We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
"please can you get nearer the microphone" (repeat 10 times)
AIUI, tomorrow is (finally) the unitization request hearing. This basically allows multiple legally distinct owners of land to pool together and operate as a single unit from an operational perspective, whilst clearly defining the relevant legal interests, procedures for divvying up the revenues, etc.
If that is granted — and let us hope the DOGM Board don't issue a continuance [legal term for 'delay proceedings'] until the courts resolve the contract dispute — then, AIUI, the underground water injection permits would subsequently be granted by the Department (DOGM). One would hope by now that they are essentially "ready to go", but let's see...
WongaFC. Hard to say without QED disclosing more detail, but I suspect a key difference is the period of time the system needs to operate at high load. I think the POC only operated for a couple of days.
This commercial trial is where QED are supposed to prove the system can operate continuously at full load, and that the fuel is capable of generating dried product of the required quality (thankfully, the latter part does not seem to be problematic).
The fact QED refer to the issue as a progressive failure suggests the pump was operating well for a period of time before degrading slowly. With a short POC test the issue might not have had time to become evident.
As others have pointed out, whichever factors caused the pump to fail (e.g. pressure, sediment, imbalances, etc) may have been tolerated initially, but over time may have degraded the pump until it could not sustain the required performance.
Bern (head of projects) is a mechanical engineer and expert machinist & fabricator with immense experience. QED have a range of consulting engineers they use whenever needed.
We will need to wait for them to perform a root cause analysis on the pump and/or PHU to identify the defect or design issue. Without that we're flailing around in the dark with our guesses (understandable given the information vacuum).
I'm as frustrated as anyone else at the lack of information and the repeated stumbling, but it seems they will get another shot in a few weeks...
CFP - that seems like the worst possible advice. Morocco is likely one of QED's best opportunities to get serious revenue generation through the door as it's a simple industrial heat use-case which would guarantee high usage year-round. The company could become profitable from Morocco alone.
Yes, there's a problem with the PHU design and/or equipment, but that is essentially unrelated to the MSAR fuel technology itself. They need to sort it out and do a proper root cause analysis, but it's not a fundamental problem given the wide range of pumping solutions available.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The fact Quadrise are getting another shot at this, rather than being kicked off, is likely of significant credit to our agent...
QED surely will only get one more chance at this before the client loses patience. What a sore disappointment.
I don't understand how they could not have pressure tested appropriately (including in a time sense).
Please, please, please, do not screw this up again 🙏...
Early September not far away.
Note also the RNS says they began the tests began early last week, so it seems they were running for a while before they had to pull the plug again.
I forgot to add, Mo mentioned that a significant new benefit of the programme is they are not just recruiting people for challenge studies, but also for phase 1 trials (and potentially beyond).
For example, many people might not qualify for a challenge study because they already have antibodies to a particular pathogen, or they may have some kind of morbidity that disqualifies them (made up hypothetical examples: asthma, psoriasis, etc).
However, in future, there could be a phase 1 trial that is seeking to establish baseline safety and efficacy on those diseases, and now HVO have a pool of people to contact whom may be willing to participate. That's great for all involved and widens the utility of the programme far beyond challenge studies.
I think this is an area that has been under-appreciated.
There is an incredibly dense comment underneath the tweet complaining that this programme is not useful for shareholders.
In return for a healthcheck, HVO get the opportunity to ask a significant pool of visitors to sign up as volunteers and collect their relevant information and sample(s) at the same time. Win, win.
It's completely normal for shipping companies to dynamically add, remove, and modify stops from any given vessel's routes as they deem necessary to serve customer and commercial interests. There's no significance to read into it.
Sometimes use broker nominees*
You would need to request a copy of the Quadrise shareholder register to find out whether there are IIs and who they are. Even then, it can be difficult to know because IIs also sometimes use brokers, so their holdings would not show independently of other purchasers/holders until they exceed the exchange's mandatory disclosure threshold.
Hotfi... Thanks for your response.
What would be your examples of low-skilled staff that are employees of Quadrise? They contract out stuff like cleaning and don't presently have receptionists, etcetera (as I understand it from previously asking, the offices they operate from provide that kind of service bundled in). I doubt they have any/many low-skilled employees. For example, the lab workers at the QRF lab facilities have degrees in chemistry, some have masters.
I gather that NEDs are only counted if they have a contract of service; I don't know what the situation is with Quadrise, so I happily withdraw that point.
I maintain the same arguments as before.
Let's say you have 5 employees on £55k, and then 3 key staff (COO, Head of Projects, and Head of Finance) on £100k, then your mean average is around £72k. I completely accept that the figure is useful and important for beancounters, but it can be misleading in this context (I own a business). Hopefully I didn't mess up my figures!
If it's a topic you are passionate about, perhaps it's worth asking for more detailed salary statistics breakdown in future (median, statistical distribution of salary, etc)? That would be illuminating.
The roles at Quadrise are not a run-of-the-mill bean counting jobs that any old troglodyte with a pocket calculator can do.
We need to retain good staff to give the company the best chance of executing; they are the backbone of the company. Getting lower quality staff in order to save a modest amount of money won't help us. We've already seen turnover of some younger talent who were poached by larger companies.
Exactly. Many of these are roles that demand highly skilled people, and whether you feel they've delivered sufficiently or not (likely the latter), finding cheaper people isn't going to give better results for shareholders. Especially not in regions of England where QFI are based.
A few other factors...
NEDs are probably in those figures numbers, and as part-timers, but don't count as a whole person for the purposes of filings. They are likely to skew the figures, if they are included as NEDs often only formally only commit a few days per month (in reality, they usually do more, but that's not reflected in the figures).
I suspect there are also some standard employee benefits which are accounted for as cash, which bumps up the mean.
Finally, as a small company, some key staff with extremely high salaries undoubtedly skew the mean significantly.
I guess the point is that the mean average isn't an especially helpful number.
Anyway, we need to accept the roles are not a run-of-the-mill bean counting jobs that any old troglodyte with a pocket calculator can do.
Fyoz, as you imply, as a growing green fuels technology company you'd expect Quadrise to attract a much higher PE ratio than a matured company like Shell whose business growth would not to be as rapid (proportionally).
That said, I do think tempering expectations that huge mcaps/SPs are easily attainable or around the corner is probably healthy.
One step at a time, friends!
Getting back anywhere near double digits so that many long holders I know can break even would be wonderful.
Have a good weekend, all.
On 30th June 2013 Quadrise had 772,543,391 shares in issue.
Today we have 1,562,478,823.
That's a little more than double (not that bad all things considered). So the 48p of 2013 is a smidge less than 24p today, at equivalent mcap.
Probably not worth worrying about too much until we're over the immediate hurdles!
Much of the time taken, if you believe JM's explanation, relates to the complexity of establishing relationships with multiple glycerine suppliers and validating their products at QRF to ensure they still produce a stable emulsion (each of which will have a minimum round-trip time because one major part of stability tests is just leaving the product for an extended period of time).
JM talks about that at length in the IMC, so it's worth re-listening to the audio, including the Q&A sections.
The latest we heard on suppliers was that the team were visiting marine terminals capable compatible with our requirements. They must have ability and licenses to receive, blend, and store biofuels (e.g. glycerine); handle HFO; can facilitate large marine bunkering operation; etc.
Will QED find more unexpected complications in this process? Probably; they've done it every step so far. But, hopefully we're now far enough along to get it signed in a reasonable period (but I would not dare to make a guess when)...
This is what we raised the money for; buying time for these agreements to get going.
Hypothetically, if they need to raise money again in 1+ year when there are LONOs underway or completed, I don't think they would have any problems raising at a much higher SP than today.
Really, the ball is in their court now, I think the shareholders have gone out of their way to give them the funding required even when the markets are absolutely awful.
I suspect there's also still a residual "Covid effect" that HVO haven't quite shaken off yet, but should continue to do as Mo and his team deliver repeatedly over time and prove the company isn't tied to the pandemic. This isn't unique to HVO, and many biotech companies have suffered post-Covid, despite having technologies that are valuable far beyond C-19.
So, more patience required, but I'm very pleased with the team and their level of execution. It was also great to hear that Mo has been focussing on the long-term health of the business with programmes to retain talent and ensure they can build a great career inside the company without needing to move.
The aim of the trial isn't to break even or make a profit on the trial fuel, just not to lose too much money whilst overcoming the key step of getting formal OEM approval technology whilst making use of multi-million dollar assets at the client's cost (MSC Leandra).
Another benefit of the process should be building relationships with suppliers and understanding the process:
- suppliers of low-cost biofuel feedstocks (e.g. glycerine/glyercol, Vertoro's CSO, BTG Bioliquids' fast pyrolysis oils)
- storage/blending/marine terminals
- bunkering operators
- biofuel and conventional fuel logistics providers
- permitting and approvals process
Success would unlock the market for us in a way that makes it a good investment on our side.
As usual, taking much longer than advised, but that's nothing new 🤷🏻♂️.
BryanWAllen — send a message to your broker. Sounds like something went wrong.
Serious answer: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cashlessexercise.asp
Unserious answer: by working very hard!
Have a good weekend, all.