Member Info for dustofnations

Yes, and they aren't worth striking until the SP is significantly higher.

Relatedly, it was nice to meet the usual folk at the AGM. I hope we can meet again in better circumstances next year. I was reassured by Peter's clear strategic shift. He totally 'gets it', and acknowledges the weaknesses in the previous more passive approach to project management. He's going to be much more active in pushing things along (being the annoying, enthusiastic kid on the block, as he put it).

In the informal session, I said to peter that I was concerned that decisions are being made within the next couple of years about which are the "go-to" viable options for compliance, and if we aren't in the mix then we'll miss out. He said he agreed entirely and that it's imperative that we get things moving promptly. I appreciate his fortitude on this.

Likewise, a common area of concern for shareholders for years was that we were too beholden to single megaprojects. Peter is explicitly modifying the strategy to run multiple marine projects in parallel. My suspicion is that this will probably slightly reduce the emphasis on non-marine projects, but I think this may also be a good thing, as some of the countries that still use large amounts of HFO for power and industrial have proven unreliable/difficult to operate in.

To be clear, Peter made it very clear that he is not going to prematurely ditching projects, and he wants to do everything reasonable to get any stalled projects back on track. For example, he believes that by turning up in person for face-to-face discussions, he will give us the best possible opportunity to revive on any stalled projects (i.e. Morocco).

Peter can see the huge potential and synergies, but he also isn't afraid to ditch things if it isn't working, and is against the "just go quiet and never mention it again" strategy, which has irked investors in the past.

I really reiterate my previous view that Peter is the right man for the job, and that if he can't do it, then at least we've given it the best possible chance of success.

I should have also said, the conclusion is that OIW fuel emulsions like Quadrise MSAR have fine-grained control over their viscosity and can use very heavy feedstocks without issue, as these are encapsulated in the dispersed phase as tiny particles.

Comparatively, WIO emulsions need a very high percentage of water to use even modestly heavy feedstocks, as the majority of the viscosity influence is from the oil (i.e. in WIO, the continuous phase is water, and the dispersed phase is oil).

Turning all of that into a relevant business perspective: the MSAR platform can take extremely heavy feedstocks and make them into a low or medium-viscosity fuel (e.g. we can easily produce a stable marine fuel that meets standard IFO-380 viscosity specifications). These heavy feedstocks are not amenable to WIO competitors, because they would be much too viscous and require too much water to be practical.

Looking more broadly, this also applies to our bio feedstocks, which come in many shapes and sizes, and we are able to carry water-soluble feedstocks in the water phase, and oil-soluble feedstocks in the dispersed phase. Again, the most viscous feedstocks tend to be the oily ones, so this works in our favour.

Because they are so problematic to handle, these feedstocks tend to be cheaper, and hence in addition to efficiency improvements, we can offer an economic advantage.

Yes, WIO and OIW are surprisingly different.

Surface chemists typically to refer to these elements as phases (water phase, oil phase). The 'outermost' phase is the continuous phase, the inner phase called 'dispersed'.

The continuous phase tends to have by far the greatest influence on the viscosity. Hence, if you can have water as your continuous phase, you can control the viscosity very precisely by varying the amount of water (and water's viscosity is low compared to heavy oil). That's what we have with Quadrise MSAR/bioMSAR/MSAR Zero — it's an OIW, with water being the continuous phase and oil being the dispersed phase.

As you reduce the amount of water in the continuous phase, you get more interactions with and between the phases, allowing more influence of the dispersed phase. For example, particle-particle interactions, surface interactions, forces, etc... And the viscosity goes up (e.g. van der Waals forces, hydrodynamic effects, surface chemistry magic, etc).

It is surely a gross oversimplification, but I like to think of viscosity as a kind of inter-molecular friction, and as molecules interact more with each other, that increases the viscosity as if there's more friction, because the molecules don't want to be pulled apart. Almost like rubbing increasingly coarse sandpaper.

> I would pick your keyboard warrior fights carefully, this Glaswegian can well handle himself. P r xx k

Okay.jpg

My opinion, formed from a few years of following the Valkor/HSO situation in detail, is that we should expect delays from Valkor to be the norm.

Both of Valkor's initiatives are making progress (downhole and sands processing), but they're trying to do something innovative, risky, and fundamentally difficult.

Many have tried to economically tap those sources, and they've failed. I believe Valkor have the right solutions now, but it has required persistence.

That's a long-winded way of saying that I wouldn't look for Valkor to be an easy short-term breakthrough — but they are well worth continuing the collaborating with.

(p.s. I used an em-dash above, but I wrote this entirely myself without AI assistance 😂 ).

Unfortunately, the image host I used previously (imgur) no longer works in UK, so I've uploaded an image with some interesting cost comparisons from the Quadrise MSAR calculator onto Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/quadrise/comments/1p329yt/quadrise_biomsar_offers_enormous_cost_savings_for/

You can see in the example above that the economics should be compelling, especially as we head into the next few years and the cost of pollution continues to go up.

At the moment, they can get away with tweaks in the short term by using special paints, bubble lube systems, bulbous bow modifications, etc, but the fuel itself is the main target of this legislation, so that's hopefully where we come in. The pressure should continue to mount.

One would hope this motivates our marine counterparties to prioritise us over other projects, but we've been hoping that for a while now.

BTW, some of these parameters are quite sensitive to which bunkering hubs you select, so it's worth playing around with the parameters and modelling various plausible scenarios.

For example, Leandra V on her current route is mostly within EU waters, so she would benefit very significantly by using bioMSAR due to the subsidies and avoiding penalties.

Note also that they have "HSFO bioMSAR" and "HS bioMSAR" comparisons.

HSFO bioMSAR uses fuel oil for its conventional component (thereby containing a fraction of distillate/diluent).

HS bioMSAR uses resid from a refinery or similar, and has no diluent.

You can see they are both very competitive in terms of cost, but in certain locations there's an extra 100+/tonne margin to be had.

So, the economics are very strong inside EU and any other areas that start taxing carbon. Particularly as the EU scheme continues to ramp up rapidly towards 2030.

A really excellent tool with a huge number of parameters to tweak.

You can see that bioMSAR is a very strong offering, being considerably cheaper than competing solutions.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/quadrise-international-ltd_sustainableships-maritimeinnovation-sustainability-activity-7397309067322617857-P43z/

The conference for those in the alternative fuels industry - regulators, government, R&D, financiers, insurers, flag states, etc.

It's not immediately about attracting people to buy QED shares on the exchange.

> Do you want me to state the conference should lead to multi million pound contracts?

Nobody has said or even implied this as being the alternative to what you said.

The invitation to this conference offers us high-level exposure to the a "who's who" of owners, operators, financiers, regulators, etc. We'd like to talk to them, and it benefits the to hear about us and and listen to our opinions.

This is a calibre of exposure we couldn't have dreamt of in the past. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Hi @Yorkie90 - yes, normally we get a comprehensive business update on the morning of the AGM so the team can be as open as possible during the sessions. Investors have grown cynical about pre-AGM throwaway MOU/MOA/LOIs over the years [1], so attendees tend to be a bit more selective these days about whether they get excited about a given update.

(TBF, since Andy arrived, we haven't had nearly as many fluffy MOUs!)

If QED are making the serious progress they've stated, then solid progress update(s) on key pipeline projects should be the name of the game, IMHO. There is more than enough opportunity, so fluff should be unnecessary, should their statements be accurate.

Looking forward to seeing some familiar faces.

[1] Off the top of my head examples... Merlin, Bitumina, Hawazin, API Poly-GCL, Euthenia, Aleph, AKHG, Pacific Green, etc.

And not much useful to say until the company gives some updates on its key projects.

We've analysed most of the available public technical and market information to death by now.

That leaves mostly posts about frustrations, sentiments, (sometimes tenuous) news articles, etc.

I certainly am amongst those hoping Peter can hit his goal of making some progress within 2 months, but I am realistic that these behemoths have a lot of inertia and are difficult to deal with.

Obviously, a goal is not a guarantee, but PB publicly put those ambitions out there, so he'll take flak if they are missed.

All that said, I appreciate Peter being more forceful, enterprising, and ambitious — I think that's what we need to get something across the line. I hope that a high-profile success can catalyse our other opportunities.

I also love the idea of running another marine trial in parallel with a mid-tier operator, which would be more agile and get us (for example) through a MAN LONO process much faster. Having direct contact between the C-team at QED and the operator would speed things up tremendously.

I continue to wait, impatiently.

Thanks for that, @McDoog . We're in the same boat and have the same frustrations about the lack of delivery despite great promise. I certainly hope for everyone's sakes that the team deliver on the great promise of the product, and translate the rhetorical hot air into steam that can propel us forwards.

I do agree with @semaphorRed and others that our chances with Peter at the helm are better than without him, so I'm going to give him some time to bed in before issuing any criticism. If he misses his target of getting something rolling within 2 months, then he should not be surprised if some shareholders nip at him.

> everything else requires the IMO agreement for the investment sign-off

How can you possibly assert that so definitively? That's absurd.

> The likes of stockcheque and dustofnations who keep on banging out their theories based on their opinions is all bo11ox, informative and possibly well intended but never the less all bo11ox that has had years of bo11ox preceding theirs!. I sympathise with the likes of 46Gilliam who seem not to know what to do so just keep chucking more money , averaging down for years and hoping for the best having engaged with all the chat room experts - well 46G you're not alone but you still have 2 chances.

Don't put me in the same category as StockCheque. Don't misrepresent what I've said.

I've always been a realist. I tell people *regularly* that Quadrise is a high risk investment.

I give my thesis for why I believe the technology is well-placed and report back what I hear at AGMs, and I am careful to indicate what is my opinion versus fact. I regularly caveat that this investment could still go wrong for numerous reasons.

I've criticised the execution and delays on numerous occasions, but I try to keep it factual.

I never encourage anyone to invest or part with their money. Everyone has to make that decision for themselves.

Your diatribe reflects extremely badly on you.

Exactly. There's an important distinction between a direct biofuel crop and waste-based biomass.

Purpose-grown biofuel crops vs diverse waste products.

As a comparison, HTL can turn sewerage waste into a kind of residual biofuel is definitely not a biofuel crop.

Other examples would be processing of low-grade food waste, forestry residues, bagasse, etc.

It's not counting the same thing.

The problem with any kind of contractual negotiations is that until its signed, any of the involved parties can start demanding that they add new stuff/remove/modify/etc. Even if you think it's nearly done today, there's nothing stopping a whole new bunch of complexity being added tomorrow that adds huge delay.

That's why it makes sense to run more projects in parallel, and hopefully with some smaller operators that have less complex needs.

Didn't they say "near final form" (e.g. August business update).

I am not impressed by the delay, but "[in] final form" is different to "near final form".

We don't yet know what the precise fallout of the IMO situation is going to be. That's just a fact.

But, as Peter said, Quadrise are well positioned, because we offer a low-cost solution that can be combined with other technologies to upgrade existing vessels to comply with EU regs (and likely future IMO regs), whilst offering benefits even today without those systems — for example, being able to trade EU ETS credits.

HF attacking new members of the team is absolutely standard practice.