Member Info for Fyoz

Ratty "There is a very good reason why the SP has tanked since the 'High Impact' Calif rns" Really? that RNS was yesterday and the SP is flat. Where do you get 'tanked' from? Still don't let the truth get in the way of a good de-ramp

yeah Ratty, wonder why Sachin & Stephen didn't consult you before acquiring that asset. They must be a right pair of mugs hey? 'The Acquisition is conditional, inter alia, on Reabold convening a General Meeting to seek approval of a Resolution to authorise the issue and allotment of the Consideration Shares' there you go Ratty, get yourself along to the meeting and tell them where they're going wrong 'As an investor in upstream oil & gas projects, Reabold aims to create value from each project by investing in undervalued, low-risk, near-term upstream oil & gas projects and by identifying a clear exit plan prior to investment' Sounds to me like they know what they're doing

http://www.quadrisefuels.com/sites/default/files/2018-06/quadrise002.mp3

Ha ha, ramp away if it gets the SP up . . .

I felt physically sick this morning looking at what they've done there. It's like an old friend has gone away and I'll never see him again

But it's not 'after' KSA, KSA is still active, just not the fast-track option QFI were trying to implement

https://infinityenergy.eu/ Infinity Energy SA Under Construction we will be back soon.

" i intend to stay to the bitter end out of bloody minded ness. " That's your credibility blown then if that's your best investment strategy "i would buy at this loww price as it is still a possibility.but as i said i will never put another penny into this no matter what the bod says in the future." Do you read what you write or just spout things off the top of your head without any regard for whether or not they make sense?

Don't the licences have to be progressed this year ttaa?

I've just checked on Barclays Smart investor (there's a joke) and there are no corporate actions showing for INFT It'll all be done and dusted by the time we find out

You'd only be notified if you're on the share register. If your shares are held in a nominee account then the holding company should inform you, but probably by snail mail some time when it suits them. AIM minnows (or ex AIM minnows) are not on the radar of most corporate action teams

hawky 'Appears that nobody wants MSAR because the cost implications outweigh the savings benefits. No point in trying to save �10 when it'll cost you �11 to do so. "Probably" a good idea initially, but not worth the hassle in practice.' From the conference call a few months ago, $500m per annum is the anticipated saving to KSA for adopting MSAR fuel for power generation It appears that somebody wants MSAR . . .

Not sure Are you listed on the share register? If you hold in a nominee account (like most PI's) then you'd probably have to chase it up with them

'Very very poor explanation' It's not an explanation. I don't know the reasons why things take so long Basically I'm saying I can't be bothered debating it with someone who isn't invested in the company, and seems to have an agenda against said company End of . . .

Could today finally be the start of the good news we've waited such a long time for? GLA

These things take time . . . That's all I can be bothered to say Hawky. You either believe and are in, or you're not Simples . . .

Dang on foxm, don't even need scrubbers until 2020 . . .

Not strictly true. If their engines are under a warranty agreement then they won't use MSAR until it's approved by the engine manufacturer. I'm sure some of the older vessels may not be so restricted. Let's be honest, we all know it is safe to use. Maersk clocked up 1400 hours on it. That's like doing 42,000 miles in a car at 30mph. The 2 main engine builders require 4000 hours use though as definitive proof, before they'll approve it. But that doesn't mean it can't be used

Yes it's true many owners will not fit scrubbers. They will pay extra for their fuel (presumably passing the cost on to their customers), which some industry sources are saying may be as much as $600 more by 2020 Those opting to use LSFO will need to take extra precautions to avoid damaging engine parts by using fuel with high amounts of CAT fines (rather frightening):- ExxonMobil issues guidance for switching to low sulphur fuel The fuels landscape is set to dramatically change when the International Maritime Organization�s (IMO) 0.5% sulphur cap comes into force on 1 January 2020. Ahead of this, we have come up with some top tips to help the marine industry switch to low sulphur fuels while maintaining a vessel�s safe and reliable operation. First, establish best practise: Prevention is always better than cure so it is advisable to: Buy fuel that meets the latest ISO 8217:2017 specification Only bunker from reputable fuel suppliers Clean out bunker tank residues when necessary Test for cat fines: Some new 0.5% sulphur fuels could contain elevated levels of cat fines, which if not properly treated, could trigger catastrophic engine damage. If laboratory testing shows a high concentration then: Maintain storage tank temperatures at least 10�C above fuel pour point Keep settling tanks at 85�C Operate purifiers at optimum efficiency and minimum throughput Drain water from fuel tanks to aid settling Check for compatibility: There is a risk that two compliant fuels will not be compatible, which can trigger damaging sludge formation. It is therefore essential to: Test the fuels for compatibility, ideally in a laboratory Store fuels separately until testing has been carried out If mixing is unavoidable, avoid comingling in excess of 80:20 mix ratio Monitor for sludge: If sludge does start to form, it is essential to ensure against further fuel blending before any remedial action is taken as this may exacerbate the problem. Then: Operate two or more separators in parallel at their lowest throughput Increase the frequency of purifier discharge Monitor and clean filters frequently Depending on its features, it may also be possible to use a next generation cylinder condition monitoring service to test a fuel�s sulphur content in order to confirm it meets the revised IMO sulphur cap. Using fuels that do not comply with the emissions regulations could result in costly penalties.

Is that right? So hopefully we get some good news shortly afterwards GLA