Member Info for dustofnations

The immune system generates a wide range of different effective antibodies to different parts of the spike protein, which means that without very substantial mutation, it's unlikely that the virus will render a vaccine ineffective. Covid mutates much more slowly than viruses like influenza, because it has a proofreading mechanism that detects most mutations/errors, and hence the rate of mutation tends to remain relatively low versus other viruses (with the caveat that more infections means more chances to generate mutations that overcome the proofreading).

It's still entirely possible that the virus will become endemic due to anti-vaccine sentiment, particularly in US and France. And the more time a coronavirus spends in populations infecting people, the more time there is for useful mutations that survive proofreading.

I am mentioning this because I see some places where people claim it's going to be like the flu in terms of mutations, when it's fundamentally different. It is rather unlikely we'll see strains that overcome vaccines as rapidly as flu (thankfully).

Barking is correct: it's the address of their corporate secretary, MSP Secretaries.

If you all recall, they broke the lease on their expensive London office during the first wave of Covid after finding that they could work from home very successfully. I think it had a fairly long notice period.

It is a decision that has proven to be the correct one, especially considering the Tier 4 restrictions that are now in place and likely to ramp up in the coming weeks.

They have London office facilities available to them on an as-needed basis now.

Not sure what'll happen after the crisis is over, but this seems a very good call for now.

QFI made it clear that they are two independent companies: one dry bulk (think iron ore, grain, etc); one containershipping (ISO containers). Both top-5 in their respective sectors.

MSC don't have a dry bulk fleet.

They are very different businesses, so there aren't many companies that do both.

Quadrise have an agreement with Greenfield, which is a joint venture between TomCo and Valkor.

In turn, Greenfield has an agreement with Petroteq for their clean oil recovery technology (CORT). It is designed to extract bitumen from oil sands using azeotropic solvent mixtures, leaving behind clean sand (and recycling the solvents). Further, Greenfield are upgrading and operating Petroteq's oil sands plant (POSP) near Vernal, Utah.

The plan is for Greenfield to evaluate turning their bitumen into MSAR, and selling it as a premium fuel into the industrial, power, and potentially marine markets.

Hope that clarifies.

With any luck, we'll hopefully get both the bulker and boxship (containership) operators onboard for LONOs; that will be a huge benefit from an infrastructure and cost-sharing perspective. Plus, it massively derisking all things marine, whilst simultaneously getting LONOs on different engines.

QFI has been at pains to emphasise that these operators are in completely different sectors that don't overlap, and they should be happy to collaborate with one another: dry bulk is for stuff like corn, iron ore, etc; boxshipping is transportation of intermodal containers.

Who knows though, everything is crazy at the moment with Covid and the new strain cropping up. Minimally, I expect QFI to give us an update by EoY and let us know whether marine is done, nearly there, or some other status that we need to know about.

I think there's a bit of confusion here because folk are talking about two closely related, but separate things:

The guidance was that QFI were aiming to have at least one Marine LONO + JDA agreement signed off by end of calendar year 2020 (Letter of no objection trials and joint development agreement) .

Then the actual process of starting the LONO would begin in 2021:

More precisely, 1H2021 would be used to perform the necessary planning, scanning, and engineering work on the nominated vessel (i.e. laser scans, design pumping units, installation of any gear, etc). Also the logistics and MSAR supply would be implemented (to ensure reliable bunkering of MSAR).

The LONO sailing itself would begin in H2 after the above had been completed.

In the grand scheme of things it's an irritating but very minor delay, and as outlined by Jason in the Proactive video, Quadrise will turn around the POSP samples as fast as they can.

I have no doubt in my mind that it's a real priority for both companies to ensure the MSAR trials are a real success.

I agree with Elir71's take on this.

It's a very minor delay in the grand scheme of things; an annoyance rather than a problem.

There are no technical issues, everything seems to have gone well with the upgrades. Things are still on track with the FEED, and their technology partner Quadrise have given a commitment to turn around the analysis of POSP crude as rapidly as humanly possible (see the latest Proactive video from CEO Jason Miles).

It's just an external administrative delay, likely due to a limitation on the number of people allowed to work in a confined office space at the mining authority's offices or similar (or absences due to covid sickness, family sickness, etc).

i.e. nothing has fundamentally gone wrong.

I am personally OK with waiting an extra few weeks.

On a related topic: with the recent launch of the Quadrise bioMSAR product, I think this opens up a new range of applications for Greenfield's MSAR.

bioMSAR has up to 30% lower CO2 than standard HFO, in addition to the usual significant MSAR reductions in NOx, PMx, & black soot. This is achieved by blending in renewable glycol sources (a common waste byproduct from the biofuel industry).

This new product skew provides a way of complying with environmental regulations (especially CO2 reductions) using existing infrastructure, including an eye towards future IMO regulations for CO2 and PMx/black soot -- yet it should be dramatically more affordable than traditional biofuel products.

Lower impact fuels can be sold at a premium to "standard" fuels and are attracting a lot of interest from marine operators.

I agree with elir71:

POSP/Uinta crude is very heavy oil/bitumen; probably in the API 8 range; it's nowhere near WTI specifications without significant amounts of cutterstock, which previously caused them to just about break even on every barrel.

The Quadrise MSAR process is essential to make the process consistently profitable outside of a narrow set of summer months when they can sell asphalt/bitumen product to the local roads departments. With MSAR Greenfield should be able to produce a very highly profitable product for the wide range of purposes people have outlined (industrial, marine bunker, power, etc). To reemphasise: zero cutterstock is required with MSAR.

I wrote a short article about this ages ago, based on Petroteq's own disclosures to the market regulator; I hope nobody minds me posting it again as this seems to be a common topic and I covered it in some detail - https://quorumzine.gitlab.io/quorum/content/2020/07/20/quadrise-msar-asphalt-ridge-analysis.html

The viability of getting the product onto the market in the US does not seem to be in question in my view, it's a case of either it taking longer than hoped for a solid licensing arrangement, or engaging in a riskier and more time-consuming -- but very lucrative -- direct launch.

On that basis, I think the SP decline is majorly overdone. Of course, given that the timelines have likely shifted in terms of major profitability and various risks have increased, it is understandable there has been a decline.

The fact major shareholders have offered soft loans is really a sign of very significant confidence that this can be cracked.

I think some good points were made earlier about the proposed direct launch strategy -- it does provide a hedge to ensure that more attractive terms are made in licensing, as we have a credible alternative (and to ensure seriousness from counter-parties).

Anyway, I'm as disappointed as anyone else. Certainly the first thought hit me was, "yet another AIM company failing to meet its guidance; nada cambia". But, the proposed strategy seems credible to me, and there is a very long runway to ensure execution (aside from potential income from existing arrangements, of course).

Naturally, the leadership team is going to need to repair market confidence after making strong guidance and missing it rather spectacularly. Fundamentally, I am going to keep holding, a very red paper position right now.

How are QFI supposed to do anything other than provide the schedule as agreed with Greenfield? They are just a technology licensor and have been providing services in a timely manner as-and-when Greenfield ask.

QFI provided some approximate guidance on timelines at the AGM: https://imgur.com/rYZMOPf

Longer-term marine is also a target mentioned by Greenfield and Quadrise, as POSP/Uinta shale MSAR is able to easily meet the IMO2020 0.5% Sulphur regulations. That would mean an LS-MSAR marine variant that could be used without scrubbers (when outside of SECAs).

It's a good and fair question, Indigo.

From the AGM, it appears that the initial targets are local industrial user(s). I get the impression that any major consumption happening in the short-term will be contingent upon whether Greenfield+PQE decide to continue producing MSAR at the POSP commercially, or if they wait for the new Greenfield 10k plant to be built for MSAR. I guess we'll find out over the next few months!

As you likely know, Utah and the tristate area are famous for their industrial activity, such as mining and refining, as well as cement manufacture, etc. For example, there is a massive copper mining and refining facility at Kennecott. There are also a large number of remote oil extraction wells, which tend to use diesel for their generators.

I think Loz is correct:

""
[...] oil sands plant at Asphalt Ridge (the "POSP") is nearing completion with commissioning of the POSP now planned to begin **during the week of November 30, 2020**.
""

This wording gives them all week far as I read it.

We also already know this:

""
George Stapleton, Petroteq COO, commented: "We expect to spend most of the **first two weeks of December** completing commissioning activities and shaking down various systems within the POSP prior to once again operating the full POSP and extracting oil from oil sands. [...]"
""

So, in my mind, some time in the 14th December region as a tentative expectation for a bigger news item.

Aleph Commodities Ltd is not the same company as Aleph Capital Partners LLP (the one you are referring to being partnered with Crestview).

Read the disclosure below the reports, it's on every page.

"""
This report has been commissioned by Quadrise Fuels International and prepared and issued by Edison, in consideration of a fee payable by Quadrise Fuels International. Edison Investment Research standard fees are £49,500 pa for the production and broad dissemination of a detailed note (Outlook) following by regular (typically quarterly) update notes.
"""

So it's a one-off fee for a whole year of coverage.

Whether you think it's valuable or not is up to you, but these "I heard it was £X for 1 report" numbers seem to be completely random!

Patrick Boyle has a primer on SPACs that may be of interest to folk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrWgFNmvEwE

"Quadrise Fuels International get set for AGM to seize upon opportunities in 2021"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHXaGh5zMXo