Plenty More of those...Staggering savings available from MSAR/Scrubbers
2020 shipping costs on the back of a napkin ...Platts
"Running a container ship might cost an extra $40,000 per day at $200 fuel spreads. A liner fleet burning 7.5 million tons annually could incur a billion and a half dollars a year in 2020-related costs.
Assuming this liner hauls 16 million TEUs annually translates to an extra $94 per TEU. Of course the liner will try to push this cost onto the Amazons and Walmarts of the world. But what if they won�t cooperate?
It�s obvious that shipping companies face some fateful decisions. What should they do? Well, take this liner again: shouldn�t it leverage its economies of scale and choose scrubbers?"
Production will be in KSA, why else has Jason Miles spent 120 days out there this year?
We were told at the AGM that CEPSA, though very disappointed with the Maersk decision, were still actively seeking opportunities to use their MSAR production facility at San Roque.
We wouldn't have been told that if they were involved in the KSA project. The costs of constantly cleaning out the tanks of a long distance ferry tanker would render the whole thing uneconomical too. That without considering the wait to transfer the large amounts of MSAR from a facility that is too small.
It's clear that KSA are serious about their Vision 2030 ideals and this is a serious project now.
A VERY interesting RNS. Perhaps not quite what we had convinced ourselves we were going to get but revealing nonetheless.
It's now completely clear clear that a hell of a lot of engineering work has been happening on the ground without us knowing (as Saudi wanted it I'm afraid, much to the detriment of our stress levels!) despite the shorters attempts to convince us otherwise.
The fact they've used the phrase "Installations for fuel production are now essentially complete" with it's plural, says to me and my near 40 years engineering experience at least, that there are multiple MSAR production sites, not just one.
The phrase "Production to Combustion Trial" as used in previous years has now changed to "Boiler Combustion Trial". This tells me that following the Installations mentioned above, production has been tested, signed off and is ready to roll.
The 'Boiler Combustion' part of the trial has been done before at several sites so the company should be hugely confident.
Based on what we were told at the AGM (a profit of $10 per tonne of MSAR for power), if MSAR acheived the same uptake as the much inferior Orimulsion, and assuming a P/E of between 15 and 35, the QFI share price should be valued at between £5 and £12.50!
"Your own research do" as Yoda would say, of course!
Thanks BP, hopefully the long wait is coming to an end. No doubt there will be the likes of Kreatin and his sweaty glove puppet on the REDACTED board who have a sole aim of bringing down the company in some way or another. (I'm clear there isn't a financial reason)
There pathetic whimperings are looking even more so by the day!
RE: Benefits / New emission controls06 Dec 2017 08:07
MJSAR will produce a much cleaner exhaust stream and cooler combustion temperatures which will greatly reduce NOX pre-scrubber. ..Less work for the scrubber to do making it potentially smaller and less sludge waste to get rid of ...another cost benefit.
Probably only six months left for the industry to seriously make their minds up!
Very true Thirdman. JGC have been involved with QFI for two years already. I doubt if the MOA would have been signed last week unless JGC already have customers for the technology.
Of extra not is what Takashi Yasuda, Senior Executive Officer of JGC's Technology Innovation, said:
"We are pleased to have reached agreement with QFI. Access to their MSAR� technology will enable JGC to offer its clients a cost-effective and environmentally beneficial alternative to HFO that can be implemented rapidly. We look forward to working with QFI and building what we expect to be a significant new business stream."
Note those words, coming from the CUSTOMER, not the QFI BOD.