Member Info for dustofnations

If you don't understand something, just ask, the QFI community is always helpful in explaining things :-).

Possibly. Off the top of my head:

If you can find a feedstock that's already low enough S that when blended 30% lower that it would meet 0.1%. Likely a much tougher ask than 0.5%, but if you do some digging you might be able to find some combinations that work. Even POSP crude is about 0.4%.

You would also need to make the economics work on the fuel booster system upgrade and custom software/control system upgrades side.

You'd also need to do a sector analysis to see what the spread of different engine models are for your target segment. There are more different models and manufacturers as you get down to smaller vessels.

I think all of these factors are why QFI are working 'top down' in the marine market: when the vessel is eating through 120tpd, it's easier to justify the high costs of 3D laser scanning; paying to design, manufacture, and install the parts; paying for the software design, testing, installation, etc.

If you have some industry connections, you should consider reaching out to the team!

Thanks for the mention and link @foxm, it's much appreciated!

@Elir 71 - I think for LONO purposes having MSC with their high-end scrubbers is a huge win in the area you are referencing.
We should basically be able to use MSAR at all times, except for ports/anchorages that ban scrubbers, which is not that many (and for a very tiny period, mostly when idle or alongside). That should help us burn through the hours very quickly.

People have asked many times whether we should buy an old banger and use it to test MSAR. The answer from QFI has always been that you need to test on the specific engines that your customers are using, as the LONOs are issued on a narrow per-model basis. Furthermore, they need modern electronically controlled engines so that timings and pressures can be controlled correctly for MSAR.

The general question of whether MSAR Marine is viable or not has been resolved ages ago via lab tests on real marine engine rigs using both MAN and Wartsila engines (both 4S and 2S). So it's about validating them at sea, on the specific engines, using real crewing procedures, etc.

For example, a Wartsila WinGD X92-b LONO does not get a Wartsila WinGD RT-Flex-96 LONO.

So, getting a LONO on the old machine isn't getting you any further forwards.

I doubt whether glycerine is the only alternative fuel source that can be blended into the MSAR emulsion.

Glycerine what they are going with for now because it's readily available, cheap, and hygroscopic (blends well with the water phase), but I bet they will find other renewable derivatives/waste products that might be suitable in future.

I suspect this will be another of the successes of the emulsions approach, because you make a high quality fuel out of ingredients that are not normally miscible.

It's worth remember that Kempster et al (via their various sockpuppet accounts) are in on the CFD game, so they play both long side and short side when trading. That's why their collective mood/opinions seems to change radically at various times, and they disappear and reappear whenever is convenient to try to ramp/deramp for their positions.

Thanks, Tuckman - I personally consider the bioMSAR lab/bench/generator trial report and results to be a fait accompli, and I don't expect it to result in any major re-ratings. I could be wrong!

I was talking in terms of project development roadmap.

It will be very interesting to read, though.

Yep, the next likely source of news is Utah and testing their bitumen samples at QRF, and then hopefully sending the MMU over for testing. As outlined in the recent video that was published on Proactive, Greenfield are making excellent progress -- albeit slightly behind schedule due to Covid and other uncertainties.

Going by the interview, it appears they have all of the technical acumen and experience to make this work, and they want to work out the issues before introducing those improvements into the FEED and finalising everything.

It's an annoyance to see selling pushing down the SP every time it gets into the 25p range.

But, it's one of those things, if you sell your shares instead of being patient (even temporarily), you massively risk missing out on the huge deals that are meant to be lining up for this year. Namely, wearbles data, Imutex and other spinoffs, and additional challenge trials facilities.

And that's without various Covid-CHIMs related studies being approved and advancing.

I agree it's an annoyance that the SP is being held down by persistent seller(s), but hey ho, should hopefully be a blip in the road rather than anything interesting/

Fyoz - agreed, I think the MMU installation itself is very quick, but the process to get approval can be slow because of all the procedures and stage-gate checks you refer to that manage risk, H&S, financials, etc.

I think this is one of the major reasons why JM brings up bitumen terminals. These are much less complex and regulated environments, so it's easier to cheaply install an MMU in a short period of time with minimal risk.

Disagree slightly with that, Fyoz. A refinery like Cepsa San Roque processes 240,000 barrels per day of crude.

As a cutting edge refinery only about 15% will end up being residual streams (let's say 36,000).

That's about 5,565 tonnes per day of resid; about 2 million tonnes per annum of resid (add 30% for MSAR w/ water).

That's just to give a rough demonstration that I think a single refinery or terminal could likely support a *very* large number of vessels. A large or super-large modern vessel at the top end of slow steaming consumes about 120tpd of HFO.

Of course, for geographical distribution, redundancy, etc, it would be better to have multiple installations. In general, very little or no downtime is needed for an MSAR installation, but they typically seem to prefer to schedule it during maintenance periods for H&S and risk reasons.

It's also possible to have multiple bunkering locations fuelled by a single refinery (fuel is transported via tanker).

I'm quite positive on that aspect of things, but it's certainly an area where a huge amount of thought and consideration is needed.

Yeah, the existing remote sites in Utah have a procession of oil tankers trucks arriving and leaving constantly during the daytime that transport the crude to the local Salt Lake City refinery or to the rail network. A quick Google says that each of the rail oil cars has about 114,000L capacity; for road apparently the typical US weigh limitations impose a volumetric upper size of about 45,000L on tank trucks (double).

I agree though that a fully-operational 10k facility is probably going to need more than just road links. They are factoring in the infrastructural considerations into the new site.

hughjampton/Kempster - via existing low-cost rail tanker infrastructure that has a terminal nearby (large refinery in Salt Lake City).

The video expresses that MSC is a company with a long-term vision and think very technically from all the way to the top of teh organisation. I think that tells you a lot.

Worth remembering that at-sea bunkering is extremely common for these mega-sized vessels, and there are a lot of such services that operate along the med. Basically a bunkering barge will come out to the vessel at a designated remote location and pumps the fuel onboard.

This can be done at a port as well, of course, but it means there are many additional options.

Places that do ship-to-ship (STS) bunkering include Morocco, Spain, Cyprus, Turkey, etc. So there are many good options!

Thanks for sharing that resource, foxm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fdXVmr7c0s

This video puts into context the scale of the opportunity for TomCo/Greenfield to enter the industrial and marine markets with their MSAR products.

As mentioned previously, Uinta crude is very low-sulphur, so Greenfield's Low-Sulphur MSAR (LS-MSAR) could be used by these marine vessels without any scrubbers: this opens up a much larger market that 'standard' MSAR does not cover.

One of these large boxships that QFI's CEO Jason Miles mentions in the video can consume 150 tonnes per day of HFO while going at the typical speeds we see today. That's about 950 barrels per day.

Also worth considering the bioMSAR product which offers lower carbon via blending in renewable glycerol. There are likely marine regulations coming down the pipeline that require lower CO2 emissions, so this provides an affordable pathway to 100% renewable.

It could also be relevant to land-based use where more stringent SOx regs are in place, in addition to the usual benefits of MSAR for eliminating black soot, significantly reduced NOx & PMx, etc.

To add to Sarir's point: there is a huge point of synergy that people are missing with today's announcement with Quadrise Marine trials with container shipping giant MSC:

The residue produced at POSP/Utah/Uinta region is low-sulphur and compliant with IMO2020 0.5% Sulphur regs!

This means TomCo can produce **low-sulphur Marine MSAR** that can be sold at a significant premium to high-sulphur, and can be used **without scrubbers**, whilst undercutting the existing market (MSAR is distillate-free).

Not needing scrubbers means that TomCo's Low-Sulphur Marine MSAR is in a completely different market to any other MSAR.

Yes, I agree, today's SP rise is extremely modest considering the quality and implications of this RNS to QFI.

No doubt we'll be hounded by the "boom" trader types who are here for a short ride on the rollercoaster...

We also require new funding in a few months time (mid-Q2), so that may weigh slightly on things. I have every expectation that the raise would be entirely successful and not dilutive, based on the quality of the agreement and partner signed here.

There's also the bulker client, who you would hope will be more inclined to sign now that MSC is out of the bag. They are not competitors, and there would be lots of infrastructural and operational synergies and cost reductions.

As pointed out by others, we'll surely be hearing something regarding MSAR supply soon, and that will undoubtedly be beneficial to Morocco and other potential projects.

This is wonderful news and is utterly transformational for Quadrise and Marine MSAR.

It's difficult to express just how important this announcement is.

Today is a bad day to be a Kempster, but a good day to be a QFI shareholder.

Hopefully those oil/residue samples will be sent out to Quadrise post-haste once the plant is up and running. Then we can get our customised MSAR formulation and plough ahead with those MSAR commercial trials.

My personal view is that MSAR is the key to TomCo's commercial success at POSP and 10k plant; MSAR enables us to take a super-heavy oil (bitumen), and turn it into a premium fuel product like IFO380 or N6 bunker with superior economics and superior environmental properties.

No need to dilute the oil with expensive diluents to bring it up to WTO viscosity specification: that's what was damaging the economics for Petroteq before Greenfield became involved -- it cost practically as much in solvents/distillates to meet their client's viscosity specification as they made per barrel. MSAR changes that completely.

BTW, Sir John Bell believes the SA strain should still work with the existing vaccines, but of course this needs some investigation to verify fully. Thankfully with the technologies in the current vaccines approved (vector, mRNA), it's easy to change the sequence slightly if needed.