Member Info for Salinger

Indeed, and there’s no clear explanation for why the trial hasn’t yet started. It needs to get going soon or we’re in for new cycle of doubt and garbage from the usual suspects.

Indeed, just amend the recipe and store in separate tanks.

MSC have prioritised Biomsar for the first LONO test due to start early 2022. The POSP samples are being tested to produce Biomsar alongside standard msar.
No guarantee of a connection between the two, but it’s highly likely the LONO trial will run between the Med and the US east coast, so possibility is there that the new Greenfield site could supply commercial low sulphur Biomsar post LONO.

“not necessarily transport to the coast, but to an inland waterway”

The fuel still has to get to the huge ships waiting at the coast, there’s a cost attached to that however it gets there.

The best comparison is to look at the price of low sulphur fuels available today for the marine fleet. Marine diesel, low sulphur fuel oil etc. VLSFO spot price is around $500 per tonne right now equating to about $80 per barrel.

MSAR made from Utah bitumen would be classed as very low sulphur fuel oil and sell at a premium to Heavy fuel oil but slightly cheaper than low sulphur marine diesel.
Utah fuel would have added costs associated with bulk transportation to the coast, no idea what that would be.
QFI slice of the pie is likely between $1 - $2 per barrel of finished fuel oil, not a huge amount but this would be licensing mode.

There is a huge market in the marine industry for low sulphur fuel and Utah has the added advantage of having zero refining costs, replaced by a $2 per barrel fee to QFI. This is why Steve Byles approached QFI, they are the best route to maximum profit from minimum input, the finished product is produced at the point of oil production.

“Which I guess is Xylene based.”
Wrong. It will be a low sulphur, emulsified bitumen. MMU on the end of a process pipe producing MSAR fuel for ships and industry, that’s real value. No refinery or transport costs. That’s why Steve Byles came to QFI.

Obviously the SP is better higher than lower but if it’s simply another part of the sell/buy cycle we’ve been going through, then it’s meaningless and will be so until we get confirmation of commercial developments with Morocco and MSC. QFI has been a traders dream for years, benefitting only those who partake in it. LTH’s deserve their day, soon hopefully.

No question the BioMSAR results are ground breaking. What we don’t have is a clear idea of the refiner. MK gave the timeline of “this year” for agreements which suggests they’re not particularly confident of a Q3 breakthrough.

These results and MSC leverage may help Cepsa commit to the LONO supply. Interesting few moths ahead that’s for sure.

Suggest you research QFI RNS etc from the company website. The history of msar development and testing is too long to sum up in a few posts.
The fact Maersk used it for around 1300 hours on a commercial container ship and received an interim LONO should tell you the basics; it works well and doesn’t harm the engine.

Nope I don't have to put up with it, filtered ya doorknob.

I understand your comment is probably tongue in cheek but I don't think “tree huggers” are our problem, especially when this process reduces significantly CO2 emissions which is what they’re shouting for.

Fair point indigo, if initial use of biomsar is as successful as we think possible, then MSC would certainly initiate sourcing alternate supply via QFI and our partners. Who knows, if it becomes a go to fuel then large oil companies could even become involved. There are other sources of fuel like lignin which QFI are also currently looking at.
We can be confident also that successful biomsar should help pave the way for normal msar to get into ships and make us some real money.

Don’t think you could ask for a better result from testing. Hopefully this opens the door to the BioMSAR LONO announcement.
Co2 is a huge reduction but 7% more efficient is a major development given the cost of biofuels are much higher than standard fuels, should really help make BioMSAR even more competitive and compelling.

Msar does burn at a lower temp due to the water turning to steam, which is why the Nox reduction occurs.
This issue has been argued over for years. The fact the fuel works as well as it does, proved itself as viable to Maersk and at Orlen, not to mention 60 million tonnes of Orimulsion confirms it’s viability is not seriously in question.

The crucial point in the equation is that around 40% more msar is injected into the cylinder than normal HFO which ensures the same calorific value is maintained during combustion. Lower temperatures but very similar outcome in terms of power produced. There is no unburned and therefore wasted fuel blown out in the exhaust (black smoke) which is why msar is so efficient.

Why do you come on this board Piggy? Don’t feel you have to.

Agreed, but a hero to some. He’s a trader, jumps on an off the merry go round whilst conducting the orchestra.
I have no issues with the trading part, it’s a free country but conducting the orchestra is manipulative.

I’m afraid a couple of weeks or months is likely an underestimate. These are different fuels and will have different requirements. If the team need “x” months to organise one LONO they will need similar for the second, logistics and manpower etc. For Maersk, QFI employed 3rd party engineers to work for us so in my mind it’s do one and then repeat the process.
Also, and much more importantly, it’s up to MSC if they want to repeat the process. They may decide it’s biomsar only. Not what we want but it’s their decision based on economics and PR. I hope they pick both but they may simply select biomsar and ride the PR wave it produces.
There are still so many variables that it’s impossible to workout where this is going. Only when we get an RNS detailing the work agreed will we know the intent of MSC and their future plans. Couple of months at least before we hear for sure is my estimate.

“ theres no reason why the trials couldnt run in parallel”

You have no idea if that’s true. It took the entire QFI team plus contractors to get the Maersk LONO underway. Our team is small, the idea they could do double the work in the same time seems to me highly unlikely to say the least.

MK said BioMSAR “first” so that tells you they won’t be in parallel, probably for several reasons not least of which is manpower.

No, biomsar will require it’s own LONO as far as I understand it. It’s a different fuel to conventional msar, containing glycerine and residue rather than just residue alone. Which is why MK referred to biomsar being the “first” LONO MSC want to focus on.
In my view, QFI are undergoing a major shift of emphasis away from conventional msar and into biofuels. Our team regard that as our future, is how it looks to me and it may happen much quicker than expected if demand remains high, which all indications seem to suggest will be the case. The marine industry as a whole seems to be trying to shorten the transition to carbon neutral fuels (not at all easily doable) and our team probably see biomsar as our stake in that market using whatever ingredients they can access and prove up. It’s a fluid future for sure!

Turning bitumen into msar is already proven and will likely supply the Morocco trials from Norway, so it’s not an issue for this project, assuming sediment and water content are within acceptable parameters.

The more important aspect I believe are the assays. They will help inform whether Utah bitumen is suitable for marine use, which is potentially the most lucrative market medium term. Low sulphur msar/biomsar once LONO’d would be very valuable to Greenfield and QFI indirectly.