Member Info for Salinger

Couple of points. Maersk would not be responsible for creating fuel hubs for msar, that would be QFI and our refinery partners, so no additional costs to them there.

As for KSA waiting till someone else proves the fuel? I think you’re forgetting this fuel is already proven thanks to a commercial scale trial. It is proven beyond doubt that it works and is more efficient than HFO.
KSA and other major users will need brief trials just to confirm the numbers add up and does what it says on the tin before committing to contracts. This will happen regardless of who uses msar elsewhere.

No, a LONO is the continuous use of a trial fuel over a 4000 hour period, what they’ve done up to now cannot be used to issue a full LONO.

Indeed indigo, approval for use is required via a full LONO.
My comments are uniques to Maersk due to their ownership of the interim LONO data that allows them, if they choose, to operate vessels at their own risk. The way they’d planned to initially while the rainier of the LONO was completed.
An industry wide use of msar will require full LONO but my point really is that maersk could get a huge head start on all of them by using the fuel before it’s officially done it’s 4000 hours.
They could easily just wait and let MSC do it then jump on board, or as I think more likely, they may re-engage with a BioMSAR LONO as a much longer term solution to carbon reduction.

The LONO trial Maersk undertook was, in relation to the use of msar in their engine, entirely at their own risk. They’d previously spent time bench testing the fuel at the Wartsila test facility, then carried out a small proof of concept trial. By the time the LONO started Maersk knew the fuel was basically safe. The LONO covered all areas of fuel storage, use, and staff training to handle the new fuel but the fundamental risk to the engine was borne by Maersk alone. Had the engine shown severe damage at the interim stage they were not insured for repairs.

Given the above Maersk could easily use the fuel on their older electronically controlled engines entirely at their own risk based on the interim LONO data and their experience of using the fuel over several months.
A full LONO would be required to have it officially recognised if others wanted to use the fuel under warranty. My comment was limited to Maersk alone. Maersk original plan (before the imo decided on 2020 rather than 2025 for new sulphur regs) was to begin commercial roll out after the interim, remember IW comment that the “LONO was the first phase of commercial roll out”.
In short, Maersk can use MSAR at own risk (which is very low to zero now) based on their unique knowledge of how to use the fuel on board a vessel.

Maersk would have to restart a LONO from scratch, zero hours. However, they’ve said they have all the data they need to make a decision on using msar, so if they wished, they could use it tomorrow.
Recently QFI confirmed there was interest inBiomsar from previous parties. It’s my view this is Maersk they are referring to and makes perfect sense as Maersk recently announced the 4 fuels they see as potentials for the future. One of these is biofuels. Given the fact msar can be made from 100% renewables, and given their previous experience with us, they may well be back shortly for a BioMSAR trial.

Probably December sometime.

On balance this is positive news today. The “final” Bergen financing and it’s only 25% of what was available. Tells me he has other plans for a fund raise at better terms than these and that he is expecting further significant announcements over the next 3 months before these funding details are announced.

Ultimately a residue free emulsion would have to demonstrate that it’s better than the straight fuel itself, ie what benefit does it add and only testing will confirm. Residue free fuel certainly adds longevity to the QFI investment proposition.

Hedge funds and the like are prominent investors these days, seem to be buying up many back catalogue works of established stars. Easy cash flow and predictable earnings, what we offer is not unlike that model ie licensing our assets.

First interest in buying our company? Any buyer wants in early while long term holders want to maximise their profits. Hopefully it’s a problem we have to face one day.

Hi indigo.
Wouldn’t disagree with any of what you said. My comments of 30p were indeed based on Morocco commercial and MSC and Utah as trials only.
Most longer term investors probably know what QFI will be like with commercial revenues and major clients on board, sky really is the limit if we achieve a fraction of our potential. Just need to close things out this year and enjoy the ride thereafter.

Hi Rob. I think the original discussion mentioned price by year end which was the basis of my reply.
QFI told us the MSC maximum fuel sales is 3.5m tonnes (we’d get a bit less likely) so income should be based on that. Plus, it will take years to roll MSAR out to their fleet so we ha r to also be realistic about when we can expect t full income from MSC.

I’d be delighted with 30p based on a commercial deal with Morocco, MSC LONO started and Utah underway. Let’s see what really happens!

So QFI have not failed to deliver? You can’t spend over 10 years working to commercialise your products without success, and then blame everyone but yourself for the outcome. Really?
I sis the market is not “completely irrational” ie it is irrational at times but within limits. QFI at £3 based on Morocco, MSC trial and Utah @ 500 bpd would be completely irrational imo.

Based on what income and contracts? Morocco at best will fund QFI yearly expenses and MSC will be uncommitted to commercial adoption ie they might walk away like Maersk. Utah at best will be producing 500bpd of which we get a small slice.
The market can be forward thinking but it’s not completely irrational so I doubt if £3 is any where near it tbh. Would love it, but...

Commercial agreements with Morocco and an MSC trial underway + ? , and 30p seems entirely reachable imo.
The crucial factor is delivery. They need to deliver on this and put previous failures to bed, for good!

Agree Utah may be the first to sign a commercial licence deal, but I`m not convinced they will be first to generate commercial revenues. We have focused on the production side of the equation, but it needs the end user and I dont see any evidence that has been dealt with yet beyond general ideas.

Yes Morocco is looking very good. All things going well we should have commercial supply contracts in place just as the LONO trial gets underway. Takes some of the pressure off and underpins the financial position of the company. Wonder what the SP would look like in these circumstances?!!!

I’m sure QFI are targeting medium speed engines first, remains to be seen just how user friendly msar will be on high speed diesels. As Mark Whittle said, they are the engines along with slow speed 2-strokes that their clients use. Think large diesel generators on each of the large container vessels. Millions of tonnes a year burned to generate electricity on board these vessels. Makes sense for them to burn the same fuel on both engines, main and auxiliary.

MK said he used different terms simply to differential between the two trials. Caused more confusion imo.

Split 3 ways for sure, but they never told us it would be an even split!