Member Info for Salinger

“ You know you can always sell Sal, and move on...”

I could as could you. Are you afraid of open discussion? A view that isn’t constantly bullish. The point of a discussion board is that alternative views are welcome and expressed without the usual garbage you’ve just posted.

So go ahead, show me where PRs scenario is supported by open source evidence? It’s not there. It is however a good rational opinion which I respect, not mine but no less valuable. You might think about that.

I understand your points very well PR. My point is that Greenfield have produced a document detailing cost of production and a product sale price very close to WTI. If that’s true, and they haven’t massaged the accounts by omitting cutter solvents from their “cost of production”, then they clearly are a profitable concern based on these figures.

Somebody is about to buy €120 million euros worth of PQE. Nobody does that in my book if the eventual outcome of your investment is tied to an as yet untested non-contractually linked third party technology.
Time will tell as they say.

Surely the difference between PQE/Greenfield efforts to profitably extract oil from Utah sands is the technology they use compared to other failed and dirty efforts?

If msar was the difference between viability and not, then in my opinion the tests would have been done already and QFI would be more apparent in their PR profile.

The commercial assessments suggest/claim they can do it without msar. I believe that to be true and probably has to be true to make their business case work in the short to medium term as there is zero ready market for msar fuel right now.

MSAR is a potentially lucrative add-on if they can develop a market for it. We have yet to sell a single tonne commercially in the world so far, I don’t see the US being any easier despite how much of a no-brained it may seem to us looking in.

Well you said the test results alone would change the company value, not tests and commercial trials, big difference!

“
Buy
RE: RNSToday 19:52
@salinger
I differ with your view that an rns would be inappropriate, as test results are likely to impact on the valuation of the business”

Fair enough. Why is QFI worth more because Utah bitumen can be converted to msar?
Anyone who knows how msar technology works knows the Utah bitumen will be readily converted. They did likewise with SDA solid residue so why wouldn't a free flowing residue work?
MSAR works on the vast majority of feedstock, yet it has no impact on company valuation. The value is in commercial contracts not theoretical scenarios.

Yes I get the logic PR, but whether we have 2 or 4 options, we still have the same people trying to deliver. So far they have not delivered, until they do I have to reserve my judgement.

Indeed I am Sir. Like many I’ve had lots of exciting moments in QFI over the years, when KSA were about to sign being the biggest there could be.

They didn’t and Maersk ****ed off, so forgive me if it takes more than hope to get me excited by QFI. Potential is still great but we’re nothing without real commercial progress.

The future is still 100% potential. When some of that becomes real I will get exited.

Sox reductions using a low sulphur feedstock like Utah bitumen.

Of course biomsar is a good option, but relative to demand there’s minimal supply of raw materials, that’s why it’s important for us commercially to get ordinary msar out there and used as a sta said fuel. It can do more good short to medium term with reductions in sox Nox and PM.

I’ve been invested in QFI for years, nothing in our history is “for sure”.

MSAR is still a high carbon fuel so in that regard we have to convince the zealots to choose an intermediate fuel like msar rather than focus entirely on future fuels that don't exist in any meaningful volumes.

That was more to do with the POSP not functioning well enough, too much clay and sediment in the samples. They seem to have e resolved that issue with the upgrades.

There’s zero doubt bitumen can be converted to msar. The key point is that no two sources are the same, therefore they require bespoke recipes during the msar process.

The current samples being tested at QRF were sourced from Greenfields new tar sands site and not from existing ore at the POSP, this would require it’s own samples and testing.

All publicly released information from July 2nd onwards strongly suggests MSAR will be tested and produced at the new site when constructed and not the POSP.
They can of course change their minds at some point but I think it unlikely.

MK already told us the results will be reported to Greenfield, they are the customer and it’s they who will decide what if anything to do about it.
Take it as a given the bitumen works fine, has done in the past with much harder feedstock.
Ive no doubt QFI will reference the test results at some point soon after but to issue an RNS would be nonsense in my view.

My thinking was simply that as joint owner of greenfield Valkor led the show in terms of strategy and development work.

With Tomco as 100% owners they’d lose most of that input at strategic board level. Yes their not going to ignore his views obviously, but a Valkor presence on the board would retain some of what they had before..

Wonder if Steve Byles will be announced as joining the Tomco board at the AGM?
Wouldn’t be surprised given their stake in the company and Valkors role in future development works.

It also makes for a neat takeover target if the plant works as hoped, forward planning perhaps.

These tests are funded by Greenfield, the client. As such the results will be sent to them, not published for QFI shareholders. I would expect comment from QFI at some point after Greenfield have had an opportunity to review the report, but I don’t expect a “results” RNS unless accompanied by other project updates. This info is more suited to the blog or twatter.

The other important factor is that the new ships are “dual fuel”. Essentially Maersk have kept all options open with this order. If green fuel is available in bulk (not anytime soon) then they have the ships ready to use as it becomes available. If not then it’s business as usual with low sulphur fuel oil.

It’s also a bit of a carrot to the fuel developers in that their ships create the ready and available consumer demand. QFI know all too well what it’s like being in a supply and demand catch22 vacuum.

In short I do t see this as any threat to us in the medium term and beyond. As others have said, there’s no one solution to the problem, but we do have to make sure we are part of it!

I have no detailed knowledge of the pipeline but can only assume if it were an option they’d consider it.

In theory yes PQE and QFI could sign a deal but Greenfield and Valkor are our effective agents in the oil sands market so where would that leave them?
I’m not convinced QFI would take that route right now, they have enough on their plate assuming our other trials go ahead. I think they’re happy to develop the tar sands route via Valkor/Greenfield, they seems more clued in bunch and can get things done. A successful commercial production at the Greendield site would be the perfect launch pad for us in America.

As things stand PQE have no commercial relationship with QFI. From memory I think the best they achieved was 280 barrels per day, well short of the target 500.
Our commercial agreements for America are with Greenfield, read the latest RNS when MK describes looking forward to developing the oil sands business with them. Other partners may follow in time, but right now I’m certain QFI are focused only on Greenfield and their plans for commercial production.

Proof of concept testing on the received samples tells both entities all they need to know in terms of viability. Do they need further on site testing? If they do then it seems they’ve deferred that until they build their own site. Recent progress with the technology and sand has probably lessened the absolute need for msar as part of their commercial offering. If they can produce at the costs claimed while the oil price remains where it is, then they perhaps don’t feel the pressure to prove up msar on site just yet, instead seeing it as a very attractive optional extra for their new plant.

On the point about licence sales. A licence could be sold to Greenfield tomorrow if the parties agree commercial terms, so yes income this year is potentially possible from a licence sale assuming there’s an initial lump sum Payable, but thereafter licensing mode works on a fee per barrel of msar produced. Hard to see where that income could come from anytime soon other than Morocco and MSC.