Member Info for dustofnations

From Peter directly:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/peter-borup_today-marks-my-first-official-day-as-ceo-activity-7379074580423806977-gbMO

"""

Today marks my first official day as CEO at Quadrise.

Quadrise’s technology plays an important role as the shipping industry works to decarbonise and move towards a more sustainable future. Our solutions support this transition, delivering meaningful cost savings to our partners.

Thank you to everyone who has shared their support and encouragement so far. I look forward to working with the team to deliver on our strategy and explore new opportunities.

"""

Everyone who is able to, please do leave a thumbs up and a nice message.

Peter will hold material detailed information about the progress and commercials of the MSC + Cargill negotiations. I don't see how it could be possible for him to be allowed to trade at this time.

Perhaps once the LONO is underway and all of the commercial arrangements have been shared with the market.

Just my opinion, but I think why you are raising money is extremely important.

For example, raising money when you have an MSC LONO ongoing would be a bullish reason to raise cash — in that situation, investors may conclude that risk is lowering over time, and the magnitude of the opportunity justifies raising at a high share price.

That would be good for everyone, as the cash would accelerate the commercials.

That's different to raising money for early stage bizdev which is inherently much more risky.

@Moran89 — IMO your thought process is healthy. Thinking about both sides of the equation (risks and rewards; upsides and downsides) is a sign that you're paying attention and understand the risk level of investing in an AIM tech company. It's not for the faint of heart, that's for sure...

> currently we don't have any commercial marine industry contracts. So we're just hoping that he can miraculously persuade MSC to fully sign up for the trial?

There would be no need to hire a new CEO if we already had the key contracts executed already.

One of Peter's key tasks will be to find a way — using his decades of knowledge and experience of the marine sector — to get the LONO trial signed and moving.

For example, by proposing changes that may remove parties concerns, and enable signatures and execution.

> On the flip side my logical brain is thinking his appointment MUST mean we are really close to something substantial, but until it happens I look at it and think that's more dilution in nine months.

This dichotomy is a relfection the nature of investing in a pre-commercial technology business.

Nothing is a sure bet, irrespective of how much money, effort, and passion we've all poured into it over the years.

With the greatest of respect to our previous CEOs, their CVs aren't even close to Peter's when it comes to relevant commercial marine industry experience.

From their latest release, it looks like Trio let their Asphalt Ridge original option expire.

If I understand their latest filings correctly, they're now focussing on a new P.R. Spring site, which is in a different area (around 70 miles / 110k south of Asphalt Ridge/Vernal). Some sources call it "P.R. Springs".

Regarding Asphalt Ridge/HSO:

"""

Per the most recent amendment to the ARLO Agreement signed in April 2025, the Company had until May 10, 2025 to pay HSO an additional $1,775,000 to exercise an option for the remaining 17.75% working interest in the initial 960 acres of the Asphalt Ridge Leases. The option expired after the reporting period on May 10, 2025 due to the Company’s failure to exercise it before the expiration date. As a result, the Company forfeited any further right to acquire the additional 17.75% working interest but will retain its existing 2.25% interest in the leases.

"""

Regarding P.R. Spring:

"""

On May 15, 2025, the Company entered into a non-binding Letter of Intent (LOI) with HSO for the potential acquisition of 2,000 acres at P.R. Spring, Uintah Basin, Utah. Under the LOI, the Company would issue 1,492,272 restricted shares and pay $850,000 at closing, subject to execution of definitive agreements. Upon signing the LOI, the Company made a non-refundable $150,000 Option Payment to HSO. The LOI requires evidence of a minimum sustained production rate of 40 barrels per day for a continuous 30-day period from two wells at Asphalt Ridge by May 15, 2026, or the LOI will expire unless extended.

"""

If you look at the conditions for triggering the P.R. Spring project, it appears that Trio are using the Asphalt Ridge HSO pilot wells as a benchmark to determine the viability of their proposed P.R. Spring project (which is a long distance from Asphalt Ridge, but has broadly similar technical characteristics, AFAICT). So presumably they do a go/no-go based on the success of the pilots, and apply any learnings (e.g. use of the UK-based Cavitas THOR system).

I reckon it'll take a long time to get all of this running, but it looks a good candidate for MSAR technology.

Source: https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=104682&ref=319449001&type=HTML&symbol=TPET&companyName=Trio+Petroleum+Corp.&formType=10-Q&formDescription=General+form+for+quarterly+reports+under+Section+13+or+15%28d%29&dateFiled=2025-09-12

(I'm not following Trio closely, so corrections are very much welcome, as always.)

You can see what she's due and when from publicly available data from her classification society. Nothing due until May next year. Nothing prevents the owner/operator of the vessel going early for maintenance actions, of course. MSC almost exclusively uses shipyards in the far east for maintenance of their container vessels.

The only item of note is an active 'condition of class', which says, "LOADING INSTRUMENT TO BE UPDATED AS PER FINAL APPOVED [sic] TRIM AND STABILITY BOOKLET (DAD NO. HTS/STAT 38674-24, DATED 05/01/2024) AND FINAL TEST CONDITIONS TO BE VERIFIED ONBOARD TO ATTENDING SURVEYOR'S SATISFACTION".

A condition of class is basically a "get this fixed quickly, or else" from the classification society. So MSC will be looking to remedy that ASAP.

In recent times, Leandra has had numerous changes to her superstructure, hydrodynamics, and installation of large new subsystems (wet scrubber, BWTS, modification to bulbous bow, modifications to engine, etc). I presume these have subtly affected the balance parameters of the vessel, and hence the classification society requires tweaks to loading software, which is used to maintain/guarantee stability of the vessel.

I'd rather they spent the money on a top CEO that helps deliver our key projects, rather than more 'runway' (i.e. just buying time).

None of us invested to provide runway, after all.

@semaphorRed AFAIK, no. According to the latest biz update, Quadrise and Valkor are negotiating, as Valkor are currently not in a position to pay.

That's not surprising given we know they're still figuring out how to make those wells produce sufficient oil.

Thanks for sharing.

I'm sure some people will (accurately) point out that this is a small contract, but it's worth contextualising that it's only for the Uintah County roads department. Uintah county has a population of only about 40,000 people, despite its vast physical size.

There are plenty of other roads departments throughout Utah that I imagine Valkor/HSO will be interested in submitting bids for, should they achieve sufficient production success, etc.

Hopefully Quadrise MSAR can unlock higher value destinations for their product than this kind of use as road surfacing (which tends to be seasonal), but I don't begrudge them getting in revenues in whatever way they can. That would undoubtedly be helpful in raising further money and proving there are multiple viable markets for their bitumen.

Good luck to them 🤞.

Yes, agreed, it could be a unique opportunity to build up our presence in Panama without needing a full refinery integration, because the economic incentives are not purely about fuel pricing.

As some background: Sparkle would like to increase their opportunities to generate baseload power during non-peak and non-emergency periods, but they need to reduce their pollution per MWh of generated energy to be permitted by the regulator; they believe MSAR can help them achieve this.

Hence, their incentive to use MSAR is *not* just the discount offered, but also the opportunity to operate in periods where they otherwise would not be allowed to. Of course, they still need to compete with cheap hydro power, so I don't expect them to operate non-stop in normal circumstances.

This is just my personal analysis, but it seems to me that the above scenario offers the possibility the Panama project could be viable from MSAR produced at marine terminal (MSAR HFO blending).

Here's why, in broad strokes:

The customer would benefit from the significant fuel efficiency uplift offered by MSAR (e.g. 8%, reducing the cost per MWh), but they would *not* get the large discount from eliminating cutterstock. By itself, this would probably not be exciting enough to get people to move over.

From a refinery perspective, you can see would only want to commit if they are convinced Quadrise would be able to consistently sell large volumes of product. Just Sparkle would be modest amount, which may not be enough to make them commit.

However, if Sparkle are enabled to operate more frequently by MSAR's environmental benefits, then their peers with similar facilities will also be interested in adopting MSAR. This would start building the kinds of volumes that could interest a refiner to invest in a full refinery integration.

Hence, even without including the marine bunkering angle — which may take a bit longer due to engine testing, etc — at some point you can see how Quadrise could transition Panama from "MSAR HFO", easy, but least economically advantageous), to "MSAR Resid" (harder, but economically most advantageous).

Just thinking out loud on a Sunday afternoon about a topic I've been mulling over for a while.

I'm certain the team will be considering multiple options and scenarios, and it depends how their negotiations go.

SemaphorRed — have you lost your account on Reddit? Just wondering whether it's worth still contributing over there.

Devonian - Yes, a bit of a "who's who" of bulk shipping has reacted or commented on Peter's appointment.

It's clear that Peter has a very strong and wide network, and people have a real respect and affection for him.

It occurs to me that having someone with robust European connections is beneficial to us. The key regulatory driver for bioMSAR will be the EU, as they have been the first mover on marine decarbonisation, followed by IMO (assuming the orange one doesn't succeed with his interference with the latter).

He also has very strong background in the Asia Pacific region, which is another key area we've not yet cracked — we got very close with YTL-PowerSeraya many years back, but no cigar. We definitely need a bunkering hub in the region to be successful, so I hope his contacts will be useful there, too.

Proof is in the pudding, but Peter seems 'the right man at the right time'.

IMo, that's where our new CEO needs to be involved.

Peter can assess who/what is blocking progress in Morocco, and whether he can put his skills to use in pushing it along (e.g. can he come up with an inventive solution to work around the OEM and/or engage with stakeholders, and if not, is it worth continuing to wait because the opportunity is large enough, etc).

We don't have the same full information that the company has, so it doesn't serve us well to just knee-jerk and say "we're pulling out".

I accept and welcome the incoming CEO making tough decisions to cast off projects that are hopeless, but it shouldn't be knee-jerk, and it must not be done just to appease strident voices.

You can see the figures online from the Panamanian power authority of how many MWh the grid operator have purchased from Sparkle over the years (and at which station). Unfortunately, I have to get some work done promptly, so I can't spend much time digging into stuff, but you can find all of the materials on asep.gob.pa. Things are very weather dependent, effectively, and things have fluctuated wildly over the last few years.

I suspect you are correct that they just buy fuel from their supplier as/when they begin running low.

This isn't directly related, but here's a useful screenshot from one of the documents I got from the regulator that contains a good number of HFO-based generators who are contributing to the grid. They use 'bunker' for HFO (aka. bunker fuel). It's also possible that many of the diesel plants could also operate on MSAR, but without digging into more technical details it's impossible to say definitively.

https://ibb.co/HfWpJdJB

My understanding is that they're typically run as peaker plants, especially during the winter when water is plentiful. During summer they run more frequently due to air conditioning load. Additionally, they are mandated to provide power during times when water levels are low (which has been relatively frequent in recent years).

So there's probably a fairly wide range, rather than a single figure.

Please feel free to make some noise on Reddit as well (this subreddit is moderated by @semaphorRed). https://reddit.com/r/quadrise/comments/1njbzca/successful_completion_of_testing_programmes_for/

Couldn't find whether anyone had posted this already, so here's the LinkedIn post on this topic in case any of you would like to leave a thumbs up, nice message, and/or reshare: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/quadrise-international-ltd_quadrise-biomsar-msar-activity-7373995078887043072-xW2L

No problem, WongaFC.

In general, NOx is easier to abate than CO2, because several effective methods for scrubbing of NOx are available — e.g. selective catalytic reduction, wet scrubbing, etc. So, it's not a dealbreaker, especially as it still should push NOx into permissible range for systems without dedicated NOx scrubbers.