Member Info for Giffer

Previously, they have clearly stated a wish in shareholder presentations, to improve communication with shareholders.

Today, someone very sensibly asked a direct question about a regular update, (thank you) they all go quiet and then answer to suggest that they only wish to communicate when they have news. This is of course a legal requirement via the RNS system. In other words, they have no desire whatsoever to improve communication with us.

I am struggling to see why they should have any more of my 'hard earned' when nothing changes and they simply renege on historically stated intent to improve things just a little for shareholders.

No idea what it involves but they are laying non bituminous road surfaces in the west country...

46G, You put your finger right on the button, but to my mind, that is not a question to which any member of the forum (or indeed any other forum) can possibly give an answer? If they know, they shouldn't and, therefore, probably wouldn't dare share such information, and otherwise ,anything they say is speculation. And let's face it, we have seen enough speculation on here to believe anything, from 'this all a stitch up and we are being taken for a ride', conspiracy theory to say 'nothing will happen until the share price drops enough for us to be sold on the cheap', through to 'its being signed in Greece'...

The conundrum is a breeding ground for frustration, anger, desperation to relaxed (perhaps blind) confidence in PB and just a need to wait and check in here every week or so.

All we can do is hold or sell...or if of blind faith like Chucklebuttocks, buy!

RPG you make a very good point, and one that cannot really be argued with in my view. DoN's subsequent email backs that up with a need to take responsibility for our own investment decisions...and I happen to agree entirely with him about giving PB the time needed to make a difference, any ill feelings I hold are not directed at him.

I too bought because I believed in the product, and the quality of the technical team behind it, but however many years later it now is, I seem to be more exposed that I am really comfortable with, and this is where I do take a bit of an issue (with myself as much as with QED), because those sizeable top ups followed presentations to us at which phrases like imminent, and so close we can smell it (or was it taste, I can't remember). I topped up on positive news from Saudi, the Maersk trial, the seemingly inevitable (only a matter of time) deal with MSC. So yes, our fault and no right to whinge, but boy does some of it leave a less than pleasant taste.

My one promise to myself is that if I get out of this with cash, very little if none of it will go to AIM companies again...and I have already learned that from Sirius Minerals and Gulf Keystone, both of which proved to be utter stitch ups. I don't believe this is, or has ever been a deliberate stitch up at all, but we have all been slightly misguided to some extent...all IMHO

Nimblena, if you are still doing circuits at 80, then I reckon you are good for a long time to come...its not investment advice (I am far from qualified to give any) but I reckon you should hang on in there and hopefully you can treat your gym buddies to some bubbles well before you approach anything like proper 'old age'....keep moving and enjoy! oh, and happy new year!

AKHM..It is doubtful these agreements will be signed by the end of January and remember as SC kept telling us the lawyers don't come back from work well after January after the xmas period!!!

It is clear to me that the person who most needs a break until February is you, Hottie. I don't mind a strong blend of negativity and positivity on the board, but I work with lawyers every single day of my working life, and I can categorically confirm that I don't know of any who work to the timescales you suggest.

You need a long rest and a bit of a rethink, IMO

Cannot possibly be accurate...no mention of it being "imminent"; if it aint imminent, it aint anything

I don't see the point of that interview and would of thought he had better things to do.

Because it would be far better for Peter to remain silent and insignificant than to present himself as someone who can speak with knowledge and authority about the challenges facing global shipping in light of the IMO decision, and who can remind those who may listen about the cost saving and emission benefits of WED's fuels.

What do you reckon; maybe organising an early sandwich run and dry cleaning collection would be better for us? C'mon HF; isn't this at least part of why he has been brought on board?

Yeah, great news if you had already taken up their offer. This share has disappointed me since I first invested in good old REM all those years ago, and because I intended to actually then take up their offer (it being the first sense of gaining a little something) they close it before I can.

I know I sound like a whinging old fart, but I needed to express my disappointment somewhere so apologies to all you good folk who are feeling buoyed by the news, but its just another 'bop on the nose' from my perspective.

That said; good news ahead, I hope...all the way to my 32p break even! happy weekends all...back in my box now!

Well Stocky, it would have been most out of character for you to just make one statement, when you can say five...and number them!

I picked up on the same as SR and said Peter is "restless" and so are we...which I think just about summarises the mood(s) of this board over the last two years...I so want to believe that he will make the difference we need, but its magic to feel 100% confident of his commitment to trying.

Stocky - sometimes you drive me potty with your incessant posts, and sometimes, I really appreciate the effort you put in to enlighten us all.

Thank you for this list of our new CEO's responders on LinkedIn. It makes for a very encouraging read; almost, dare I say it 'heart warming' after so many months and years feeling more like Vince, and sharing his concerns that I may have made a big mistake ever believing in all this.

Much appreciated!

Well I chuffin' hope so, Capri...my average is just above that.

Some of us have been here far too long, just watching everything slowly slip through fingers. I'm afraid I can't be bothered to vote on anything; these are a flat out 'forget you ever bought them' case for me, but it would be amazing to see it finally come good one day, and part of me still believes that is possible, albeit, I have lost all faith in the management.

Here's to all the other poor s**s who thought REM sounded like a wise investment!

I think you miss my point, Simples...

There are, and amazingly, we already know that the answer to all of those is yes....they even own the flippin' ship that still has the same engine. My point is that MSC already know the answers to all of my 'ifs' and so YES is their answer.

Even I know that much and compared to most on here, I am pretty ignorant when it comes to ships, the environment, fuels, engines, and indeed many other relevant details.

If I had as many cars as MSC had ships, if I know that the fuel I am testing has already been tested to some extent by a competitor whose engine did not sustain proven damage, if that testing ultimately offers considerable market advantage in the future, and if doing so enabled me to potentially pave the way for an environmentally beneficial fuel solution for an industry that contributes so much to carbon emissions, then YES, I most certainly would test the fuel...happily!

Hottie, thanks indeed for pulling me up on the facts. I have to say that in my head, Sparkle comes some way before Morocco and Utah, and now that SR has formally declared it as such, I hope we can agree that we now have a 'main project' that is indeed moving...there's some great news to ponder with your Weetabix!

In much the same way as Sparkle was not, until yesterday, a 'main project', you didn't actually address my 'main point', however, which is that you cannot possibly know what is and what is not being progressed...and I don't really understand why anyone would make such a statement.

Anyway, I have a busy day ahead and it doesn't involve tennis, but thanks anyway.

Its not 'true' and cannot possibly be so. If one lawyer from MSC picks up his/her pen and amends one word in a document, then the project is not at a standstill.

If one person investigating test results from Sparkle Power is quietly collating numbers for further analysis, then the project is not at a standstill.

I would hope that far more than the above is taking place, but it is almost impossible that all three projects are at a complete standstill, and even more impossible for HF14 to have the slightest idea...such a statement is nothing short of lunacy.

Hottie; I have never called you out before, and apologise for doing so. I have no wish to engage on the matter, but think about it; you cannot possibly know!

Stocky, I mean no offence by this, because I am (maybe a slightly reluctant) fan of your ceaseless positivity, and respect from me for calling the Panama tests, however, you state: "The thing is with the situation QED find themselves in, is they only have what the lawyers tell them, there is no other way to find out how fast the paperwork is moving along, nobody knows other that the lawyers, so if the lawyers say it'll be ready to sign by month end then that is the only thing QED can go on, the information doesn't exist anywhere else."

To use your words, this is also baseless nonsense, I work every single day with lawyers progressing contracts, yes they are simpler than those being grappled with by MSC, QED and Cargill, but there is always someone to whom the lawyer is answerable and that individual simply must be able to interrogate the documents, the ongoing legal disputes, to interpret these and to suggest or consider alternatives to reach the right outcome. Lawyers are not the sole owners of the legal process.

I think that approaching a QED client directly would about the worst thing any of us could do. Speaking purely from my perspective (and not on behalf of anyone else, who may feel differently) please do not do this.

Precisely, Barking...and not all of those other companies (I know because i am invested in several) make repeated promises with timelines before sailing through them. They also don't acknowledge a lack of communication with investors and openly promise to improve that, without ever appearing to do so.

I will personally accept that I was new to this (13 years ago) and that I still have much to learn, but I don't think feeling let down by all of this makes me ignorant, thick, stupid, or indeed, worthy of being called so. Naïve I will accept. Frustrated, is however far more fitting!

SR - you said the following: I believe the exact same thing is happening now. Lawyers going back and forth, negotiating and refining the bilateral contract, taking longer than it should (though *we* and *Jason* should have expected this after our 2024 lesson) and all the while the company is unable to RNS anything to let us know that things are progressing. I've learned that these contracts are incredibly time consuming and that we all need to add *months* to the guidance due to this, and this legal wrangling may apply to other or even all our pipeline projects.

I would not disagree with you and this is entirely plausible, however, I have spent over thirty years working a job that is entirely contract based. None of the contracts I work with are as complicated but many involve international companies , institutional investors, Local Authorities and legal practices in-house, and large and small. The truth is that if and when companies like Cargill and MSC want something 'expedited', it will be. I have seen transactions take years longer than they should and I have seen what should take two months get done in a week, but the one consistent factor is that if someone very senior is focused on delivery and cracks a whip, legal matters can move at great speed...

I would suggest that two other factors may have more to do with ongoing delays; there are, no doubt some very significant logistical issues to contend with, and many sub-contracts (in the sense that other smaller agreements are required to deliver the larger project, such a a right to occupy dockside space for plant and machinery) and the world is currently a very restless place. I personally think that the reasons for ongoing delay may well not be about lawyers rushing to and fro, but more about the 'nitty gritty' of the logistics, and the need for MSC and Cargill to prioritise more pressing global challenges, both economic and security related. Tariffs, the safety of crews using certain bodies of water (Hormuz for example), shifting patterns in world trade and whilst the facts become more compelling, perhaps even a lack of urgency to trial new fuels, may also be at play.

One thing I do still agree with is that if you step back and look at the entire MSC/Cargill/QED agreement, it will and almost 'must' still happen at some point, so I am almost as relaxed as you, but perhaps concerned about different factors being at play.

Not entirely sure what my point is so apologies for rambling, because I am as frustrated as anyone by the lack of news...and I do still hold that this will happen at some point and every day is a day closer!