Member Info for dustofnations

https://www.investormeetcompany.com/investor/meeting/business-update

Link to the recording foxm referenced.

Tim, are you upset that you can't call in to scream? Perhaps you can submit a written version of one of your usual missives.

TheOrns - yes, QFI received the money received up-front

(Two question marks should be a thumbs-up emoji, but I forgot that LSE does not support them)

Friends, let's not get too caught up on a small phrase/error regarding POSP. QFI is only dealing with Greenfield, and it's just a small error which should have no material effect on any of the parties involved.

The arrangement is surely going to be mutually beneficial ??.

All the best for the week ahead, everyone.

Why Canada?

BTW, foxm, please consider joining us on the QFI Shareholders' Forums. We would be glad to have you.

Not sure I agree on the 10k bopd plant size being an issue for kicking off marine business. Here's my thinking:

There would always be a phased rollout if any marine companies adopted Quadrise MSAR (it takes time to do the conversions and may need brief stoppages or dock time); hence, it would take a few years to fully change over a fleet. Not all vessels converted would use MSAR all of the time, as they may be partly doing routes with no MSAR supply or in certain ECAs that require distillate fuel usage. That's no problem -- Seago Istanbul had an automatic fuel switching system.

Going by MK's numbers, a 10k facility would supply 38x VLCC tankers or 24 VL Container ships. Plenty to get started!

So, you would start adding extra MSAR production facilities (new sites, or bringing new refiners on board), as you saw marine demand picking up. It's less than 9 months to start-to-finish to add a new MSAR MMU at a refinery with no MSAR presence -- and the Petroteq/Valkor projects should be *way* faster as they are very simple.

From a risk and logistics perspective you'd never do a big-bang switchover to a new fuel (pun not intended!). Probably a multi-year project.

Of course, it's all a dream for now and there are no guarantees of anything, but I think the modularity of MSAR production via MMUs matches the likely "phased rollout" approach marine clients would naturally be taking anyway.

I suspect Greenfield's marine plans are a bit longer term, and that short-to-mid term Power MSAR is their priority: there are a large number of industrial consumers in the Utah, Colorado, and Nevada area. Mining, smelting, refining, etc, (e.g. copper).

Marine rollout is more complex, and depends on a few factors... whether it's an engine where QFI have plenty of test data on (some 4S engines), partial data (one 2S engine), or zero data (definitely full LONO required).

Some operators may be willing to also use MSAR at-risk/self-insure once a partial trial is completed. Partners with deep pockets may be able to offer indemnity for the fuel until LONO periods are passed.

Also consider that Valkor has some marine capabilities, so that could be of relevance down the line for any modifications required to the fuel systems (i.e. increased feed-rate).

But overall, I would speculate that Marine MSAR is probably a few notches down the priority list for Greenfield right now. Good future market, though.

You are correct elir71, it can meet 0.5% sulphur limit comfortably. It would make low-sulphur MSAR (LS-MSAR).

I believe a new certificate has now been issued, but it may take a while for that update to propagate, and for your browser's certificate cache to refresh.

MexPete - check out this tweet & pic for more info https://twitter.com/quorumzine/status/1298931723758170112

You seem to be having a comprehension problem again.

Up to $2 savings per barrel from eliminating diesel and propane costs if just shipping standard Petroteq product.

Savings would be vastly above this if they were able to get direct MSAR consumers and eliminate all of the expensive distillates they currently sugar their product with to reduce viscosity.

Just gaming out the worst-case scenario where there are not customers currently lined up:

I am certain that MSAR will be used as an on-site fuel for heat and steam. This would reduce per-barrel costs by up to $2 by eliminating diesel and propane costs (that's the difference between a profit and a loss at the moment).

What better way to demo the technology to prospective customers than to invite them on-site to view you using MSAR in a real-world setting!

My point being: there's a real $$ win from on-site MSAR usage, but the biggest win is getting new MSAR consumers. These two elements work together, IMO.

As others have pointed out, you would expect that they have at least some initial/tentative interest in the product from local clients.

On Morocco, my personal view is that the king will not reopen the country to foreign tourists until a vaccine is available.

I wrote an article on the Quadrise Research Facility you can check out here, if interested: https://quorumzine.gitlab.io/quorum/content/2019/12/09/qrf-key-to-qfi-tech-advantage.html

No. They are sending small samples to the Quadrise Research Facility (QRF), probably just a few litres; maybe a barrel at the most. With the samples, QRF will develop the most optimal chemicals package for Asphalt Ridge's bitumen; they will already know what it is likely to be, but they will be able to tweak it to perfection.

With that feedstock-specific MSAR formula established, they can set up the equipment appropriately, purchase and ship out the chemicals, and then hopefully get a QFI team out there to install and commission everything.

The trial MMU is going to Utah to emulsify the Petroteq crude at the POSP (i.e. the demonstration is on-site in real weather conditions).

I agree with your thoughts overall, foxm.

Were we to finally crack this project, I anticipate a pilot and/or commercial trial, then probably a phased commercial rollout; the modularity of MSAR is a strength of the technology from the client's perspective in terms of risk mitigation. But, it does mean that we wouldn't get a day 1 'mega rollout' (not a big deal, really).

More energy is required at the refinery for heat and steam than for electricity. So, if we were to achieve a full rollout (not guaranteed!), I guess a couple of MMUs would be required just for non-electrical refinery energy. Plus standby capacity. That will happen over a period of time, so .

Termoesmeraldas I is quite an old power station, so it is probably quite a bit less efficient than modern combined cycle systems like Shoaiba (I notice they are tendering for repairs/maintenance at the moment, BTW).

Termoesmeraldas II is quite interesting because it's a large number of smaller units, which may make it more amenable to phased rollouts, if they decide to go down that route.

The economic, technical, and environmental aspects look clear-cut; the political aspects are murkier, obviously.

Agreed blackwash; some of the SDA pitches QFI have successfully emulsified are probably in excess of 100-1000x more viscous than heavy oil (depending which measures of viscosity you are using, etc). They use logarithmic scales on the graphs...

I don't think there's even the faintest chance of there being a problem in emulsifying POSP crude.

Also bear in mind that once MSAR is created, it's being lifted to HFO, IFO, or higher standards -- not just WTI crude spec (which is what POSP targets right now).

At the moment the IFO bunker premium over WTI is modest, but a point worth bearing in mind for any economic analysis you perform.