Member Info for Nejc113

But what I do not understand is that MSAR and bioMSAR are in basis cheaper as normal fuel, so it’s not a question of giving the costs further, but to hold more profit. And still they do not move ahead

It’s normal that many customers are turning away from green fuels. Companies want to support environmental goals, but not at 2x higher fuel costs.

For solutions like MSAR or bioMSAR, the option is different — customers could potentially get a cheaper and greener alternative compared to conventional bunker fuels. Maybe Maersk will rethink what it offers its clients in the future.

Thanks for Pointing out.

Yes — Aqua Marine Fuels is indeed working with emulsified fuels. However, the key difference compared to Quadrise lies in the feedstock and resulting business model.

Aqua Marine Fuels uses diesel as the base fuel, blending it with water and additives to create a stable emulsion. In contrast, Quadrise uses heavy fuel oil (HFO) or refinery residues as the primary feedstock, also emulsified with water.

This difference is critical:

• Feedstock cost: Heavy fuel oil is significantly cheaper than diesel

• Market positioning:

• Aqua Marine Fuels targets diesel replacement/improvement

• Quadrise targets conversion of low-value refinery residues into usable fuel

• Economics & scale:

• Quadrise’s model is built around large-scale industrial and marine applications, leveraging low-cost inputs

• Aqua Marine Fuels operates in a different cost structure, where savings must come mainly from efficiency and emissions improvements rather than feedstock arbitrage

As a result, even though both technologies are based on emulsions, their economics, business cases, and final products are fundamentally different and not directly comparable.

For me, one point stands out as a major step forward and a key de-risking factor: the company has obtained Sustainability & Carbon Certification for bioMSAR™. Without this certification, the fuel would have little to no value on the market, as it is a fundamental requirement for EU regulators.

From my perspective, the company has made significant progress in recent months in professionalizing its foundation and preparing to operate within a highly regulated industry. Previously, I had the impression that the company was mainly focused on development while lacking the necessary regulatory groundwork—such as compliance, certification, tax structure, and corporate setup.

Now, I see clear progress in these areas that I had previously missed. This gives me confidence that the company is now ready to move forward at the pace we have all been expecting.

Yes their oil is best possible for MSAR as base, and all other proceses to bring it to the fuel market are expensive. So i believe there could be some potential for QED, but this Option can wait until the situation is clear…

I believe that the collaboration with Quadrise is a challenge for BGT because their process is extremely expensive. Their base product is FPBO, which is dense, acidic, water-rich, viscous, and highly oxygenated (~15–30 wt% water, pH ~2.5–3). Converting this into a usable fuel feedstock requires several processing steps, such as stabilization with a NiCu catalyst, hydrotreatment, and deoxygenation, among others.

Whether this is a problem for Quadrise itself is unclear, but my assumption is that selling it as diesel or a lower-grade fuel would lead to a loss. Instead, I expect they aim to enter the SAF market, where environmental credits and a price point above $1.8/L would place them in a profitable zone.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Quadrise, but I believe BGT’s current CAPEX setup is not suited for MSAR or BioMSAR compared to other feedstocks.

I think we just lack of awareness that companies as big as MSC and their employees do not care abbaut timelines, now it is summertime, and to get all the needed people on the table it is difficult if not impossible. As MSAR and bioMSAR are both needed immediately for company, they do not fill pressure, and they take time. And this is not positive assumption, the negative would say they wait that the company is in existential troubles so they can get something what otherwise would not be possible :S. Is there not some smaller company with fewer ships to make the LONO? I would try to build up a feasible alternative, if nothing else, so they fill the pressure. In the end when environmental penalties come 2026-2027 all companies need their answer and buy all new ships is not one of them.

As I see it, the situation in Utah is not directly related to local supply. Yes, they have some ships on the Colorado River and some large industrial complexes, but I believe the consumers are not nearby. The main reason to use Quadrise technology locally is the difficulty in transporting the available oil. Currently, it could be transported via pipelines, but it is too viscous for that. Therefore, they need something on-site to make it less viscous. By using Quadrise technology, they do not need to transport raw oil; instead, they can locally produce a finished product that can be transported via train or truck to the end consumers.

Is just me, or there are some that want to convince us, that additional agreements are needed for the MSC trial?

I’m not aware that this is the case, the 3way is signed and valid. Where the additional agreements are coming from?

SulNOxECO is a fuel additive, that adds oxygen to the fuel while is burning. So NO, nothing interesting for us or QED board, maybe just distorting information:S

Yes he brings potential, but for me is the other question more important. If a person that knows the Industrie is coming on Board of QED, he for sure made his calculations. So if he’s calculations are based on Know-how, then my investment is safe :p

What are the key business potential parameters, such as demand, unique solutions, scalability, tested products, regulatory compliance, and patented solutions? Did I miss something :)

For me this is just information, that institutional investors are again on board. So the time of uncertainty should be over. Let’s see what until end of the year happens. I’m just glad, that Quadrise has resources to go further, and for some time the discussion of financial risk are of the table.

The small gains are not important for me, But a Statement in 2025 QED got First Money. For the next I wuld like to hear something from Morocco, later a start with MSC, something on Panama… I hope from 1.1.2026 and on we can talk abbaut pounds not pence :p

I do not see the main point in costs or environmental aspects for Utah or Oil sands projects. For this application is MSAR or BioMSAR the key to use this deposits not just for roads, but as a fuel for shipping and energy production. So we are inline with Trump strategy to ;D

For me this is nothing else as a information that EU authorities see qed technology as a viable solution for large scale implementation. When we are on board of this ships, the regulatory framework will be build on this example. As in shipping the regulatory aspects are the most fundamental for a business case, I’m glad we are a part of it :)

And London Stock Exchange is closed just for 3 trading days up to 1.1.2025

Im Morocco is no Christmas’s or new year vacations…

120ktpa X 50per Tonn = 6000000 per year for quadrise…