Member Info for Salinger

Obviously we’d all welcome that scenario if it does play out, but I find it hard to accept the three companies would state one thing definitively in public then about turn and go back to a previous position. It would make more sense to resolve in private and continue as they were.
Currently Greenfield have no licence to operate the POSP and there are issues with ore quality at there, less oil than expected. Factor in the samples received at QRF relate to the new site and not the POSP, then it tends to support my original post below.
Ultimately if msar is used by greenfield to supply customers then it will be a huge success. I just don’t see it in a timeframe that helps our short term needs regarding income etc, but no doubt a positive RNS regarding the samples with something from Greenfield about their intentions longer term would still help to underpin longer term stability.

Your thinking runs counter to all recent information from PQE, Tomco and QFI. I also don`t buy the gamesmanship theory, that also makes no sense if they want to test MSAR at the POSP, if they did then the time to do it was when it was operational under Greenfield. As long as the new tar sands samples convert well to MSAR, as they will, then there`s no real doubt about it working.
It`s very hard to get past the Tomco/Greenfield RNS of 2nd July where they stated publicly that their operations at the POSP were complete and focus moved to the new site. Also George Stapleton video where he said the POSP had served its purpose and time to move to 5k plant etc. He speaks for the owners so he should know what their plans are.

Given the actual evidence, its now much more likely any future MSAR tests and production will be at the new tar sands site currently being appraised for DD by Greenfield. Any further use of the POSP by the above mentioned companies would require a complete 180 degree about face. Not likley, if it happens it`s clearly in our interests but I don`t have any confidence such a scenario will play out.

Of course it was taken from the POSP, where else could it have been taken? You do know Greenfield trucked in ore from their new tar sands site right? That’s where the samples came from, ask MK, he’s confirmed it.

“Salinger

"It should also be telling that the samples are from the new tar sands site and not the POSP ore!"

Are you going to apologise for misleading the BB?”

You are the one who needs to apologise. I misled nobody. MK said the samples were taken from the POSP not the POSP ore. He has already confirmed the oil samples relate to the new tar sands site. It’s painful, do you not read what’s out there? You will note he did not mention anything about an MMU and production at POSP, suggest you go back and do some reading Fyoz.

What input do you have to offer numbnuts, is that it? Pretty consistent in that case.

“ Pure genius”

Maybe. Their are the people with all the facts, and if they decide to take the route they’ve declared then that’s it regardless what we may think is logical.
They couldn’t achieve 250 bpd at the POSP largely because the ore had a much lower oil content than expected. Barrels per day depends hugely on oil content within the sand.

The decision has been made and it’s out there, sadly it runs counter to what we’ve been told and many assumed but I’m pretty certain QFI will not be producing msar at the POSP.
Is it really in any doubt they can produce msar there? If they can make msar from the samples then it’s a given, in any case, it’s clear dromMKs comment on the last RNS he has his sights set on the new plant too.

Well you’d think the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Greenfield and PQE both say the same thing, they’ve moved on is by far the most logical interpretation of what they’ve announced. Anything other is desperation and failing to accept what’s happening before your eyes.

There’s not been a single comment from any party after July 2nd which suggests the POSP will continue to be used. If you look at the evidence it’s pretty convincing to me that attention is now on due diligence at the tar sands site, funding the 5k plants and getting them built.

If you’re personal rule is 100% certainty then I’d wonder why you invest on AIM. Nobody has stated the POSP is profitable. The figures relate to a new 5000 bpd plant, not the current setup. The technology is proven and they want to move to commercial plants now rather than divert themselves running the POSP.
What MK writes or says is irrelevant, Greenfield and PQE, those actually involved as owners and operators have made the situation perfectly clear.
Why not ask QFI when the MMU is due to cross the Atlantic?

“Where is your information that it's dead?”

The Tomco RNS dated 2nd July confirmed Greenfield are finished at the POSP and now focused at their new tar sands site.

George Stapleton, CEO of Petroteq said in a video today that the POSP had served its purpose and it’s now time to build the 5000 bpd plant. They have sufficient proof to sell commercial licences.

Nobody in PQE or Greenfield is talking about using the POSP, on the contrary it is mentioned now as having served its purpose. I don’t know how it can be any clearer.

The quotes you mention are all QFI and are out of date because they were made prior to the announcement of July 2nd Tomco RNS. Greenfield are not now applying for a licence extension at the POSP, they’re finished and have moved on.
It should also be telling that the samples are from the new tar sands site and not the POSP ore!

“Does that mean that the 5 barrels of samples have to be returned to Tomco”

The oil sample is from Greenfields new tar sands site, not the ore found near the POSP. There are no confirmed plans for the POSP to restart and in any case as has been said before, it’s PQE not Greenfield who will operate it if ever it restarts. The CEO of PQE said the POSP had “served its purpose” and Greenfield confirmed the same and now focus elsewhere. QFI interest in msar at the POSP is dead.

Normally a warrant holder would only exercise their right to purchase the shares if the share price at time of purchase significantly exceeds the warrant price, ie at a discount.
I’ve not seen a similar RNS from QFI before so does this suggest preparation for a future time when the SP is multiples of today, or is it simply internal admin?

Most of the warrants expire in September 2022 and are only relevant if the SP exceeds the warrant price imo. So whilst it’s probably procedural, I do find it interesting nonetheless they do it now, why now, why not after they issue an RNS that boosts the SP?

Agreed Elir, there’s nothing like referring potential customers to existing customers and showing them how well it works and the economics in the real world. We’ve needed that from day one, just haven't achieved it for various reasons. Morocco could be that customer if we ever get the trials done!

Well in essence it is simple, we have a willing trial partner but we need a fuel supplier. The oil refining market at the moment is not behaving as it usually would due to the disruptive effects of covid that has significantly narrowed the spread between diesel and HFO, the area that makes msar profitable for a refiner.

When the market says yes the refiner will hopefully say yes and then it would be game on albeit somewhat later than planned.
All of this information is publicly available from QFI.

The main issue QFI has faced in making progress is that nobody is using our fuel. In these circumstances I fail to see how an advertising agent or sales whizz kid is going to help. It’s not tomato ketchup after all, it’s a commercially unproven (in real life use not tests) fuel so who in their right mind would buy it?
That’s why our team strategy is the only one that makes sense in the circumstances, work hard to get a few customers over the line and let the product prove itself on a commercial basis. Thereafter what you have to offer is a proven cheaper cleaner fuel, derisked and now commercially available from suppliers. After all, you can’t offer fuel for sale unless you have it in the storage tank. It’s not in the tank because there’s no demand.
Morocco, and MSC if successful, is all the PR this company would need, we’d be over the line and quite frankly disappearing over the horizon in terms of SP increases.
We are clearly going through a pivotal phase right now, with market issues in terms of msar financial benefits for refiners not being what they were due to Covid disruption. This should improve in the future but it’s no doubt making it much harder to get a refiner signed up. It may even take the rest of this year to do so, but the critical point is getting that signature, from there things will move as we want.

Who knows? As I said, QFI currently have no commercial relationship with PQE, that may change but it certainly cannot be the route described to commercial income in H2 2021.

I never said that HF. The comment you refer to was made in the QFI IMC on 30th June. Tomco announced Greenfield were finished at the POSP on 2nd of July. Their “focus” was now on the new tar sands site.
Shareholders can make their own minds up regarding your question about MK. The point is, how can QFI produce msar at the POSP when Greenfield no longer operate it?

“@Salinger, "They've made that quite clear"
please cite your source of this information”

Tomco RNS of 2nd July, it’s as clear as day what they’re saying. Also, you’re understanding of msar being produced in a continuous process at the POSP is just that, your understanding. Show me where QFI have stated this was our plan?

They’ve never done that, it’s shareholders who’ve made that assumption. The agreement was for a 600 barrel test. That test will not now go ahead at the POSP as the Tomco RNS explains. They have all they need there and have moved on to their own site development where any msar production will likely take place.
We don’t have commercial agreements with PQE who own the POSP, and as far as it looks, there’s no licence at present for the POSP to operate and Greenfield have no plans to apply for one, they don’t need it anymore.

Simples, they’re not.

The POSP is no longer part of Greenfields plans, they’ve made that quite clear. With that in mind there really is no rush for the samples as MSAR May/will be produced at the new tar sands site, probably 2 years down the line.
The samples concerned relate to ore from the new site not the POSP, that should explain everything about future plans.

Hi Tidetime, didn’t see your post. Yes for a complete LONO it does require 4000 hours. However, as in the maersk scenario, an interim LONO will give MSC a clear steer how things are going. They could decide that things are very good and essentially start the roll out process whilst LONO completes, remember it’s an engine manufacturer requirement to do 4000 hours but operators can choose to begin other works prior to issue of LONO if they believe it’s going well and crucially they have plans to use the fuel in their fleet. We shall see what transpires.