Member Info for TechyRob

Appreciate your view Vince and the results need to come thick and fast now to rebuild investor sentiment, but from having spoken to Peter at length 2 months ago (summary paper provided two months ago - linked by DoN) and hearing of his general approach, strategy and incredible knowledge of the area we’re operating in, I’m personally convinced we’ve the right man for the job and we will get there.

Peter has also previously spoken about not wanting to release news too early, which the company has been guilty of in the past. He wants to reshape the culture so when an RNS lands it is of tangible progress that has meaning and clear next steps to progression. So I’m still relaxed that we have substantial, tangible news of progress coming soon across what I see as our three critical areas; MSC trial announcements, new shipper trials, and outline refinery agreements.

Vince, PB explained to the extent he is reasonably able what was left to sort out on the contracts in the recent investor meeting that was published earlier this month… “The outstanding elements are not fundamental in nature, but are instead about aligning and compromising on areas where standard practices differ slightly between companies. Quadrise management opined that the outstanding elements were common topics of negotiation in marine contracts, and they were not commercial points of conflict (e.g. not liability negotiations).”

The point being I think he has justification for saying we’re close, but of course we’re reliant on other parties.

Personally I’m hoping for news of trial agreements this week / next week.. but ‘wtfdik’

Whiskey - remember we’re only doing a PoC for MSAR, not a full LONO, as MSC are satisfied with the interim-LONO results. So it’s only a short 6-week test (from memory) for MSAR, not 2000hrs.

The LONO will be for BioMSAR only, but hopefully we’ll be already well into a supply agreement for MSAR by this point.

My understanding is that it wasn’t his call MacF1.

No, but Andy indicated to me they didn’t have plans to RNS the receipt of the payment. QED invoiced the payment which was due end of last month, so I assume it all came through.

Valkor are fully funded now so there are no cash flow issues restricting them, so odds are strongly on us having received payment IMO.

Tbf he’s probably filtered :D

But given the significance of the payment & and the confidence it gives the market that the other payments later this year will follow, I think they will announce it by RNS.

Tomorrow is unlikely as payment is due then, but an RNS on Wednesday would make for welcome reading.

All I can go on is Jason’s word - and he has indicated previously that MSC are comfortable with commercial roll out on the interim LONO basis, following the MSAR PoC - which is the very reason our trials are structured in this way (PoC for MSAR, LONO for BioMSAR). Your points are valid though - one to clarify on the upcoming IMC, questions can be submitted in advance

WhiskeyMan01 it was confirmed 2 years ago ago at AGM 2024. It’s mentioned frequently at meetings since but I’ll share the snippet from the IMC Q&A as I have this to hand. Hope this is useful;

Q5. Once the MSC project PoC is completed. What is the plan for supplying MSAR? Is this dependent on the bioMSAR LONO?

A5. No, supply of MSAR® is not dependent on the bioMSAR™ LONO. We are actively speaking with oil companies and MSC separately regarding the commercial supply of MSAR®, which is covered by the Interim LONO received following the prior vessel test.

Q6. Is it still the plan for a single LONO to undertake the LONO trial on bioMSAR. What about an MSAR LONO?

A6. Yes, it is still the plan to complete the bioMSAR™ LONO, which is the reason for collaborating with Cargill. Successful completion of this LONO trial is a crucial step towards initiating commercial bioMSAR bunker supply operations in the marine sector.

MSAR® is covered by the Interim LONO received following the prior test on the same vessel and the intention is to complete this. They have seen the previous results, and we hope to commence commercial MSAR® supply discussions with MSC once they have had their own experience with bioMSAR™ through the initial Proof of Concept test.

They actually have WhiskeyMan01 - Peter / Jason previously advised the interim LONO already obtained is acceptable to MSC hence why we aren’t doing a full LONO on MSAR but instead a shorter PoC to benchmark BioMSAR performance against but also to check they’re happy with how the fuel handles.

Typo: “his eyes are now set *firmly on* trial execution…”

Coming from Peter this holds a different kind of weight, IMO; “We are preparing for the mobilisation and setting up. We still have a few outstandings on the tripartite between us and Cargill and MSC, but it feels like we are down to items that are now predictable, so hopefully we have something positive to announce soon”.

From his interview it’s also clear his eyes are now set firms only trial execution and fuel supply post-trial - the agreements issue appears to now have become a formality (touch wood).

Looks like we’ve got good things to come in the coming weeks now, rather than the ‘months’ we’ve been used to hearing.

Phil’s role was made redundant following Peter’s appointment to CEO and Jason’s transition to CTO. The company felt given our current size / circumstance we didn’t also need a CCO. I tend to agree.

HF… “you might not fancy the likelihood of the trials happening” as in you might not consider them likely to happen. I’m not passing comment on what I believe your favoured outcomes are.

HF14, I believe it would do that if not more on those signatures.

You might not fancy the likelihood of the trials happening but you can’t deny the scale / value of the opportunity if and when it does.

MadDog - I agree it’s reasonable to ask the question, I’m just saying it won’t make a difference to how the company chooses to communicate and I’d save your efforts.

I’m not suggesting investors don’t have a right to feel frustrated with progress, I certainly do.

Yorkie, they answered those questions in detail at the AGM, I’d save your breath.

Peter wanted the trial agreements signed within 2 months, but he was clear it could take longer, which it obviously has. The team will provide an update when they feel appropriate, I’d save your energy on composing emails which simply wont make any difference. The team won’t give you any sensitive info within a response, and it won’t pressure the company into acting sooner than they otherwise would re: comms.

MadDog, I can tell you from my own experience through private interactions with the new CEO and the rest of the team, that they conduct themselves professionally and give nothing away that is not already in the public domain. 46G has no more an idea of when / if a fundraise will take place than you or I.

Further, if he did have such knowledge, I can absolutely promise you he wouldn’t be sharing any such information with others on a public BB.

In which case I’ll let you make your own deductions as to the purpose of the post at all, especially given we’re only a couple of weeks away from Peter’s target dates.

Q58 response on the latest IMC;

“… we are working to secure agreements covering the MSC trial and one other within the next 2 months.”

To my mind, the target is clearly to have both by end January..