Member Info for TechyRob

IMO the retail offer is likely to be heavily oversubscribed. I don’t know anymore than the next person, but I doubt people will achieve much more than a 1/25 share allocation as this will be scaled back substantially relative to people’s desired amounts.

The comms from the company has been poor around the mechanics of the retail raise and the share allocation, and the IMC did little to clear anything up. I hope long term retail holders haven’t oversold, hoping to secure shares at 3p, only to receive a fraction of this and then have to buy back in at a higher price.

Couldn’t agree more Red.

I really hope retail investors don’t oversell thinking there will be no limit to the OO. I’m so upset with the company for not being more transparent about how the excess will work and what will likely be available. Many retail investors could come out of this badly.

i believe they did offer but the ii’s / private investors wanted in at 3p. which is fine, they drive a hard bargain. but don’t then increase that **** deal by 50% more than you’ve identified is required.

and lowlife is bang on. what’s stopping the market falling to 3p now as investors sell their shares and hope to apply for them all back via an excess allocation ?

this oo is a complete **** show and given the circumstances should never have been a part of the raise. it should have been ii / private investor only. all this does is hurt us much more.

So when most people have their shares in an ISA which is likely maxed out in the last quarter of the financial year how do they do this without selling? I certainly can’t.

This OO is nothing short of ridiculous. They’ve shafted us with the ludicrous raise at 3p. Pathetic. And all this paltry OO will do is suppress the SP for even longer whilst giving negligible benefit to any actual long term holder of this company.

Broadly 1/50 shares we’re now eligible for after diluting us ~10% for only £4.5m? It’s nothing short of a joke. The board should be embarrassed with how they’ve gone about this.

I’d expect regular updates now on the Mac2 site prep too as this is underway. I doubt it will be RNS’able but linkedin updates / pictures will be great for shareholders to follow.

Don’t know what’s going on with the message cutting off, but basically the sustainability report says

“We are optimistic about the potential of our project with Valkor in Utah as it begins production of ultra-low sulphur heavy oil from its initial pilot wells. The oil can be transformed directly into ultra-low sulphur MSAR® and meet the compliance requirements of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) without energy-intensive refining.”

Looks like Utah samples have been received / tested too possibly.

From the AGM Question 16:

What grade of marine bunkers is being targeted by the Utah project. Valkor suggest MGO and not lower grades?

We are still waiting to receive representative heavy sweet oil samples from Valkor that have undergone their upgrade and treatment process. These are expected to be received before 2024 year-end.

If the sulphur content of the treated HSO is reliably

I’ve asked Jason previously about this barking and he said the two are independent. I had originally thought the same, but the sample testing is not linked to the initial $1m release.

8) might be rolled into this, but if not, also;

9) publication of the 2024 sustainability report

A lot of new faces here. For those that find it useful - I’ve written a small note below on why MSC are interested in BioMSAR and why, IMO, this product is such a game changer.

Quadrise’s emulsion tech enables biofuel derivatives like glycerine (a waste byproduct of biodiesel production), sugar oils, lignins, and other similar materials—lots currently being tested—to be incorporated into BioMSAR. These materials are normally too difficult or even impossible to use directly in engines and industrial applications for many reasons (eg viscosity, stability issues, generally poor combustion properties etc). They are, therefore, abundant and cheap. BioMSAR can utilise these materials (which otherwise wouldn’t have a noteworthy place in the biofuels market), producing a biofuel that can be used in existing engines and industrial applications, all whilst offering a significant cost advantage by undercutting the expensive biofuels currently dominating the market.

QED’s emulsion tech also improves engine efficiency compared to traditional fuels and standalone biofuels. This is due to the bioMSAR water content, which lowers combustion temperatures (reduces NOx emissions), and the fine droplet size of the fuel, which enables more complete and efficient combustion - essentially burning as “cleanly and efficiently as a gas”, one of QED’s key marketing messages.

Customers also have the flexibility to customise how “green” they want their fuel to be. Quadrise’s emulsion tech allows HFO to be blended into BioMSAR, giving users the ability to balance cost and sustainability by choosing how much HFO / biofuel to include.

It’s a bloody good product.

Wrt whether or not a meeting is required: It was clarified post-meeting with Jason that no further face-face meetings are required with Cargill/MSC, which infers that it will be in fact electronically signed as per speculation on this thread.

HF - typically it’s the first fully week in October QED release their results, so don’t be surprised if this is the week after next instead (Monday 7th Oct)

Correction - I meant to say the development cost info was taken from the HSO DOGM docs.

The Lafayette IPO docs include full development case cost assumptions, with predicted costs of approx $45/bbl (opex, taxes and royalties) across the life of their wells. Their website now also states a sale price assumption for MSAR marine fuel at 150% of WTI (approx $100/bbl).

Even if you consider those assumptions optimistic, a $10/bbl share to QED doesn’t feel unreasonable in these circumstances.

Great news thanks. Valkor, HSO & the Utah lot sure have plenty of oil to go at that’s for sure, considering their initial drilling programme consists of ~135 wells, and this single well has an EUR of 300k barrels.

“ the HSO 2-4 well, which is approximately 1,390 feet deep, has an estimated ultimate recovery (“EUR”) of 300,000 barrels of oil with an estimated initial production rate of approximately 40 barrels of oil per day. ”

Lots of potential, as ever. Come on Jason.

Thanks Jez. Makes for interesting reading and suggests Cepsa would be good partners for us again going forwards. Let’s hope this is the case.

Does this sound familiar….?

“ Samir Fernández, director of Marine Fuel Solutions at Cepsa, commented: “We are delighted that second-generation biofuels are now being harnessed by the cruise industry as they embark on their decarbonization journey. Marine fuels can be used in ships without the need for modifications to their engines, and they have a high potential for reducing CO2 emissions compared to conventional fossil fuels, achieving a reduction of up to 90% throughout their life cycle, which makes them an ideal immediate solution.””

The Chairman and CEO of Ineos is a chemical engineer. They’re pretty successful I’d say?

Nothing incorrect about my statement Wonga, as you know. OCP are continuing to trial MSAR for the purposes of expanding their future MSAR supply, and this is separate to the presently ongoing commercial activities. But of course you know this, but it doesn’t suit your narrative.

You might have forgotten the major entity and consumer of HFO in Morocco, OCP, who we have completed extensive trials with and who have confirmed they want to buy our fuel.

Don’t let that get in the way of a good de-ramp though.

Typo below. Should read “…using chemicals to ‘break up’ the OIL into smaller droplets”