Member Info for orslega

Primula - looking at some of your posts it seems AIM is probably not for you. Your financial advisor will no doubt tell you of the inherit risks associated in investing in AIM stocks. The same goes for investments in OTC/TMX stocks (eg Petroteq). All carry a much higher risk. For sure AIM directors do not/will not give a blow by blow account of how shareholders money is spent. Each placing document does give a generic overview - Tomco have done that as required by AIM rules.

The thing is, and stating the obvious, if you pick the right stock you make a shed load - but obviously the wrong one you lose your shirt. It's why AIM is commonly referred to as a Casino. (There are a few exceptions but largely speaking AIM is a wash with companies which will certainly fail).

You have to weigh up the pros and cons, for me the only reason I have taken a position here and Petroteq (where I have substantial holding) is because of Valkor is in charge. Their commercial successes and financial gains stand out. My advice is follow the money - take a leaf out of Steven Byle (CEO Valkor) and George Stapleton (COO Petroteq) book - they have invested very large amounts in Petroteq technology. Having worked with Petroteq for over 4 years why only recently have Valkor taken a 16% stake thereabouts in Petroteq. Speaks volumes.

Each to their own. and good luck!

apologies for double post - this LSE forum site is useless, my response from earlier only just popped up.

Someone mentioned that Greenfield will be the owner of the IP developed going forward, that is wrong, it remains with Petroteq.

From PQE RNS:

"The License will allow Greenfield to use Petroteq's oil sands technology, which includes Petroteq's processes for the recovery of oil from oil sands, patents, other intellectual property and know-how, in any future oil sands plants built by Greenfield in the United States. The License also clarifies the ownership of any intellectual property developed as a result of the POSP upgrade and associated trials or otherwise developed by Greenfield in the future. Any such intellectual property will be the property of Petroteq and pursuant to the License, Petroteq will grant Greenfield the ability to utilise such intellectual property, together with any additional intellectual property developed by Petroteq, in accordance with the terms of the License.

For any future oil sands plants built by Greenfield utilizing the License, Greenfield will pay Petroteq a 5% royalty of net revenues received from oil products produced from oil sand resources."

Craggs - not correct: Petroteq retain all IP:

The License will allow Greenfield to use Petroteq's oil sands technology, which includes Petroteq's processes for the recovery of oil from oil sands, patents, other intellectual property and know-how, in any future oil sands plants built by Greenfield in the United States. The License also clarifies the ownership of any intellectual property developed as a result of the POSP upgrade and associated trials or otherwise developed by Greenfield in the future. Any such intellectual property will be the property of Petroteq and pursuant to the License, Petroteq will grant Greenfield the ability to utilise such intellectual property, together with any additional intellectual property developed by Petroteq, in accordance with the terms of the License.

frac sand, lol

it was one of the worst winters, caused some operational issues, very understandable - pretty much all of the equipment was delivered on time - think they mentioned that in one of the updates.

anyway, no excuses now Spring in Utah!

Forgot to mention (and for completeness) the other side of the Petroteq model - they also aim to have their own 4/5K production plant to exploit 130M stock barrels from their 2 sites....ignoring sand etc annual net back $50M pa A little way off but nice earner all the same.

yes, DS has been touting a oilsands business plan - he also has a site and is working with an investment bank but not sure he has progressed this much further - mega investment is needed. He has an option to take a Petroteq licence but like Greenfield he will need to pay $2M upfront licence fee and 5% on future sales. Like Tomco/Greenfield no one will back him until these trials are proven.

imo if the current trials are successful it will be Petroteq who will see serious interest, quite early on - before they get too expensive. Think about their model, upfront licence fees and 5% royalties for each and every plant built. Do the maths on say just 5 x 10K plants, with say a conservative net back $35 per barrel based on WTI today (so ignoring sand sales and premium for bunker fuel) : $35 x 10,000 x 330 days (allow 1 month switch off for maintenance) = $350,000 x 330 = $115,500,500 x 5 plants = £577,500,000 annual net revenues x 5% royalty = $29M annually based on WTI today - straight to the bottom line = profit pretty much (have ignored the addition of $10M upfront licensing fees - $2M x 5 plants).

So that is for just x5 10K plants. As many more plants get licensed in the US and worldwide, the recurring income then multiples and surprise surprise the value of taking Petroteq shareholders also multiples. Big oil will want the technology as soon as then can, certainly before Petroteq list on Nasdaq which is their stated plan.

Keep in mind also that Petroteq granted Greenfield a non-exclusive US only licence. So that opens up licensing deals with as many as other US and worldwide companies who want to get involved.

Fingers crossed we hear this week that all going to plan (bad winter weather has been an issue).

Primula, with respect you seem to missing a key point. Greenfield is a legal 50/50 Joint Venture Company owned by Tomco and Valkor. Valkor are specialised engineers and have been working on the Petroteq site for 4 years now - the JV agreement agreed between them will deal with reporting lines I'm sure.

Regardless, why have another layer of onsite costs - not forgetting also Tomco CEO Potter has basically been living on site himself these past few critical weeks watching the Valkor engineers. Do you not think he might report back to his own board? lol

"Valkor have other jobs" lol Have a look at their projects - the headline pic is the plant at Petroteq Asphalt Ridge https://www.valkor.com/current_projects/ they are a substantial privately owned engineering group. Incidentally the last Valkor project shown - Parrylands in Trinidad; there is substantial oilsands in Trinidad and I suspect if the current AR project is successful Steve Byle will looking at a plant there. This is why he and his key team are spending all their time in Utah. Getting this process perfected will open many more opportunities to Valkor outside Tomco.

The US Petroteq technology licence vests with Greenfield - so assuming all goes well the financing of 10K plant (s) will be shared 50:50 between.

Petroteq flying - up 27% on OTC

: )

Petroteq up 15.4% on TMX with larger than usual volume so far...

https://money.tmx.com/en/quote/PQE

talking of Quadrise, see Premier Miton (Investment Managers) have taken a 8.7% in Quadrise - announced today by QFI (this will be part of the recent institutional fund raise)

https://premiermiton.com

Peeps don't seem to get it - the Quadrise opportunity is very much secondary at this junction. Valkor have one priority that is to get the current plant fine tuned and commercially proven.

If you read the Petroteq website the plan is for plant to capable of producing low carbon heavy oil with different end user/products. The bunker fuel product although valuable is simply another sales line.

Keep in this mind this - if the plant trials are not successful forget about Quadrise, Tomco 10K plant etc etc There is nothing if the plant/technology fails.

Greenfield are on charge and running of the trials - so the timetabling is not down to Petroteq.

On timescales, just go with what Tomco said in the recent financials - Q1 2021. That can be anytime in the next 3 weeks, Q1 ends 31/3/2021.

TMX stock exchange rules, shorty summary attached- it looks like George Stapleton was buying at a time when trials had not been completed - clearly so otherwise he couldn’t have bought as that would have been regarded as acting on material unreleased information- obviously against the rules - so imo he bought his shares on the two occasions thinking/speculating that the trials would work out;

...and on Petroteq notifying the market on current developments it depends on definition of material news - the Exchange sets out guidelines but it seems from attached the company can set out its own internal rules, within reason. Note though there is no 30 day rule associated with an insider buying and the timing of news which makes sense. If and when they have material news they have to release it, simples.

It seems pretty obvious that the trial is taking longer than envisaged, I had heard that the Utah winter weather has played a part in this. Fingers crossed Valkor are now close to perfecting the plant - they need this to work for many interested parties.

https://www.tsx.com/resource/en/70

Petroteq COO George Stapleton has been in Utah this past week - don’t think he’s there for a ski-holiday, lol

Maybe- what’s another week in 7 years perfecting this world first technology.

No news at this juncture imo is good news, let Valkor do what they need to do. Then the fun starts!

But note Valkor are contractually committed working for Petroteq for 4 years from 1/5/2020. Terms were disclosed in the recently Petroteq filed accounts - as no notice was given (why would they) Valkor are tied in for next 4 years. Valkor will be involved with the next 3/4,000 bopd plant (assuming all goes well).

32. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS (continued)
(f) Management and Operations Services Agreement
In terms of a Management and operations Services Agreement (“Management Agreement”) entered into between the Company and Valkor LLC, (“Valkor”) dated November 22, 2020, effective May 1, 2020, Valkor will provide overall management and operations services at the oil sands recovery plant based in Utah. The agreement is for a period of one year and is renewable automatically for an additional four years unless either party provides the other party with written notice of non-renewal at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the original or renewal term.

As registered owner of the heavily patented technology Petroteq imo is much more likely to "taken out" by a major - well before any licensee. eg Greenfield et al.

Today Petroteq has a market cap of just $28M. The share price is not quite but pretty much at all time lows.

For each plant Petroteq grants an operating licence (remember whilst Greenfield has a multi US licence it has been issued on a non exclusive basis - so potentially other US players can set up their own plant on similar terms) they will receive a $2M signing on licence fee + 5% of the annual plant revenue.

So based on numbers below, for just one 10K plant Petroteq receive $2M licence fee + annual royalties - $13M.

So substantial recurring annual royalties will accrue to Petroteq - ignoring $16M upfront license fees - on say 7-8 x 10K plant (for starters) commissioned US/internationally over the next 2-3 years, it would mean annual revenue of $100M to Petroteq. Basically pretty much all profit. What p/e would you would put on that then? This is why the founders of Petroteq have their eye on achieving a billion dollar valuation for the company. The numbers clearly show that should not difficult to achieve on a relative small plant roll out. If the technology is proven (imo expected) you can see precisely why a major O&G player or an Investment Fund (Green tech funds have attracted huge sums waiting to find suitable targets) would want to move soon on Petroteq. The longer it is left to role out new plants (and remediation programmes) the higher the valuation. Simples.

Just my take - but a very real proposition.

All done - institutions buying in. Watch the QFI share price shift .

Note investor presentation on 8/3 - listen out for update Re samples.

“Quadrise Fuels International, the supplier of MSAR® and bioMSAR™ emulsion technology and fuels, which are low-cost, cleaner alternatives to heavy fuel oil, is pleased to announce the successful results of the Placing announced on 1 March 2021 and to confirm the launch of the Open Offer to Qualifying Shareholders.



The Company has conditionally raised total gross proceeds of £6.0 million pursuant to the Placing of 222,222,222 Placing Shares at the Placing Price of 2.7 pence per Ordinary Share. The net proceeds of the Placing of approximately £5.5 million are expected to be supplemented by additional proceeds of up to £1.0 million to be raised pursuant to the Open Offer.”