAR produced with a given formulation and store it for a period of time (e.g. a week), and they can then verify the sample after that time to ensure it's still within specification and the phases have not separated (i.e. water and oil still in emulsion).

So, the amount of time taken is more about being rigorous and ensuring they can meet those commercial guarantees for the customer rather than any sign that there are difficulties.

As guided, by the end of August I'm certain we'll get some good news on that front, unless there are unexpected oil contamination issues again (which seems very unlikely.

QRF have emulsified residues that are so viscous that you can literally walk on them, so this should not be a problem.

This article about QRFfrom a couple of years ago is available for those that want some more detail and a virtual tour.
https://quorumzine.gitlab.io/quorum/content/2019/12/09/qrf-key-to-qfi-tech-advantage.html

With you on this point, Indigo2015.

If you know it, best not to share. Don't want the various pondlife attempting to further interfere with the company at this crucial time...

See referenced Twitter post here: https://twitter.com/QFIPLC/status/1425795951009140736

Thanks for all the kind comments about my bioMSAR article, guys.

I had been mulling over my various thoughts and theories about bioMSAR for a long while, and finally decided to force myself to put them together in a Quorum post yesterday evening. I'm glad you liked it, and thanks for sharing it around. Hopefully people will find it interesting/useful.

There's still a long way to go for bioMSAR, but I think they've hit upon something that is right for the current mood in the industry and where things are heading longer term.

Excellent news and glad to see Shield diversifying outside of their core markets.

And yo have to suspect that a buyer knew about this deal before the market did, the proximity of the large purchases (and SP rise) to this announcement is more than a tad suspicious!

I am with you on these sentiments, BeContrarian.

Firstly, I appreciate Eskers' efforts. Eskers has been correct several times, and any wise person knows that research such as this is not an absolute science, so it must be taken with some appreciation for the risk. Sometimes the company changes their plans, sometimes the information is off, sometimes misinterpreted, etc. That's how any intelligence works.

And I am indeed amongst those happy to hold, but currently with little to say.

The company has a great future, but there's not really a huge amount to discuss until the spin-offs and other business developments get further down the line: DIM spinout; Prep spinout; POLB progressing its development efforts; the UK Govt deciding to exercise some of their Covid challenge study contracts; etc.

These are amongst the things we're all anticipating, but are already well-known quantities that don't need revisiting (yet), and the required ingredient is mostly time.

Plenty to be excited about, and content to be patient. Happy with the way things are moving so far.

Block admissions is just a technical thing, nothing particularly interesting.

Basically just means that if people exercise their warrants they can be issued in 'blocks' or batches by the company to the exchange, rather than individually which is expensive to administrate and cause loads of RNS noise.

These are warrants were issued in previous years, as you can read from the bullet points in the RNS.