Member Info for Salinger

Where it all ends up depends upon the various sectors buying in to msar. Power looked like the easier option but all our opportunities atm do not involve power directly so who knew?
MSC commercial adoption will be a key factor as Jason explained. If they go for it they need a supply hub around the world. With a supply hub we remove the chicken and egg scenario that’s bedevilled us from day one. Any new customer would have supply on tap no matter what sector they were in, so MSC gives us so much more than just being a customer, they are also enablers on a Global scale in terms of fuel availability and supply for others.

If we get customers in all three main sectors then there’s enormous room for growth and quick growth at that. So who’s got the b*lls to hang on all the way up? Hard call to make but nice problem to have!

I’ve never thought a potential buyer would be a customer. Oil major perhaps but just as likely private equity who are always looking for good early opportunities. Any early offer would have to be good enough to lure LTH’s but it may well be that if msar hits it big, it’s a no brainier to go it alone and become a mega profit company, which is exactly how we are structured.

Roll out depends on the number of vessels suitable for burning msar ie more modern electronically controlled engines.
Then there’s the matter of creating several Global fuel suppliers as Jason said from Europe to Singapore.
It takes time to complete the engineering work for each vessel to burn msar so it’s probably years for MSC fleet roll out not months. The main point is their decision to do so, that’s the key for us as it guarantees a huge payout at some point whenever we each choose to sell.

I’m not sure exactly what you refer to HF14, but QFI fuel used on 500 vlcc’s would create an enormous SP well beyond £1. That level of uptake would need several years of roll out so if we are that successful, expect a buy out offer long before we get anywhere near 500 vessels. Getting MSC commercial crucial, it opens the door to the entire marine industry.
This is without the power market and the industrial market! You can see why our company is the potential to be enormous either in its own right, or as a buying opp for larger players who want the income.

All true indigo, but it’s only real when there’s pen on paper, that’s our reality and it applies to all projects. We can of course feel a certain confidence as we are in a better place now than ever before, but we do have to cross the line.

The MSC LONO is slated to start later in Q4 and given its QFI timelines could easily be Q1 2022. There are two main points in the LONO process, one is MSC signing an actual LONO contract (as distinct from the JDA) and on completion of LONO, opting to take commercial supplies. The first part is pretty much a certainty, the second however is not and will be the decision that propels QFI I to a 3 digit SP imo.

lol, that didn’t take you long CJ.

You again!

“I confess, I might have missed something but how do we know it's one other II? Maybe it's 2 or 3 with under 3% each?“

Mike Kirk confirmed at the Q&A there were at least 2.

Would love it to be the Carlyle Group, but probably unlikely. Chances are it will be another ii we’ve never heard of. But to reach 3% they’ll need at least around 50m shares, which doesn’t leave many for the other ii’s who invested.

At least it’s honest Timmy.

Bla bla...

QFI ha e tended to use BP data in their presentations, it’s not new. I’m pretty sure it will be publicly available info but is naturally attributed to them when used by us.
I do t think it tells us anything about whether they are the oil major tbh.

Thank you!

Could you post the link please HF14?

I think the logo refers to the renewables data as belonging to BP and not that BP are connected to BioMSAR. That’s how I see it.

Exactly indigo. Utah as a marine fuel will target non-scrubbed fleets, the premium end of the market. Jason also said BioMSAR would be an option for Utah so we’d have a low sulphur bio blend to suit Maersk and others.

“ And I doubt myself because no one else has voiced my concerns”

I refer you to my post below. Not the first Ive made on this subject. MSAR has always had a problem and that’s been a willing end user, end of.

Elir. Nothing major in terms of the project. Probably just the timescales people expect/hope things to happen. No samples yet. Samples received and results takes 3 weeks, then Greenfield have to formally invite QFI to Utah. Travel time for equipment plus installation and commissioning. Then 600 barrels produced and presumably tested. From this point they them have to find and announce an end user/a for the msar fuel, as yet nobody has mentioned.
Put all the above together, add 50% more time cos that’s how it usually works, and you can see why I’m not seeing Utah before Morocco.
Utah is a great opportunity, but it needs to be proven firstly, then msar comes into play, long way to go there imo.

“ Morocco is shrouded in non disclosures then I can't judge it”

No it isn’t. Kirk spelled out a clear timetable for Morocco which is and has been largely dependent on access due to covid restrictions to their 2 sites.
As things stand, Morocco should be finished trials and in contract negotiations late Q3 or Q4. Not convinced Utah will be there tbh.