Member Info for semaphorRed

It's a very exciting prospect - there are residual organic-sourced oils in various places which are just disposed of at the moment - there's no local market nor is it economically viable to transport them - and blend on board MSAR could unlock the deep value within these calorie-dense by-products.

A lot of this is solid waste that could be liquified and has a comparable energy density to coal, everything from Brewer's spent grain (over a billion tons per year landfilled), nutshell wastes (mostly burned openly in developing countries), citrus/banana peel and coffee grounds - all oil rich and able to be converted to biofuels but currently uneconomical to do so. One thing is certain - there's no shortage of potential liquid biofuels nor a shortage in value to unlock for those with the technology to do so.

@dustofnations (I think you answered my question in your post but just that the question I was asked yesterday was a little more specific about the *same* ship keeping different tanks for different source biofuels)

I was speaking to the head of a nuclear energy hedge fund about Quadrise and he asked a question I didn't know - with blend on board, could a ship bunker different biofuels from different locations, stored perhaps in different tanks and blend each to make bioMSAR Zero? His point was that different locations may have different types of biofuels/bio waste oils given their different climate/geography/agriculture and it may not make financial sense to ship them around the world

"MSC have some concerns over the volume of supply for the future commercial roll-out"

Which is like the 'where shall I invest all my lottery winnings?" concern.

Shorters, especially those who rely on charts (or depressingly rely on trying to sway investors on here) are like punters in the casino. The arc of returns is long, but tends towards bankruptcy.

"There's this little thing called " When the facts change change your opinion or direction...."

Sign of an open mind. Evening all.

"Name me another UK listed company"

As I've said before, this is the very essence of survivorship bias. The many *thousands* of UK companies that failed to assure prompt revenue have gone bankrupt and been forgotten. So the real question is, why haven't we? We've been able to raise money from shareholders in order to continue where so many others couldn't. The answer is our near misses. We've had genuine interest - interest in the form of signed contracts, of expensive trials involving massive ships and (our) fuel burnt from such luminaries as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom of Morocco-owned OCP, Maersk - the then worlds largest shipping company, MSC - the current world's largest shipping company, and Cargill - the world's second largest commodity trader and America's largest privately owned company.

These are just SOME of the counterparties who've demonstrated active interest in us and saved us time and again over two decades when ANY other company would have gone bankrupt and been forgotten about.

Now we've got a world class, experienced CEO, a full product suite to take a consumer from HFO to net zero, a fat pipeline and a binding three way agreement with the world's biggest companies in their fields. Yes, it's taken us a while but by no measurement are we the same company as we were in 2007.

"Tesla took a while."

Both Tesla and Spotify took the same 17 years of operation before showing a profit.

"like watching people rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic and insisting it’s a luxury cruise."

Been there, done that, hit the buoy - just the luxury cruise part left I'm afraid.

"A power plant in Panama isn’t going to sustain this"

But, it literally will. A commercial long term contract with a small power plant like the one in Panama will not only give us our first regular revenue but will be a working example for the world to see - it's almost impossible for an oil fired power plant to convert to MSAR, see immediate savings, no downside and competitor or neighbouring power plants to take a look and say "no thanks, we'll stick to our dirtier, more expensive fuel".

We need a deal. Any deal at all will do.

So, in the share price thread,

Opening price today of 3.19p,

Up 6.3% month to date

Up 19.5% over the last week.

Plodding along nicely.

And a new plug and play product suite that takes the end user from HFO all the way to net zero.

"the London Stock Exchange was ordering the FCA"

Lol it can't "order" the FCA to take a tea break, the FCA regulates the LSE not the other way around. If the FCA does decide to take a closer look at boards like these, I can't see any posts here from anyone being an issue.

"There's a long history:-

BrianSmith100000 ..BANNED

SavilleRow ....BANNED

HaggisMcHaggis ...BANNED

StockCheque ...BANNED"

Indigo.... BANNED

I see he has a Twitter account but I can't trust anything he says in the absence of the word FACT in capitals and the end of each tweet.

Here's the link about our own little Tim

https://url-shortener.me/2Q8O

"Amberbear" is a new, third alias of the same person - you can tell from the consistent two Recommend votes.

Here's the thing: it's illegal for the BoD to lie straight out and we've have 15 long and difficult years but we've observed also that the BoD hasn't lied once. So, we've been told:

MSC are still very interested

MSC are still in constant contact

MSC assume the trial will be a success

MSC signatures for trial have been delayed only because they are keen to work out a supply/bunkering network to take over seamlessly post-trial.

These are the FACTS.

Oh, and Tesla and Spotify made multiple Billion dollar losses for 17 consecutive years each before they made a profit. It's not as unusual as some might have you believe.

"So I want this ship to sink"

And there it is.

If the news is start of trial with - as they've said - a finalised plan for supply after the trial... if that's the news, then astronomical. I keep saying it, but we had 8p not long ago and we haven't had any bad news since to explain the fall - only delay, so there's not much in it between here and 8p.

"I wish I was one of those coming later to the party in nearly all my holdings !"

Oh as do we all! But we can only ever be too early or too late.

Then again, when we get commercial revenue flowing and the share price rises, more and more people here will sell out and there will be a whole new cohort of shareholders, perhaps people who bought in at 50p and are looking towards £1.20.

"Any guesses on what the SP could get to if all your message goes to plan?"

Not really :(

However if we get, for example, a very small regular supply contract, one that just covers the cost of running the business - £3M a year, say - that's a tiny earnings per share - 0.14p per share. And yet, it completely derisks the company, and at the same time demonstrates to the world that the product works in commercial practice. So the question is - baring in mind we've seen 8p recently and 20p (adjusted) in the past - what would the share be worth at that point? Almost no earnings, no profit at all, yet no risk at all and at long last a well to wake proven product.