Member Info for semaphorRed

"I think it's fair to assume this was the usual optimistic oxcrement from our bumbling executives?"

Probably just passing on what they were told by the other parties

"Why pay a lot of money for a QEM test unless they were serious about a trial ?"

Is this how it works, I have no idea? Also:

What's the point of it (if they're having and have had onsite trials anyway)?

The OEM of what? The engine. The kiln?

Is there going to be a further industrial test post OEM positive feedback? Where? Why?

Maybe. The combination of nationally owned companies and Arab business practice doesn't make for agility. I've had experience of both. When I was a kid I worked for the NHS in accounts payable doing double entry book keeping in summer holidays from uni. The level of rank inefficiency I witnessed was stunning. There were maybe 20 people in the room and the majority of the activity was cigarette, tea and toilet breaks punctuated with sick leave and annual leave and there were a lot of very small company suppliers who just didn't get paid from one year to the next. Decision making was slow to the point it looked like it wasn't happening at all. But it was, just instead of hours and days it was months and years.

Arab business practice is the same - my experience is, in particular, with a retail bank in Jeddah owned by more distant members of the royal family. Again, profit motive seemed to be low, trying to get things like a new web UX designed was like wading through muck. They got there in the end but really, I could have done what took them a year in a week.

Also...do we know who the OEM is? Because if we're waiting for the OEM I think it depends on them rather than OCP.

"Otherwise it's all a 'paper profit' which realises nothing."

I'm not sure about this, never have been. If an investment is liquid and you *can* sell it (whenever you want and at the current price) then isn't profit, profit? If you have some houses and they double in price, you're richer. You don't need to sell them. I know a lot of people disagree with this.

"And you are a Sanctimonious , Narcissistic Twt."

And you are so obsessed with me you memorised the exact number of shares I said I had 7 years ago. You're also absolutely obsessed that I've had more than one account on this board and like to mention my previous username like it's a gotcha.

That's genuine stalker behaviour Vince, it's creepy!

"The report highlights methanol’s rapid progression, with more than 60 methanol-capable vessels already in operation," "So Indigo...yes ...they are."

No, Vincent, they're not. These methanol ships (low energy density, expensive fuel, expensive to retrofit) are almost *entirely* ECA and short distance ships like RO-RO/ferries replacing MGO rather than HFO. Methanol is never/almost never used to replace HFO - nothing is. Only MSAR/bioMSAR can be used to replace HFO without expensive retrofitting which is what the vast majority of global shipping continues to use, because, still, there's no other replacement.

"they are actually using Ammonia, actually using Methanol"

No, they're not.

I'll answer my own question:

the percentage of global shipping fueled by ammonia is effectively 0%. While there are pilot projects and a few ammonia-fueled vessels in development (e.g., a tugboat in Japan and planned vessels by 2026), the shipping industry still relies almost entirely on fossil fuels, with over 99% of its energy consumption coming from fuels like heavy fuel oil, according to 2021 data from the International Energy Agency.

"fill the headlines"

Greenwashing. They're not actually being used in any real quantity. Many require obscenely expensive retrofits or new builds. There's dozens of green fuel articles a day. That's not relevant. How much, as a percentage of nautical miles travelled per TEU globally, does ammonia fill as a fuel?

"judging by the sea of green I'm seeing, the nutcase (and his many-personalities) is busy again"

How awful for you the_adams - a sea of green is second only to your greatest fear, a sea of blue.

"I also stated the 3 major projects had been delayed which is a fact"

No, you said they were at a standstill. Completely different, and yet another lie from you.

"I wonder what he will be actually doing as the 3 main projects are at a standstill."

But they're not and you keep saying this over and over. I appreciate someone being frustrated by the facts of the delays, I can imagine someone holding a stock and being overexuberant to the point where what they say isn't supported by evidence but I simply can't wrap my head around someone who owns shares in Quadrise and day after day posts negative things about the company that just aren't true. Why would you do that?

Communication with Cargill and MSC is ongoing as it was in 2024 when that communication was followed by a binding agreement, Sparkle is off to the races - why haven't you posted anything positive about the uncontroversially good news regarding Sparkle?

"If you think the start of the trial is due to lawyers not signing off tthe bilateral agrement's you must be incredibly naieve."

The delay on the trilateral agreement - most of a year - was due to exactly this, as announced and confirmed to the market.

Fwiw, Jason, if you're listening: you're always welcome to watch QI with me over buttered crumpets and horlicks

"Why do you think we were told the agreement was 'imminent'?"

Hi. Can you provide the source where that word was used to refer to either of the bilateral agreements please?

"I have a bad feeling this RNS was rushed out in response to 46G disclosing various information on the public BBs"

I haven't seen anything that could be disclosure of non public market sensitive information on *this* board - did he do so elsewhere? Jason, for all his loveable grittiness, could conceivably done so but from what I know of Andy, he's too professional to be bamboozled by the Royal Garden Party.

They did bury the lede, I've seen it before from them, I think the RNS was rushed in response to a rash of IR emails and because those emails were about MSC they thought to address that first.

So I believe that each of our formulations (each feedstock) is a different standard which is why we need LONOs for ships. bioMSAR from CSOs is different from bioMSAR from lignins

"The Astroturfer-in-Chief on full ramp today I see. Pity the market has him on filter!"

I thought you did?

"Rest assured communication with MSC/Cargill remains ongoing. "

Just received now as part of a larger email (but this was the only pertinent information). So nothing's "gone cold".

"Sounds like MSC is a non starter"

Panicky nonsense. They only just signed a binding agreement which took them a year or more. I'm not surprised at the lack of speed now.