Member Info for TechyRob

And I said said earlier - the low sulphur fuel strategy that Maersk and other shippers took has now been widely proven to be a bad decision. This has no doubt contributed to why we’ve now got 2 x imminent shipping LONO trials for which news could land at any moment.

Toby yes it was frustrating, but I don’t see what’s suspect about it. It sounds to me exactly like the actions of a company that simply didn’t want the fuel because they had selected a different strategy, which is exactly what was reported. It took a while for the news to transpire but that’s because Maersk, like every other shipper, we’re playing their cards very close to their chest at the time given the game changing regulations that were coming into play.

The reality is that the trial would have very likely finished if the ship didn’t hit the buoy, but they still wouldn’t be using MSAR commercially as they chose a fundamentally different strategy. I don’t see any cover up or suspicious behaviour from any person or party suggesting otherwise.

Crippin you’ll have to try harder than that, it’s embarrassing.

Obviously I don’t have any inside information as to that status of LONO deals. I do however understand the history of what’s happened to date and I wanted to correct your assertion that there was a far fetched excuse or cover up hiding a reason we aren’t commercial yet.

We have a highly disruptive product that requires massive risk and investment on the client refinery side to produce our fuel in commercial volumes. They won’t want to do this unless they have a guaranteed end user for their product.

We then have the client end user side who similarly need assurance that the product is safe to use on their engines (LONO’s), but in addition to this also they have security of supply concerns. For shipping customers for example you'd really want the fuel to be available at multiple locations across major shipping routes, which would require multiple refineries online and producing the fuel across many locations.

So it’s a complex problem to solve and simply having a good product isn’t good enough, it requires business acumen, politics, a lot of stakeholder management and perhaps a bit of luck to break through and line everything up simultaneously.

As soon as we’re producing this fuel in one location, any location, the chicken/egg question is solved and I expect we’ll rapidly expand from that point. This could either be from Utah, or as a result of the upcoming shipping LONO news where I think we can assume a decent likelihood of another MMU at a different location, possibly Cepsa.

Hope that helps.

What unbelievable excuse are you on about? The Maersk trial ship did hit a buoy but that wasn’t used as any excuse form Maersk or QFI for not proceeding, they clearly stated they instead weren’t interested in the product as they wanted to go down the low sulphur and non-scrubber route. This is widely reported.

There are also plenty of reasons continuing to surface why those companies who adopted the low sulphur route made a terrible business decision. The scrubber route has appeared the clear winner of the two, especially with the low sulphur scandal coming about. We’re now finding ourselves in a phenomenal position to capitalise on the industry panic by providing a significantly cheaper and much more environmentally friendly solution.

.. will come first? Confirmation of received samples and successful residue testing or our new shipping LONO trial?

We are expecting 2 shipping LONO trials any time this month, so we could get a number of significant game changing RNS’ within a very short timeframe. Hopefully Morocco news not too far behind also.

Interesting times ahead!

The recent sentiment change has come at a perfect time. If we get news this week of trials to underpin the rise I think this could take us to top end of single digits, with all other other pipeline projects (Utah etc) only going to add further over coming weeks and months. Come on QFI where’s the trail news!

Maybe this is where the shipping trail contract is - it got lost amongst all the other companies’ post!

Sorry I misread - I thought you were referring to shares currently held by Bergen

I’ve not heard that before - where did you get that data? All I know is they’ve definitely sold down as otherwise they would appear on the major shareholders list, which they don’t. Thanks

We have further secured funding from Bergen which is available to extend our cash runway should we choose it, but MK is playing cards close to his chest currently as with all our imminent news it’s highly likely a increased SP will provide many more funding options on more favourable terms to shareholders.

So just to clarify there’s very slim chance of going ‘bust’ mid Q2 as we have funding options available to extend our cash runway, but we’re holding on for solid news to provide the best outcome for shareholders.

If our SP ever hits $600+ like Tesla’s, I’d probably come up with an obnoxious, narcissistic name for myself too..!

I can barely remember a time when there was news to have even leaked!

That said someone’s obviously confident. I certainly wouldn’t mind them being right and tomorrow getting our shipping LONO trail RNS!

All I’m saying is we had 3 active targets before this year end;

Utah samples - delayed until early new year due to the POSP’s delayed restart, nothing we should hold against QFI. Besides a small slippage no impact on the significance or likely success of the trail.

Green MSAR launch - delivered as planned, the more we learn about this and it’s potential application the more of an exciting product this could turn out to be. Check the forum for more detail.

Shipping Trail - target date for signature before end of year. As of yet waiting but deadline not yet missed.

All looks pretty decent to me so far. I’ll be as disappointed as anyone if they miss the year end shipping trial target but they said year end for a reason. Let’s see what this week brings up.

The last call it was reiterated we expect one trail signed before year end. We’re currently mid December. Don’t see the point of getting all wound about missing a deadline that as of this moment is on track..

Fitzy - yes we’re expecting a new trial agreement with a shipper before year end.

Why the negativity? This RNS hasn’t replaced the upcoming shipping trial news nor does it suggest anything on the POSP isn’t going to plan. Yes the POSP start up is very slightly delayed, which was always a small risk with a start up so close to Christmas, but the overall business case hasn’t changed at all for this opportunity. We’re on track with all of our short term targets so let’s just see what next week turns up - we’ll also no doubt have a proactive interview to look forward to soon to get more detail on the current state of play.

Don’t think we need a crystal ball for this one - they confirmed only 2 weeks ago we’re on track for a shipping trial RNS before Christmas, so tomorrow or early next week is highly likely. They wouldn’t set such a short deadline unless it was already pretty much a done deal.

I’m just hoping there’s a special Christmas present included within the RNS too in for the form of a bio-MSAR trail to really kickstart the product launch.

Also if you’re interested in potential outcomes and SP implications if you look on the QFI Forum there’s a thread called ‘Burble Files’ or similar. This poster did a phenomenal job of linking potential MSAR production levels & different operating models to estimate potential EPS’. Then pick your own P/E ratio to determine what you think would be a fair SP. All makes for an interesting read, if nothing else.

AIUI it will likely be all licensing to begin with as the product becomes more widely established, but in time should this prove successful they have pathways in place to progress with BOO (build own operate) models with the help of the Freepoints of the world which will allow QFI to capture much more of the margin. This is a key component of their long term strategy, but it’s a way-off yet IMO.