Member Info for foxm

Fyoz, the table towards the bottom of this page gives you possible EBITDAs for various numbers of ships, and also in the different sorts of financing models.

https://www.edisongroup.com/publication/the-clean-solution-to-a-global-problem/28303/

Jimzi, enough cash until mid-May I think. From the bloke who was in charge of the original LONO trial -

Maersk Group
Total Duration 5 yrs 10 mos

Title Senior Project Manager in Maersk Maritime Technology (MMT)
Dates Employed Dec 2013 – Mar 2017
Employment Duration 3 yrs 4 mos
Location Copenhagen, Denmark

As Senior Project Manager in Maersk MMT I have returned to the sharp end of project management where I lead complex projects that call for independent project management drive and require good skills in stakeholder management.
My primary project is a major innovation project with the purpose to test and qualify a new fuel called MSAR. The project involves a core team of Maersk specialists and business developers as well as several 3rd party partners and suppliers. The project stretches all the way from the laboratory where the fuel is invented, over the refinery producing the fuel, and into the engine room of the designated test vessel. It is considered a major achievement beyond comparison that the seaboard trial is progressing well since summer 2016.
I have also been leading a major Enterprise Risk Management study where the end customer was the Maersk executive management team and recently I have been involved in defining the MMT strategy for rolling out Ballast Water Management systems to the Maersk fleet.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/henrikfeddersen/

Here we go again for the umpteenth time with the Chicken and Egg problem.

Do people forget that we had an MMU commissioned and installed in a working refinery in Spain for 3 years? Q2 2016 until Q2 2019, so at least 1,000 days. From memory the Seago Istanbul only burned 8,000 tons of MSAR during the ~1,400 hours it was used. For a 1,000 ton/day MMU that is only 8 days of fuel production, so less than 1% of the time it was installed at San Roque. For the other 99% of the time it sat there idle, no more than a very expensive ornament, gathering dust.

And they were definitely looking for customers, they confirmed it to us several times. After the LONO trial was suspended Mike said this in an RNS in May 2017 -

"It is also important to note that this decision by Maersk is enabling both QFI and Cepsa to further progress plans for the use of the spare MSAR(R) production capacity for new customers in the marine and power markets."

They then of course tried to get the Saudis signed up for a trial using fuel produced at Cepsa, but once again failed, not our fault though, it's never our fault, just more bad luck.

When the Saudi trial didn't proceed, Kirk then said this in April 2018 -

"In addition to the activities related to a KSA trial project, Quadrise continues to progress opportunities, in other jurisdictions, in the power, marine, upstream, petrochemical and refinery refuelling markets that have the ability to deliver value in the medium-term. This includes opportunities that could use the installed MSAR(R) manufacturing facility at the refinery counterparty's site, in which they would be supplying fuel directly to the consumer, allowing for a much higher level of control on the overall project delivery."

12 months later the MMU was decommissioned at a cost to us of £189,000 from memory. In the 2 years after the LONO trial was cancelled, QFI had the absolutely perfect opportunity, all they had to do was find the customer, we had achieved THE MOST DIFFICULT PART, we had an MMU installed at a refinery and ready to produce fuel at the push of a button. They still couldn't deliver anything, it didn't make any difference whatsoever. OK they got close with KSA, for 7 or 8 months they probably thought that was in the bag, but should they not have had a back-up plan? And what about the other 16 months they had looking for potential customers. They couldn't get a single trial signed up with anybody in any of the potential markets.

So can we please put this chicken and egg nonsense to bed, your theory doesn't really have a leg to stand on. We had the bloody chicken, for 2 years, it didn't lay anything. Or if you want, we had the egg, incubating for 2 years, but it didn't hatch. They still managed to sell sweet FA of the stuff. But I guess that must be down to bad luck again, it couldn't possibly be the incompetence of our staff or their crap sales pitch.

Bottom of the page.

https://www.quadrisefuels.com/esg/environmental/

MSC also have quite a few cruise ships and 11 of those are fitted with scrubbers. Those cruise ships also run on Wärtsilä 4-stroke engines, the Wärtsilä 46F and the Wärtsilä 38 being two examples.

"The technologically advanced WÄRTSILÄ© 46F is a four-stroke diesel engine that can be run on either heavy fuel oil (HFO), marine diesel oil (MDO), or on light diesel when being operated within strict coastal or port emissions areas. This fuel switching can take place smoothly and without power interruption across all engine loads."

"The Wärtsilä 38 is a 4-stroke, turbocharged and intercooled diesel engine with direct injection of fuel."

From QFI's MSAR® Technology Overview presentation -

"MSAR® is proven in Wärtsilä 4-stroke diesel engines, and through a joint development with Mærsk and the OEMs, MSAR® is undergoing final commercial OEM “LONO” approvals for use in 2-stoke diesel propulsion engines using HFO/MGO."

If MSC is the container ship company which is going to be involved in the new LONO trials, I hope our lot are also trying to sell them some MSAR for their cruise ships. We could go commercial with those straight away, no LONOs required. Nine of the eleven ships sail through the Mediterranean, we would probably need 2 MMUs to fuel nine of them, they use up to 150 tons of fuel a day.

https://foe.org/cruise-lines/msc-cruises/

It would be a great possible marketing tool for MSC too, "our cruise ships are so clean they run on water". Come on guys, get your finger out.

bioMSAR looks very interesting, but it's still a long way off. They will presumably have to do Proof Of Concept trials with a shipping company first, which would then be followed by a 4000 hour LONO trial, so there's sod all chance of selling any commercially before Q3 2022 at the very earliest IMO.

"Difference is dude that you didn't havwe a commersial product 11, 10, 9, 8 , 7, 6 , 5, 4, 3, 2 years ago... "

WTF are you talking about?

http://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/quadrise-fuels-QFI/share-news/Update-on-Activities/19124429

"Priority has now shifted to formulation of specific project proposals and progressing associated negotiations to agree terms for commercial trials for both the power plant and refinery fuelling applications."

Exactly fyoz, when they first mentioned Green MSAR, I incorrectly presumed they would be adding the expensive biodiesel to residue to make the emulsion, instead of the standard cutter stock used in HFO production. The biofuel blend which MSC is currently bunkering at Rotterdam is probably 30% ethyl ester or something similar. But this could be a game changer, if we can take the residue from the bottom of a barrel of crude oil and mix it with another waste product (this time from the production of biodiesel) and turn it into a cheap, clean alternative to LNG.

From the second article I posted below -

"Their crude glycerol is usually sold to large refineries for upgrading. In recent years, however, with the rapid expansion of biodiesel industry, the market is flooded with excessive crude glycerol. As a result, biodiesel producers only receive 2.5-5 cents/lb for this glycerol (Johnson and Taconi, 2007). Therefore, producers must seek new, value-added uses for this glycerol."

The fact that a lot of these new biofuel refineries are going to have a problem DISPOSING of this glycerol, it might make the economics of bioMSAR very attractive too, certainly much better than I was anticipating. There are 2204 lbs in a metric ton, so at 2.5c a lb, that would make a ton of glycerol about $55.

It only uses 10% water, compared to the normal 30% for conventional MSAR.

https://www.quadrisefuels.com/esg/biomsar/

https://farm-energy.extension.org/new-uses-for-crude-glycerin-from-biodiesel-production/

As the biodiesel industry is rapidly expanding, a glut of crude glycerol is being created. Because this glycerol is expensive to purify for use in the food, pharmaceutical, or cosmetics industries, biodiesel producers must seek alternative methods for its disposal.

This looks VERY interesting, kill two birds with one stone.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032113003948

Glycerol is the main by-product of biodiesel production; about 10% of the weight of biodiesel is generated in glycerol. The large amount of glycerol generated may become an environmental problem, since it cannot be disposed of in the environment.

Finally, a simple way to use glycerol in large amounts is combustion, which is an advantageous method as it does not require any purification. However, the combustion process of crude glycerol is not easy and there are technological difficulties.

The patent is partnered with Nouryon, I think Jason even specifically mentioned that yesterday. But that's always been the case anyway, all the previous patents are owned jointly with them as well. From an old slide -

Protection of Intellectual Property to create competitive entry barriers
• JDA patent protection and joint IP with AkzoNobel.

This is only from memory, but I'm sure that Jason said the container shipping company they are talking to regarding the LONO, has made a much more significant investment in scrubbers than Maersk. That means it can only be MSC -

https://twitter.com/Alphaliner/status/1321377476120059904

I think he also said, maybe slightly later, that the company was also very interested in biofuels, so was keen on Green MSAR too. That would also tie in to MSC.

https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/news-content-hub/msc-sees-hydrogen-biofuels-as-shippingrsquos-fuel-of-the-future-61195

Just when you think things can't get any stranger with this share, Maersk are going to sit back, twiddle their thumbs and watch their 2M partner take complete advantage of their 7 years of development work. It's like the Twilight Zone this share.

I had a question typed up ready to ask Wonga, but I remembered it too late to submit in advance, and I didn't get round to asking it during the presentation. It was related to exactly that -

"Considering the share price performance this year and the massive salaries which you are paid, why have none of the directors bought any shares this year? A significant proportion of shareholders listening to this presentation hold many more shares than Mike and maybe even Jason. Our new COO, Mark, doesn't own any shares at all. I realise that sometimes companies are in closed periods, and you have share options available, but those carry no risk whatsoever. Would a director's buy not show us and also the market that you have confidence in the company's future? The complete lack of any buys would suggest the exact opposite, you have no faith in your abilities to deliver anything."

When you consider where the SP has been this year, it says a lot that not one of them thought about buying, they have the ultimate insider's knowledge. Actions speak louder than words as they say, their complete lack of action speaks volumes. They couldn't even afford to stash an extra 500k away in this year's ISA?

Yeah, it looks like I misinterpreted the data 46G, I should also apologise for that. But my mistake means I was only out by £100k for the year, they're still overpaid for what they've achieved. And they're still crooks IMO, I got that part correct. It looks like the £71k extra was in fact a BONUS which both Jason and Mike got for getting last year's placing away.

That's the Bergen deal, which is going to be the equivalent of doing a placing at 1.2p a share, at a time last year when the share price was 7.5p. Getting a placing away at an 84% discount to the current share price, and in the process causing an extra, unnecessary 10% dilution to all shareholders, doesn't merit a 70 grand bonus in my eyes. So I was still right in some respects, just for the wrong reasons.

https://wp-quadrise-fuels-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2020/11/27114806/2020-QFI-AGM-27-Nov-2020-Business-Update.pdf

And presumably the first 5,126 prototypes were junk, never likely to be a commercially viable product.

We've had a commercially viable product since day 1, yes it's been improved upon, MSAR2 developed for Marine and now Green MSAR, but we've had a product available for sale since the very start.

"We are very grateful that so many of our shareholders were able to vote by proxy - because of the AGM being closed this year due to COVID-19 restrictions. Whilst we are disappointed that resolution 6 was not passed, as that would have provided the Company with flexibility during 2021, this does not have any impact on the Company's ability to put any specific disapplication proposals to shareholders at a general meeting as appropriate. Whilst this would inevitably involve additional cost and time, may limit opportunities for the Company in limited circumstances and would have been best avoided, it will not change our strategic plans for the business in 2021.

We look forward to the imminent presentation and Q&A session with shareholders which will commence at 12.30pm today via Investor meeting Company."

Resolution 6 defeated by a very large majority, only 22.5% voted in favour, it needed 75% to pass.

Up yours from the shareholders.

As the share price tanks another 15%. They're living in cloud-cuckoo-land this lot.

Mark Whittle presumably got a pay rise to take the COO job in place of Jason. Another £50-100,000?