Member Info for TechyRob

What if they’re selling down to 0, does that make a difference? I just can’t see how the selling isn’t Miton.

Something I’m still not understanding. For example, to my knowledge the tr1 rules state they need to announce when every percentage point is passed (increased or decreased) past 3% and they must notify in 2 days. But Miton went down from from 9% to 5% in the last tr1 and they didn’t announce 8%, 7%, 6% etc.. Theres no way they sold 4% of the company in 2 days before the tr1 was issued.

“ Aperson must notify the issuer of the percentage of its voting rights he holds as shareholder or holds or is deemed to hold through his direct or indirect holding of financial instruments falling within DTR 5.3.1R (1) (or a combination of such holdings) if the percentage of those voting rights:

(1) reaches, exceeds or falls below 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10% and each 1% threshold thereafter up to 100%”

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DTR/5/1.html - source: FCA

Worth remembering also for our Chairman that it is not as easy for them to ‘trade’ the share like it would be for you or I. For example, Andy has just bought 700k shares, if the price was to rise to 5p say he cannot easily hedge his bet as this again would need to be reported and potentially impact SP sentiment / we’d all be saying how unprofessional it is for him to be selling etc etc... For the most part Andy is therefore in this until he leaves and/or the company provides dividends, so it’s a much less liquid investment and much longer term than when any of us invest invest. Worth bearing that in mind when thinking about should he be investing more etc.

I’m not one to normally shout when I’ve topped up, but I’ve added another decent chunk this morning as I honestly don’t see how the price can be so low on this news - even with Miton selling down. Oh well, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth and all that.

I’m not as down in the dumps as others on this. Morocco is underway and the combustion trial is forecast to conclude early this quarter (granted I’m not holding my breath). We’ll get some updates soon on that and, if nothing else, our fuel simply burning over there will generate some interest and no doubt give the SP a lift. Plus we’re also trialling BioMSAR which is a big win for us publicity wise as this then proves the concept.

We’ve had verbal confirmation to procure equipment for the MSC trial and, hopefully, will be updated any time now. And Utah is plowing on also.

We’re not where we wanted to be by now, but there’s plenty going on still and the current SP seems IMO low for the opportunity ahead. Remember 2 years ago the SP was the same level as this. I think it rose to 6p+ before coming back down again since. Point being it’s a volatile share, I wouldn’t fret too much if you’re in for the long haul - it’ll boom or bust which is what most of us are here to see out.

We don’t know it’s happening right now though. They have the framework in place via the MTCA to produce the fuel (which it doesn’t specify if we’re still being paid for this - presumably we are..), but there are no details in the revised MTCA or RNS stating where this fuel will be produced, how much is required and by when. Only that they expect conclusion by Q3 this year. That would be great if it weren’t for every single other deadline they have ever stated has not been achieved.

I’ll get excited once the fuel’s burning on site. Before then for me it’s just more rhetoric, however positive.

Phase 1 of the CDA with Valkor due in the next 2 weeks also, hopefully we can finally get some momentum building.

The Moroccan client won’t be powered by electricity for a couple of decades. Heavy industry, like this client, requires such incredible energy demands that there is no present competition here from electricity - particularly renewables - in Morocco. It’s simply too expensive.

Progress is poor in Morocco, but it’s not through any competition with renewables.

We have good data for MSAR economics by assuming a 3 way savings split (refiner / customer / QFI). We don’t have as good an idea for the BioMSAR economics - or at least I’ve not seen anything.

What’s the price of a barrel of fuel oil these days? It’s through the roof. Biofuel cost per unit energy even more expensive. Would it be unreasonable to suggest a £5-£10 margin per barrel of BioMSAR? I’d suggest not, but your guess is as good as mine here.

Good question about what’s the size of the prize.

The presentation says the size if the MSC opportunity in particular is 0.6kbpd per ship, and Jason later goes on to say about 30 ships in their fleet would be suitable for BioMSAR post-trial if I’m not mistaken. So the size of this particular prize is a 18kbpd BioMSAR supply agreement.

I agree haggis. It would be a welcome shift from the MK era for the QFI team to now underpromise and overdeliver on timeframes. Let’s see what happens.

If Shell and other oil majors did what they were saying, and what the pressure groups wanted, the world would fall over. For interest - BP energy report 2021 finds that last year oil, natural gas and coal accounted for 83.1% of global primary energy use. It will take decades to shift away from this.

Transition fuels will make the difference over the next 20/30 years. The penny will soon drop that the world needs AS MANY of these transition fuels at scale as possible (not futuristic zero emissions crap) to make the difference needed to the environment today, not tomorrow.

I really don’t see how emulsion fuels, of which quadrise is the only viable provider of, doesn’t have a part to play in that. The question for me is more how big a part it plays.

It’s worth remembering that the client are keen to proceed. They’ve also only in the last couple of weeks reiterated their intention for us to be hosted and to run the trials on their site.

This isn’t a case of endless talk and bluster not leading to anything - this is happening. It’s just exactly what the RNS says, this *might* now take just a bit longer pending the details of the new travel restrictions and how we navigate them.

We’re keen, the clients keen, the trials still happening and that’s all that matters.

Sorry all, must have jinxed it earlier...

Let’s wait to see what the options are before we get too concerned. Plenty of potential workarounds provided the client is still willing to invite us on-site.

Morocco could come thick and fast now;

Q17: Please explain why delays in producing the fuel for the trials in Morocco? And had the trial fuels been produced sooner would this trial have been completed inside of the original timelines?

.... “We are now at the final stages of getting assured entry to the site and so we are now mobilising for fuel production and delivery to site” ....

Q29: Where will the fuel for the Morocco trial(s) be produced?

“This is being produced in Europe and is due to be shipped to Site B in Morocco imminently.”

Q56: You advised shareholders that we were waiting for Morocco to invite us back in to continue with the trials. Have we now received this invite?

“...Yes...”

Q117: How long will the Morocco industrial trial take to complete ?

Verbal response so I’ve written this; “It’s quite a fast trial. Once we have everything on site... we’ll spend a week making sure everything’s ready to go then a week for testing for site B. Similar duration of trial for site A.”

He does mention site A will need availability of the unit, although we’ll have the equipment shipped there already so it’s just mods to what we already have.

We could find ourselves in a very fast turnaround of fortune within the space of just a few weeks, from starting trials to completed trials to commercial discussions. Definitely an exciting lead up to Christmas - and this is just Morocco.

Q58: How confident should we be in achieving LONO trials with MSC?

We are confident that this is a matter of when, not if, and are looking to close out agreements during Q4'21.

Might be cheaper to do it sooner than later DaProphet...! ;-)

Hi sitiain,

Apologies I don’t have much time for a lengthy answer this probably deserves, but to summarise;

The value is that the Petroteq oil recovered from the oil sands is very heavy in nature, look at QFI’s Twitter feed for the barrel of the stuff they received. Petroteq dilute this with expensive diluents to reduce the viscosity and make it more readily transportable to a refinery, which it then uses as a feedstock to produce a usable fuel such as diesel. QFI’s value add here is two-fold, it reduces the viscosity at the source of production which makes it easier to transport using small quantities of chemicals and water, which is much cheaper than their diluents, but also MSAR doesn’t need to be processed via a refinery as it is a ready to go heavy fuel oil (HFO), which the world continues to use an astronomical market value if you look it up. Burning MSAR over HFO releases the same carbon per unit energy but also reduces NOx emissions due to burning at a lower temperature as well as reducing black soot, both of which are significant environmental concerns (again suggest reading further on this).

MSAR has been historically proven at length and achieved partial LONO for a popular engine (see Maersk trials RNS’). There are no real concerns from anybody the fuel doesn’t work as intended due to the many hours tested by Maersk some years ago, but still we need a full LONO for the engines we plan to run the fuel on. This will be hopefully achieved with the MSC trials. Note also MSAR is effectively an upgraded Orimulsion that BP used to sell.

Hi Wonga,

It still doesn’t make a difference on a calorific level. If you dilute the heavy residues with 30% water then you simply reduce the energy density of the fuel by 30% (as you don’t release any energy from burning water). This means the supplier would need to buy proportionally more MSAR to achieve the same energy output should they have just burnt HFO.

It all comes down to £ per kilojoule. Diesel (typically) costs much more per unit energy than heavy residues. Therefore if you can make a fuel by effectively diluting heavy residues (MSAR), this is a much more cost effective fuel (£ per kilojoule) than HFO that has mixed in expensive distillate cutter stock.

The price of oil isn’t particularly influential to Quadrise, not until bioMSAR is established anyway. Instead, it’s the price differential between diesel and fuel oil that makes or breaks MSARs financial case. This price spread has unfortunately narrowed in recent times reducing the attractiveness of MSAR to refiners, but there appears to be no industry expectation this will last.

It’s therefore not accurate to suggest that a rise in oil price either improves or decreases our chances of success.

Tuck, unfortunately these aren’t innocent investors playing silly games - they’re highly calculated, devious individuals who are looking to undermine the value of your investment for their or their clients gain. I really would encourage anyone to not interact with those who you think fits this criteria.