Member Info for Salinger

Fyoz, I give up.
Have a nice evening.

“Salinger...So where does MK think his Utah revenue will come from in H221 if it is not from the POSP ?”

Good question, why don’t you ask MK Boyporche? I would suggest the Greenfield July 2nd RNS put paid to that idea.

You seem to want to personalise it and be Mr angry Fyoz, yes of course I know the whereabouts of the two sites.

The crucial tests are the proof of concept currently underway at QRF. In situ trials would make sense if there was continuous production but not for short demos, who’s going to run the MMU for PQE demos?

Facts are that Greenfield are our partners, they have a new site, our contracts are with them not PQE.

For information, MK said commercial production of msar at the POSP was never on the QFI agenda and that was something shareholders misunderstood by following PQE and Tomco RNS, his words not mine.

This is what Steve Byles said when QFI signed the original CTA. None of what he says has changed, in fact I doubt commercial use of the posp was ever in the plans. The technology has been a resounding success, so coupled with msar production it an have an enormously successful future. Just not yet.

“ Steven Byle, Director of Greenfield and CEO of Valkor said:

"We see the MSAR® technology from QFI to provide a real opportunity to take advantage of the huge and unique resource of undervalued heavy sweet and high paraffin oil in Utah. The effective implementation of a commercial MSAR® plant may unlock the economics of heavy sweet crude derived from oil sands as well as high paraffin crude from other sources. We will use this commercial trial to attempt to demonstrate a viable retail product direct from site. We will be seeking markets for this product at a premium above WTI pricing. If successful, this effort could provide outstanding economics for oil sands production through ordinary price regimes while enabling profitability through low or even crisis crude pricing. We will also look at the application to high paraffin crude to allow conventional transport and superior economics."

"So your assertion is that they can't change their minds?"

Where have I suggested such a thing? I am dealing with the facts as they have been presented to the market by those running the companies concerned. As of now the facts are as I have spelled out to this board for weeks, don`t shoot the messenger.
I have said already a change of mind would require an about face, but that`s up to the companies to decide. However, my point is that would be highly unlikely in the circumstances.

Its rather telling that a poster dealing in facts as announced by RNS and public company comment, should receive such negative attention. Its the easiest thing in the world to come on here and spout grand bullish theories about the POSP and notch up the "likes". However, I prefer to deal with reality and the absolute best evidence we have, indeed the only credible evidence we have, states exactly what I`ve written in my posts.

I`m not writing these things to annoy you or anyone else Fyoz, I wish it were true that the POSP will reopen and QFI are heading there with an MMU, but that`s not what the market has been told, is it?
In terms of changing minds, well that works both ways in that what we were told about an MMU being used at the POSP by Greenfield is no longer taking place, so yes they can change their minds.

This project is about timing. The MMU will fly to America, but from what we`ve been told it will go to the new tar sands site when it opens, do a test run and be in place to begin commercial production. What would be the point in taking an MMU all the way to the POSP for a 600 barrel test? Makes much more sense as I said above to apply the MSAR testing and production to the new fully commercial site. The fact its not what we want to hear is irrelevant, its what it is.

“ TomCo Energy plc (AIM: TOM), the US operating oil development group focused on using innovative technology to unlock unconventional hydrocarbon resources, is pleased to announce that Greenfield Energy LLC ("Greenfield"), the Company's 50/50 joint venture with Valkor LLC ("Valkor"), has now successfully completed all of its planned trial work utilising Petroteq Energy Inc's ("Petroteq") existing oil sands plant at Asphalt Ridge, Utah (the "POSP").”

Above is the crux of the Greenfield update of 2nd July 2021. It’s a legal document updating shareholders of actual developments which are price sensitive.

Greenfield have their licence deal in place with PQE, they’ve no need to negotiate further. What happens at and to the POSP is a concern only for PQE who state publicly the plant is for demo use only.

QFI holders have rightly bemoaned the lack of clarity on our projects, so when we get clarity is it to be ignored in favour of an alternative version of reality as it doesn’t suit our wishes or hopes.

None so blind!

“I was only having a bit of fun.”

No, you weren’t bp. This post is quite typical of you, the optimist who then flips 180 degrees , ranting, panicked and shouting at the board.

If you've read my posts you’d know what garbage you speak as always bp. Ive quoted all parties in the Utah project, used their public comments to justify my opinions. In that regard they are factually based rather than wishful outdated thinking on the part of others.
I ask any poster to quote any information from the parties after 2nd July that gives credence to the POSP operating continuously? What about you boyporche? Maybe read some background before criticising others who take the trouble to evidence their opinions with facts.

Good luck with that.

“Also we now know a POSP will be in operation so we can complete
the trial.”

Ok, we all have our opinions but please provide the evidence that the POSP will be in operation? If you are assuming that from this RNS then it’s just that, an assumption and no more.

“They must just be stating they have agreed to have the Utah commercial trials complete by 31 Dec 2021. There was no date in the original RNS.”

No it doesn’t. If such an agreement was made it would have to be stated clearly. I see this RNS as buying time. There was no need whatever to issue it as the original agreement was not time sensitive, so why bother?

I hear what you say PR but the evidence seems clear and for once it’s coming directly from the parties involved. If you’re correct then they’re lying to us, ie greenfield operations at the POSPare complete etc.

I would imagine PQE would wait till they have several interested parties then recommission the POSP and run it for a few days/weeks.

I’m not qualified to judge their decisions on a technical basis, but they most definitely are saying the POSP will not run continuously but that it will do demonstrations. Only they can explain how they do that, but either way there’s no ore being mined and trucking it in full time cannot be commercially viable.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary I have to go with what is being said publicly by all parties.

“ I find it hard to believe that the “demonstration “ plant will be left idle if it can make money.”

Exactly. They’re not going to use it full time so what does that tell you about the economics of running a 280bpd plant?

There are stores of ore at the new site, but trucking it in as a commercial enterprise makes no sense for a plant that struggles to get anywhere near 500bpd output. It’s role was to prove the technology, it’s done that at considerable cash costs to Tomco and Valkor.

Greenfield are our partners in the region. They told the market their operations at the POSP are complete. They told the market their focus is now on DD and acquisition of their new site. PQE also told the market the POSP has served its purpose and focus now on new larger plants. They informed the licensing authorities they don’t intend to mine any more ore at the POSP site.

QFI confirmed Greenfield's focus is now at the new site and the samples currently being evaluated at QRF were obtained from ore trucked in from the prospective new site.

None of the above information supports the view that the POSP will continue operations in any capacity other than short demonstration runs using existing stored ore.

They can always change their minds and do a 180 degree U-turn, but I wouldn’t hold out much hope of that if production at the POSP is what you’re hanging your hat on.

Greenfield obviously have some plans to use msar in the future or they wouldn’t bother getting the samples tested. Being directly linked to the new commercial plant would be massively positive news for QFI, just not helpful in the short term regarding income, but no less of a big deal longer term if they can find a viable market for msar.

The problem with the POSP continuing to operate theory is PQE stated in their recently updated NOI document that they have no intent to mine further ore from the POSP site. How can they operate the POSP continuously without ore?

We were pumped on Twitter by you know who last week. My guess is the SP reached his target and he’s taking his profits, rinse and repeat.

No, they’ve been quite clear it’s most likely east coast USA and will burn msar for the vast majority of time at sea thereby completing LONO quicker than shorter routes.

“@Salinger, I was looking more at inland shipping consuming BioMSAR themselves. But yes, loading bunker barges on inland waterways would be an idea too”
Some way down the line I’d expect. The marine shipping industry represents huge volumes of consumption. One large container vessel uses anywhere between 100 and 150 tonnes per day. MSC have around 700 vessels under ownership/management, with Maersk a similar amount.

Ordinary high sulphur MSAR can only be used on scrubbed vessels whereas low sulphur msar/biomsar (Utah sourced) can be used on the entire global fleet. Check the figures, they’re staggering.

The QFI SP rises on anticipation/cycle of traders jumping in and out. All the guys who are now “loading up” mostly dumped on the recent highs, fair play and easy money.
To my knowledge, QFI have never had an SP jump that corresponded with a news RNS, in other words they don’t leak info.

I want the SP higher but I’d rather it was on the back of commercial progress which would eradicate some of the inherent risk our investment represents.

Yes, and before that it was “weather dependent”. Too many grey statements, it needs doing or as I said below, the pond life are resurrected.
QFI’s very existence depends on being able to create commercial arrangements with fuel producers. When we struggle to achieve that, then it does concern me until I hear otherwise.