Member Info for TechyRob

We’re talking about largely basic trial agreement at this moment in time.. it’s not like we’re restructuring fuel supply models for the industry. I doubt world events are playing a significant role for us as things stand.

Peter said by the end of this month he was targeting MSC signatures and another trial with a new shipper. At the very least I’m sure Peter will provide an update end of this month / early next with revised guidance, which I still very much hope and expect to be positive.

By end of January we are targeting (not expecting) announcement of trials with a new shipper and also finalisation of trial sigs with MSC.

Whilst these might be targets, I’ll be disappointed if we don’t get at least one of these over the line. I do however at present expect both to be achieved.

The announced reason for the trial delay was Cargill not having a bunker licence in Antwerp (which was being progressed via a in-person meeting IIRC with Cargill and BTB the same week as the AGM). Won’t be long until we learn of the outcome there - i suspect that’s the domino needed to fall to get everything moving.

Given the bid has dropped I can only assume they were sells

Note I didn’t speak with VBL (that wasn’t a typo), but no reason to think Linda’s forecast wasn’t accurate

Replying to SC;

“On BioMSAR development, he said VBL is about to release our new sustainability report. I think they could be holding back a big bioMSAR update to go alongside that report being released.”

I spoke to Linda briefly after the meeting and concur with others she comes across really well and I’m pleased we have her in the team.

The sustainability report is still a couple of months away from what she told me, and she also indicated to not expect a wildly different report to what we’ve previously seen, mostly updated info from more recent BioMSAR testing / results. So I’m not sure theres a ‘big’ update being held back to coincide with this, but it will be a revised report containing more testing results, all of which continues to be highly promising and sets out our stall for future product offerings.

I feel much more positive on a second listen to the AGM recording. I initially think I read too much negativity into Peter’s wording (“quite good offering”, “quite positive” etc.) which I now think I incorrectly assumed was him being negative. But listening back, some of the key messages were better than I first thought. My takeaways from the day for anyone who’s interested..

- Peter comes across as the right bloke for the job and seems genuinely focused on getting things over the line.

- Disappointed there was little on BioMSAR development which has always historically been our good news story re: easy progress… e.g. zero mention on Focus motor yacht?

- OCP still has some promise whilst ever they’re paying a nominal monthly amount to rent the kit and keep it on site, but if Peter hasn’t heard from OCP management in his first two months, he’s right to question whether to move on. However, YM says they’re still keen to proceed. I see it as 50/50 at this point, and that’s generous.

- Utah is long grass stuff imo. Peter seems to like it, which is encouraging, but history says we’re unlikely to see much progress in 2026 (would love to be wrong).

- Sparkle/Panama is positive but also long grass stuff. We need Honduras to build enough demand to justify an MMU at a refinery, which first requires more trials etc…

- Despite the market reaction, MSC actually sounded positive: Cargill pushing hard, MSC challenging us on post-trial commercial volumes and almost treating trial success as a given. With the extra bilateral agreements needed, January feels tight for me, but I’m left feeling these agreements are odds-on to be signed and are a case of when not if.

- Peter expects another shipper signed with terms agreed before end Q1. Sounds like he’s got a decent line in there, so fair enough he’s confident.

Summary: I think we have some great prospects and we’ve got the right team together just in the nick of time for us to still capitalise on them. Feeling pretty confident and happy to give Peter & team the time and space they need to deliver.

I spoke with Peter after the meeting.

For the avoidance of any doubt - the work ongoing to sign the bilateral agreements targeted for January is NOT dependent on the supply strategy work ongoing with other bunker hubs. This work will take place throughout next year alongside the trial.

Respectfully disagree, as evidenced last year when they outlined the roadmap around the tripartite signatures, which gave the investors a much clearer understanding of progress and a renewed sense of confidence around these being signed (which they then were, v shortly afterwards).

Whilst I agree milestones themselves will not have been hit and held back, there is a lot of progress that can be made in the absence of hitting milestones. I expect this progress to be significant and discussed during the AGM. I’ll be greatly disappointed otherwise.

I’ll go.

The trial will proceed, we didn’t think it was going ahead last year before the tripartite then miraculously appeared. So I think it’s happening, just slowly. Also MAC2 have already prepped their site ready for the trial, so MSC/Cargill wouldn’t just be stringing us along if they had no intention to proceed, it’s these other parties too, which I highly doubt they’d do intentionally. I also believe JM when he says he is having weekly meetings, and progress is still being made. I just don’t see a scenario where we’ve come this far and don’t proceed to trial, frankly. Whether MSC proceed to use our fuel after the trial is another story, but IMO it’s a no brainer for MSC to proceed at this point even if it’s just to add to their public greenwashing narratives.

It’s quoted by JM in the article shared by Vince at the start of this thread.

“Some of the discussions are around commercial scale-up beyond the trial, as this will be a big business going forward, so how can we prepare for this in the future.”

46G, with respect, that’s just AI slop. There’s no critical thinking in almost any of that.

“The next level?? 5p??!!”

I’d be shocked if a man of Peter’s calibre signed up to share options at a price point he doesn’t believe he’ll be able to hit, so yes - I think so.

He’ll have to keep the SP supported well above this level by the time his vesting period is up (next 1-2 years) for him to do anything with the options too.

I think he’ll be making bucket loads off these options when the time comes - I certainly hope so as many of us will be in the same boat!

As has been discussed *multiple times* on this very page - this uncertainty favours transitional, low capex fuels like ours. But don’t let stop a good deramp and/or public whinging therapy session.

I thought there was strong reiteration that the MSC project is progressing (however slowly) and it’s clear progress has been made throughout the year.

I can see why he might have thought the market was reassured by that. Personally I have been. More to come hopefully from the IMC call. QED need to now justify their confidence around MSC progressing - it’s almost a year on from the tripartites, so we’re owed a more thorough explanation.

And as a like for like CPI inflation comparison that puts the equivalent MCap at £525m in today’s money.

A huge proportion of the total shares in circulation are owned by private investors with high averages and sticky hands, who have been in this stock for years waiting for commercialisation. This can lead to situations of supply shocks when good news is released, so hopefully it shouldn’t take us long to get back to a sensible rating of double figures (where many LTI averages still remain) and I suspect, as you say, MSC signatures will be the last barrier to getting us there in the short term.

Pros: New’s is due both this quarter and next, expected to highlight massive progress across all of our major projects

Cons: It’s been this way for…. years

Genuine pro: We’ve recently completed the Panama test and whatever way you look at it, we will actually be getting the results shortly, and history suggests the test will have been successful and create a lot of positive sentiment. Whether that leads to anything like a commercial contract, time will tell.

SC - agreed. Panama certainly appears to be the front runner and to our knowledge is the one project that remains on track. All being well I’m hoping to hear news of significant progress over the next few weeks.

“ You think a contract not being finalised in Q2 means it has *less* chance of being finalised in Q3?”

SR - from my perspective - yes. I apply a lower likelihood of successful conclusion now than I did this time 3 months ago due to yet again missed targets by the team. Unfortunately it evidences they are not in control and their communications are, frankly, unreliable. Why shouldn’t this unreliability extend to whether the signitures will in fact ever be signed?