Member Info for Salinger

Yes, I recall saying that very thing in 2014, tic.....tok......tic.......tok...................

The economic carrot has to be sufficiently big for refiners and customers to make the shift. Environmental factors mean customers are much more likely to adopt msar, but recent Global turmoil in the fuel markets has meant msar economic benefits for refiners is marginal in most cases. Until that market normalises, if it normalises, then QFI will struggle to get ink on paper, refiners will do what’s best for them in the short term.

I don’t think time has ever been the issue.

The fact we’ve heard nothing tells me nothing has happened. Pretty sure if the fuel had been produced and en route they’d have said so, given the pressure timelines are under. The real question is why, why is the fuel not produced?

My hunch is the Norway plan has changed and they’re now looking elsewhere, but who knows.

Thanks for your detailed response PR, our posts crossed.

My concern, and I know I’m repeating myself, is a simple one. If QFI and msar is such a big deal to the future of Utah oil sands, why is nobody talking about it?! (PS, I don't buy the bargaining ploy scenario)

It’s not an reasonable question, in fact it’s pretty fundamental. I want what you say to happen, and I look for signs we’re on that path but I don't see them. Perhaps SB really has found a way to make it pay without Qfi add ons?

Agreee the logic is sound indigo. If only life followed logic! We have a good proposition, others have to accept it now.

“No evidence. But I bet you I’m right.”

My betting days are over with QFI. The Utah situation is grey to say the least, but you seem to feel strongly it involves MSAR long term. I hope you’re right and as always time will be the judge.

“The offtakers mentioned by Tomco in their puff piece ‘interview’ are none other than Valkor.”

I heard nothing in the interview that said this PR. It seems a huge leap to get to that point, evidence?

I think most longer term holders feel that QFI will either be outrageously successful or not at all, it’s always seemed like one or the other.

If we can create some commercial traction the rest will take care of itself in terms of overcoming the chicken and egg situation we’ve struggled with.
Commercial growth and interest from wealthy suitors will surely follow.

Maybe Godot has a few Quid?

I agree Foxm, her comments don’t fit with any other option we know of in that timeframe. Taken together with Jason’s comment about developments with other projects in the Americas then yes, I can see how your scenario would absolutely make sense.
I guess what we need is QFI to confirm Mexico is back on the table and is serious about it. With the Government behind it we would be in an amazingly strong position.

Great post Foxm, maybe I will get a little excited after all.

“ But that was a bizarre statement by the Energy Minister, you can't easily just “phase out” 25 million tons of HFO production a year, not without MSAR anyway.”

Indeed, residue has to go somewhere and more so when you don’t have modern and expensive refining techniques which take years to build and fortunes to fund.

I would be cautious about making a connection though. When have politicians ever been ahead of company announcements, though it would ignite our company’s fortunes overnight if a clear path to production in Mexico transpires. Would be pretty major news for us.
Will await with interest but not excitement! lol

Excellent posts Foxm.
No doubt MSAR would be a solution to their problems, I’m not convinced they have the political will to do anything about it. QFI have always struggled at the political level, KSA a good case in point.
Whilst it’s better to have an MoU with the oil company than not, it’s the level above that’s the problem. Maybe Redliner can make the connections to get things moving.

Thanks Tuckman, indigo and PR, yes I agree there are negative posters on this board but I think we know their motives so can respond accordingly.

It’s so easy to become tunnel visioned and focus only on what we want to believe, I speak from experience, been here a while!

I counter that by looking at what we are being told in public RNS and company comment. If they’re not saying it then to me it’s not happening. If it does happen then great, it’s a bonus, but if we always make positive assumptions then we’re missing the opportunity to make early sensible decisions on our investment.

I would never advise another member when to buy or sell, but what I would advise is to read what you’re told with a more critical eye. If it still stands up then great, if not then you’re better informed and can decide accordingly what to do yourself.

I value all informed comment. PR clearly has a detailed knowledge of the industry which is a wonderful assets for all of us. His knowledge tells him something about where Utah is headed and I hope to God he’s right. However my approach conflicts with his view because the public information from the companies concerned doesn’t appear to support that view.

It may well be a case of negotiating ploys and egos but it will take time for it to unfold and become clear. In the meantime perhaps other projects are more important to our near term success. Morocco I see is very important to get underway as it creates a “cushion” below the MSC project as success there gives us commercial status long before the LONO completes, so a huge step for me!

I honestly find it exasperating that alternative interpretations of the facts are regarded as « negative ».
What is it you guys want on here, a single positive bullish viewpoint regardless of information to the contrary?
Well, we’ve been there before with « brian100000 » and look where that got us.

If honest opinion based on facts and company comment are not welcome, then I have nothing better to offer.

Fair enough, then we can both hope you are correct.

I well understand your points PR, they’re clear and make sense. My position has always been that the evidence does not support your logic no matter how sensible it may be. If MSAR is so pivotal to the entire future of oil sand production in Utah then their omission of that fact in the FEED and their market announcements is not just bizarre but verging on the fraudulent. I also do not accept Shell would pay €120m for a share of PQE who's viability, according to your hypothesis, relies on an independent third party's technology (QFI) for whom no commercial agreement is in place or msar testing. They may be wealthy but they’re not reckless.

Only time will determine where QFI fits in to oil sands production plans. I’d happily be proved wrong.

« Then I'd imagine the solvent would have to removed before running it in an engine. Though it would be fine for power.« 

I wouldn’t think so. The solvent is oil based and quite a low percentage so should be compatible with the bitumen. It’s how it interacts with the surfactants that matters, but I’m also confident that should be ok too, just needs co formation tests before they can commit to it.

« It's a closed-loop system, which means that over 95% of the solvents used in the extraction process are recovered, recycled, and reused while roughly 5% remain within the oil that is extracted.« 

From PQE website.

They can’t remove 100% of the solvent so yes, there is a percentage remains. How low they get it increase the efficiency of the process.

“ And msar isn't "untested"... As I understand it was working wonderfully out at sea for the mighty Maersk..”
Yet again you fail to deal in facts. Maersk using refinery residue, the Utah bitumen is not the same stuff and has solvents within it so yes, it is untested and requires to be tested before confirmation that msar can be produced. I don’t doubt it will work, but it cannot be assumed.

When ha stout known Shell or any other major corporate entity throw around 120 million? Get real.