Member Info for dustofnations

Article is from 2nd July, elir71

There's your answer... :-).

Correct, you can see the full info here:

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/market-news/schedule-one-update-poolbeg-pharma-plc/15058229

Summary:

Number of ordinary shares: 500,000,000
Issue price per Ordinary Share: 10p (0.02 nominal value)
Capital to be raised on Admission: £25 million
Anticipated market capitalisation on admission: £50 million

Cathal - 36,389,757 - 7.28% (note that pre-admission it was 31,389,757, so he's bought a good wedge of additional shares)

Extracted a few of the interesting pics here -- https://twitter.com/quorumzine/status/1412451382800551941

I made a transcript of an interesting part of Jason's Morocco section of the recent IMC call. I think it's actually very revealing and worth looking over the details. Note I've left out various unimportant bits (errs, repetitions, etc).

---

JM:

With respect to Morocco, we have had a guy on site this week. Bernard visited the site this week from our team to review the facility and make sure everything is ready. Very worthwhile visit: just confirmed what was there and the process of getting in and out of the site, and they are ready to receive us — eagerly ready to receive us, I would say.

So, we’ve done all of the work on our side. All of the equipment has been fabricated at QRF, you can see some pictures at the right-hand side of the presentation (slide 12) of some of the materials we have made, in terms of pumping and heating units, burner lances and swirlers, burner tips; all of those things have actually been fabricated in QRF.

The picture in the bottom right is the facility that we will be carrying out the test on the kiln in site B; that will take place during Q3.

The equipment that we are sending out there in terms of the pumping and heating unit is applicable for utilisation in site A. So that will be moved to the main site where we carried out the pilot trial as you may recall (at the end of 2020).

---

And then the intention is to sign a commercial agreement subject to refinery supply of MSAR as early as the early part of 2022.
"eagerly ready to receive us, I would say" -- nice.

Assuming you already held ORPH in your ISA, the Poolbeg stuff doesn't count as an additional contribution, as it is the result of activity inside the ISA wrapper. Same as if you received a dividend from a stock already held inside of your ISA; it doesn't count as new money/contribution.

shandypants2 - Indeed. CF is a bit like Elon Musk in that regard; that is, he tends to be extremely bullish on timelines, but delivers the goods time and again. So, I'm not concerned, and I just take it with some "Friel Time" salt. It still happens fast.

The new CEO/Greg has likely had (or has) insider information relating to the key launch of the product in the USA that would be considered insider trading. He'll need to wait until the NOMAD gives him the green light on that.

And credit to former CEO Watts for setting this in motion. Very pleased that it's on target to get rolling as per the schedule. I agree that this should be the beginning of a new era and that, hopefully, patience shall be rewarded.

Agree with that entirely Salinger; it should be trivial.

The only reason it will take even a small number of weeks is that QRF need to do stability testing to provide a guarantee to the customer. Stability testing naturally takes a fixed amount of time and can't really be sped up

i.e. they make the emulsion and see what happens to it after 1 week, 2 weeks, etc, to validate that it still has the quality characteristics they guarantee to the customer for those time periods.

You can see a bit about QRF stability testing and other similar verification steps here: https://quorumzine.gitlab.io/quorum/content/2019/12/09/qrf-key-to-qfi-tech-advantage.html#stability_pump_cycle_testing

Are you for real? Plasmodium is a parasite and it literally states that in the first line of the article you linked.

It was specifically stated during Q&A that there would be a simple agreement that allowed continued sharing of data between the ORPH group companies and the spin-off in an efficient manner. Furthermore, the datasets will continually be updated as new trials are run (which you can imagine potentially involves new diseases as a wider variety of pathogens are considered candidates for challenge studies).

BTW, CF mentioned Malaria several times and misspoke saying that it's a bacteria; as I'm sure many of you know, it's parasite. However, Malaria vaccines is a key area that is finally being cracked with the latest generation of vaccines, and there are proposals to merge several vaccines together that target different parts of the parasite's lifecycle to improve its real-world efficacy further and hopefully reduce the chance of a rapid buildup of resistance.

Some challenge studies are being already being run by Oxford/Jenner Institute and others, but I think there's much more coming down the pipeline, and organisations like ORPH should be well-placed to help make this happen.

People will find this document interesting: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3133/pdf/FS2006-3133_508.pdf

What is defined as heavy vs bitumen varies by source, so it's a matter of perspective often.

Some great comments here.

As people here have tuned into, there's a huge amount of ramping and fantasy accounting going on where claims are being thrown around that a barrel of API 8 bitumen will somehow achieve $68 without any kind of treatment (a claim repeated by several accounts on Twitter that people will likely be familiar with). Those people seem to know what they are saying is incorrect but ignore it and continue repeating their story, so I suspect they are not playing by the same rules as the rest of us.

In the past PQE sold their asphalt product to the roads department during the summer (that should tell you how viscous it is). However, that is a highly seasonal market and would not achieve near WTI prices anyway.

The other way they sold product in the past it was by deliberately leaving large amounts of (expensive) condensate in the finished oil in order to 'upgrade' its viscosity to approximately WTI specification. They then sold it back to a local refinery from which they had bought the condensates. I don't see how that would ever be more than marginally profitable at best (previously it appeared to be variously: marginally profitable, breakeven, or loss-making).

In the past interview that Steve Byle et al gave they have said they want to break the connection between their product's economics and the price of distillates and WTI pricing. Clearly that's only possible with a different approach.

I'm not anywhere sufficiently foolish to say that I know enough to claim that QFI's MSAR is the only way to achieve that goal, but it's the only one I'm _aware of_: in terms of overall economics, viscosity, decoupling from distillate and WTI pricing, avoiding costly new infrastructure to crack bitumen, etc, etc.

We shall see.

Weird and unexpected delays are kinda de rigueur in Quadrise land.

Crude glycerine is a byproduct of the biodiesel industry and the food processing industry. It's a considered carbon neutral input as the idea is that the carbon is recaptured when more crops are grown. This is slightly misleading IMO as most bio crops require some carbon-intensive inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides which meaningfully contribute carbon (plus in some regions poor land management, etc). However, it's much lower than conventional fuel sources.

So from an accounting perspective the bioglycerol component does not contribute carbon to the product.

Other interesting ideas include use of lignin waste, which is a byproduct of the paper and timber industry; trees tend not to require much fertiliser, and they can use use 'vertical' space more efficiently.

There are also developing ideas around the use of problematic waste plastic streams (better than leeching or getting into water streams), and development of microorganisms to produce glycerol (algal or bacterially). Historically microorganism-based fuel production hasn't been very competitive on a cost/energy basis because organisms are inefficient compared to engineered methods, but let's see.

Long long term I think most people agree that biofuels probably will be supplanted (pun not intended) by other technologies, but there's a large opening for them now.

Yes, modestly. But it's hard to measure, because the industry doesn't compare or produce data in a representative way.

1) MSAR has better combustion properties and produces high compression ratio. This results in better thermodynamic performance (i.e. slightly lower fuel consumption for same energy output; this is in the small single-digit range but certainly still worth having).

2) MSAR does not require extensive and energy-intensive refining, so the "well to wake" emissions are much lower. Refineries use an absurd amount of energy (heat and electricity) to break down heavy residues into shorter-chained molecules, or convert heavy resid into petcoke, etc.

MSAR is a very simple and low-energy process that produces a high quality fuel without needing vast amounts of refining.

It's really difficult to make a like-for-like comparison. For example, the carbon cost of a single litre of fuel is difficult to track because it depends on how much energy was invested in the refinery into producing that litre -- this can vary enormously depending whether it was derived from a light feedstock or a heavy feedstock that required a lot of 'energy investment' (to crack it into shorter-chained products).

In short, less refining = less energy investment = lower carbon cost.

indigo & salinger - agreed, it's an important aspect that they were really crap at for a long time. Educating your customers and shareholders is very important. No doubt they will tell them what to talk about and what NOT to talk about given various sensitivities you mention :-).

My understanding is that they have mostly outsourced the social media stuff. They give that team the materials and a brief to educate potential customers, investors, etc, and they produce the materials.

So that means they aren't using the time of the team, but also that you shouldn't read too much into it as secret signals or something as it's likely fairly independent of business activity.

It does seem conspicuous that they are not replying to questions about fuel supply for MSC. Does make you wonder whether this is the area that is currently under negotiation (recognising that others have pointed it out earlier as a likely candidate).