Member Info for Salinger

Try looking at many/most other AIM stocks, not to mention the FTSE 100 companies. It’s not shares in issue that matters but the value of those shares. Buy back would not be remotely necessary, if successful it’s better to pay dividends if they have the spare cash.

However, this is miles ahead of where we are now and tbh a nice problem to have if it’s a toss up between dividend payments or share buy back!

Everything is Tee’d up, now they have to deliver. Successful commercial deal with Morocco by years end and we will be very well set up for MSC trials and what follows. Utah for me would be a thick layer of icing on the cake.

Look at you all Flashy!!

It’s not a contest, so there should no need to “yield” anything, certainly not hard earned certification. I have no qualification in this field, but I have read what QFI say about it in some. I find it makes sense to me.

Like many things in life, to get optimum performance you have to compromise in some areas (think F1 engineering)to get what you want. Emulsion fuels clearly work more efficiently than non emulsion which is largely due to complete fuel burn, also the loss of energy caused by the water boiling is partly offset by the expanding vapour so not all the energy is lost, just transformed into steam which is useful.

Of course they’re related, you need temperature to create ignition and expansion but it’s a question of degree (pardon the pun). The other factor is the water turning to steam shatters the already small droplets of fuel allowing for an almost complete carbon burnout, ie no valuable fuel is ejected unburned via the exhaust as happens with other fuels.
So all fuel burned makes it very efficient and the complete burnout means no black soot.

Tidetime

It’s pressure caused by expanding gases that pushes the pistons down not temperature per se, seems counterintuitive but it’s works as stated. The water turns to steam thereby lowering the temperature (and Nox emissions) but also creating pressure ie water vapour that helps force the piston down.

That’s my understanding of it.

Standard MSAR, calorie for calorie with HFO, produces similar CO2 emissions, the same Sox emissions, around 30% less Nox and negligible large particulate matter (black soot). It still produces the micro particles which cause breathing problems around the world.
MSAR in truth is a relatively small but welcome step along the road to clean energy, but BioMSAR seems like a big jump, lowering CO2 by 30% as well as the other benefits listed, and I’m sure they can improve in these numbers.

Here’s hoping all the tests confirm it’s suitability in medium and large 4/2 stroke engines and we can source enough renewable glycerol to make the stuff.

MMgames is a “Booooom!!!” boy, he can’t read your advice.

Stating the obvious perhaps, but we should remember there were other ii companies who bought shares in the recent placing but remained under the 3% level. They, and perhaps even those above the 3 % level, are maybe selling a few to hedge their bets and recover some of their investment. Not everyone sees QFI as a long term hold. It will probably take a few months for it settle down and a more positive trend develops Northwards with news to underpin the SP. Without positive development news then all you have is sentiment and this company has had way more than its share of that over the years, doesn`t work the same now!

There was a 1.3m sell at that price around 3.37. Someone in a rush to sell.

Indeed Wonga, life moves in mysterious ways! :)

Most of the time long termer`s spent waiting was wasted by the company. Their recent conclusion that KSA are "followers" not innovators and that their internal structures are not really suited to the MSAR value proposition, was complete confirmation our time was wasted. Ten years and counting QFI wasted trying to sell "sand to the Arabs", while ignoring other smaller opportunities in the process.
There was logic in aiming high with KSA, but not if you already knew how their internal fuel market works and the fact they`re not innovators, which QFI did know at that time, nothing really changes quickly in KSA!! Not saying KSA should have been ignored, but Iain Williams should have widened our interests into the areas Mike Kirk did when Maersk walked away. Williams was so confident he`d get both KSA and Maersk that he simply didn`t bother with others. Bordering on negligence imo.
This is not hindsight speaking. From what Kirk said recently, they knew this about KSA from day one virtually yet still kept most of our eggs in the same fragile KSA basket, all during a time of high SP value and when the company had around £10m funding in the bank. The above is not the fault of Mike Kirk, he inherited the problem.
Although we do have a long history trying to market MSAR, its really only since Kirk arrived and Maersk failed that we even tried to market MSAR to the wider world. Williams was the problem imo and it cost the company dearly in terms of time to get our product to market.

In terms of oil in water emulsion fuel (what QFI does) there is none, nobody else does this and QFI have exclusive access to Nouryon chemicals used to produce it. There is another fuel called water in oil emulsion which is different. It creates an emulsion at the point of actual use at the engine. This is made using HFO and water, mostly it does not involve chemicals. The user gets a more efficient and cleaner burn, but because it’s HFO there are no cost savings, in fact it’s a cost plus process, ie more expensive than just burning the HFO.

MSAR uses the cheap residue, water and chemicals to create a cheaper and better fuel than HFO. BioMSAR goes further and replaces some of the residue with renewable glycerine thereby reducing CO2 and other pollutants.
QFI fuels have never had a better time to find a market, if we can’t do it now we truly never will and MSC seem quite keen. We shall see how it unfolds.

I’m sure we all believe you! Same garbage you spout on every board.

Just to b clear, refineries refine clean oil, they do not refine oil laced with sand and clay. It must come to them at a certain standard, they then do a final clean to remove the last remnants, not designed for cleaning polluted oil, they won’t accept it as it will clog their entire system.
PQE has done this before to an acceptable standard as their local refinery has happily accepted their oil. Either something has changed (sand source) or they can’t balance the equipment well enough to get the desired outcome, yet.

Seems obvious, but if it were that simple we wouldn’t be having this discussion would we.
PQE has a process that was developed to deal with oil sands, which also hold amounts of clay to varying degrees.
They recently moved location for source material so maybe this stuff has more clay than their process is used to? Let’s not forget, it’s about getting the oil at the cheapest possible cost, getting it is easy if you throw money at it but making it profitable is what it’s about

Refineries do clean crude oil they receive but not to the extent of removing large levels of clay/sand/water. They will have limits within which any crude is acceptable and if outside that spec then you don’t get a sale.
There’s obviously an issue with Utah and they probably can’t get the finished product they want/expect in a cost effective way. They need this time to figure it out, they have to. Unless they can produce high quality oil for refining or msar production then the whole project fails.
Perhaps the current source of oil sand is not what they’ve used before and is harder to clean? I don’t know, but they clearly need time to sort it.

“Next step for MSC project is the MOU once that in the bag then things are looking brighter”
There will be no MoU with MSC. We have a much superior joint development agreement already. Next step will be signed contracts between QFI, fuel producer, and MSC to officially undertake a detailed LONO of 4000 hours.

Can’t argue with facts. I’m not aware of any posters recently who said this is a sure bet or low risk investment, it’s AIM ffs and we know the company history. Also this is a BB where people talk amongst themselves whilst waiting for news. Discussing future scenarios seems a reasonable thing to do. Future valuations are predictions based on an assumed set of facts at an assumed point in time, lots of assumptions in there!
Of course it’s high risk but many/most long term holders will have averaged down over the years because they still think it’s worth the risk. A personal choice we all face and accept. Every now and then a minnow makes it huge on AIM and some have been mentioned recently. For me, QFI and their unique products seem to fit the market at this point in time so have a really good chance of making it commercially. How big it gets is guesswork but there’s worse ways to spend your time.

Optimism is only dangerous when it’s blind, and not based on reality. Yesterday’s discussion was not that, indeed it was based on specifics, ie IF MSC go commercial, the number of vessels involved etc, all things rational investors should be considering. MSC either will or will not decide on commercial use of msar. Right now all the indications from them and the industry suggest they probably will do just that. Given the size of the market and it’s competitive nature, others would then follow.
None of the above is wishful thinking and certainly not dangerous, though I see from Mannu’s posting history he’s less than an optimist. Though I do find it a bit rich that it’s ok for him to spend lots of money averaging down yet he’s warning others about doing likewise, very strange given our prospects have not been better and our SP has never been lower in such circumstances, go figure.