Member Info for Moran89

Hi CousinPavlos, can you just remind me of this meeting where Linda mentioned the proposed MSC Feb talks? From memory I don't think I've ever seen or heard Linda speak on investor calls so just want to check I've not missed something here! Thanks.

Morning 46G and all,

Interesting that you mentioned "particularly where existing projects may take time to convert into material progress or news flow".

Not sure if anyone has noticed, but it's five years to the day since we got the MSC JDA RNS, where we were told that the collaboration was in view of carrying out an MSAR operational trial on commercial container vessels in the MSC fleet in 2021.

Now, I don't want to be a Debbie downer here, but how can MSC have knowingly acknowledged that RNS, and still being dithering about full sanction today (five years!). I get there's slippage, but FFS this is a joke... just to get to a trial sign-off. Not even boots on the ground...

I really admire this optimism AKHM. I genuinely do. But this product, and the previous iterations of it have been around for years and years, and yet no one (aside from Maersk, OCP and Sparkle) have even given it a trial. And those that have are either stuttering and stalling after having seen it in action or have walked away altogether. I absolutely get it that this is a super conservative industry, but *if* it is the best option for pollution reduction and fuel efficiency, with the best oven-ready infrastructure options to rollout, then just why does everyone drag their heels? It is an absolute no brainer for MSC and Cargill to get in here and roll around with this for 18 months, so why the intransigence? Why should we wait for commercial arrangements to be pushed and pulled around now? This trial, in its entirety will be 2 years in the making and completion from now, so why don't they all just sign up for a trial only? Commercials can be reviewed as and when it's running and during/after engine wear tests.

Utterly appalling waste of a year, which they've been unable to sugarcoat with that pathetic AGM statement.

In case we've forgotten the initial JDA with MSC was signed on 21 Jan 2021. That will reach its fifth anniversary in just under two months time, and yet in those nearly five years neither MSC nor QED have been able to overcome the "post-trial go forward commercial supply agreement... to reflect the logistical complexities of the trial"

Yes, it is complex, but I don't buy this excuse after the previous 'it's with the lawyers' jackanory. So what have QED been talking to them about on their weekly calls? Five years to get to this point? I don't buy it. The only thing this lot can do "in parallel" is talk BS.

Legal delays are a total red herring. If MSC wanted to expedite this they would get in freelance legal eagles to do the job and it would be all signed-up.

So these delays must therefore be entirely business-driven. Quite what the hold up is from a business POV, however, is anyone's guess. Clearly QED have not been given the actual reason, but they must have been told something meaningful during their weekly sessions. It's absurd that we've been in near final form for months (and months), and equally baffling inasmuch as this project has been on the table for years. It's not like this has crept up on MSC out of the blue so what exactly is the reason for this??

I just hope to God this is not another Aramco all over again..

Morning MadDogMc, just taking your analogy here: "You walk into a betting shop and lose your shirt. Do you scream at the jockey and the trainer ?"

I think most people's beef is that we've laid our bet on the confidence of the betting shop owner that the race will take place tomorrow. The problem is that he has taken the money and continues to assure us the race will take place "soon"...all the while looking at his watch and telling us that the doors to the shop may have to close soon before the race takes place. Us punters reluctantly hand over some more money to keep the lights on while we patiently await the start of the race.

When the race eventually starts, we may yet still lose our bet, but that's fully on us- our risk. However the constant delays to the start of the race are causing more and more anxiety, especially as the last one was called-off before the final furlong.

That, in my opinion, is the real cause of the anger..and notably so when the betting shop owner still appears to be paying himself handsomely while we all wait.

Just my view, but appreciate others will disagree.

This is absolutely a logical inference, Y-Alam. So why are we stuttering around with this? Everything makes sense for us to go ahead with MSC, so what's the reason for the hiatus? The marine project has been years in the making so why is there so little movement so far? This is the critical question. What are we not being told?? They must have assessed this to death by now, so when does it start??

Any sign of that "Big news dropping soon, watch!" comment, Basherman? I think that was a week or thereabouts ago. Also did your Oracle make a prediction in the end?? I'm all ears on that one..

So the time IS now? Surely, surely..

The guy will be on some serious money, taking into consideration his extensive background. So unless our board have lost their minds I was musing that it should indicate considerable movement sometime in the near-ish future. But I fully accept the only thing certain is that nothing's certain. I was just trying to peer behind the curtains on this one..

OK, point taken, but 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? Just because his CV has shown he has worked on active commercially viable areas before?? I genuinely hope he has some sort of magic touch, but until we get those projects signed up he'll just be another Kirk, Morrison, Miles who speaks incessantly about the opportunities...

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.

I agree that Borup appears to have an impressive CV, but likewise Williams, Kirk, Miles & Morrison also appear/ed to be super talents. So forgive me for not jumping up and down with this appointment right now. He can have the ear of all the movers and shakers in the industry as he wants, but if these players don't want the product then what good is he, other than another massive corporate expense?

I genuinely hope he can somehow bridge the gap between our 'science project' and getting in paying clients, but ultimately it's always about whether the thing is actually wanted. And so far, over 18 years the answer is deafening. I wish him well though and willing for him to prove me wrong.

"discussions are progressing and remain constructive" To me, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of progress and clearly shows there is a hold-up somewhere- and it ain't the lawyers fault, as they previously stated. QED absolutely must clarify why, when things have been virtually ready for signature previously, they are now only telling us things remain "constructive". That's a serious downgrade from awaiting legal sign-off.

The issue with these types of arrangement where us punters are not privy to the actual communications is that these deals are always active-until they're not.

So the frustrating thing for us is that we can't see the deteriorating comms/delayed meetings/cancelled reviews and updates that would give us the warning signs that all is not well. Until such time it's all off, it must therefore still be on, but lame excuses about lawyers won't wash anymore. For a large company a few extra lawyers on the payroll for 3 months is chicken feed. Therefore, it is not unreasonable now for QED to either question this feedback from MSC or tell us the real reasons. The deal may well still be 'on', but after a few years waiting how 'on' is it? Surely they can give a level of confidence now that they can hang their reputations on to?

Compelling imagery. Let's hope contract discussion are moving swiftly. This would be a huge tick in the box to get over the line and would constitute a value over and beyond the specific commercial arrangements themselves. If we can get this going 'in life' then it's game-on and an upward trajectory incoming.

Hopefully the sticky hands and looming commercial agreements mean that some pressure builds underneath. Along with the overdue MSC trial sign-offs (hopefully) around the corner it could lead to a nice steady march northwards as people jostle for position to get in line for the expected future good news. This does feel like the early rumblings of a volcano that is about to erupt...at long last

Extremely positive outcome and it sounds like there is real desire to move on to commercials. Congratulations to the team and fingers crossed we see a reasonable uplift in SP. Surely worth a penny on this news alone?

I'm still trying to remember the previous stage of QED's growth!

Fingers crossed he can take this across the line though. The time has to be now..

This appointment beefs up the quality and experience so the team appears to be in its strongest formation ever.

Would he take the role on if there was little indication of decent progress in key areas? If he's that good then he had no need to take us on. So to that end it's a decent indicator.

However, does it matter who is at the helm if the client/s is/are dithering about putting pen to paper? How much sway can he influence upon the decision-makers at our client partner's? It's difficult to know for sure, but I sure as hell wouldn't step foot into a bear pit like ours without having a strategy to get some results in the table PDQ.

Thank you, so to translate, during the Maersk trial there were some snags, but these were not deemed to be major issues. The ship did hit a buoy though, causing the trial to be temporarily stopped. During that hiatus Maersk mulled over the results with the snags, felt these issues caused by MSAR were minor so happily issued the interim lono sometime later. Nevertheless, they decided not to pursue the trial because they had already decided upon a different pathway.

That's my inference of what you're saying, albeit that's not quite how you communicated it initially (inferring that the snags caused the stoppage-and thereby casting doubt on QED's honesty). But I accept we may trip over our words at times when popping thoughts down on these boards.

Would that be an accurate-ish understanding of everything?