Member Info for TechyRob

To reiterate - any serious investors looking to learn about the company, it’s prospects, key risks and challenges to commercialisation, as well as all other things should join the Tapatalk Forum.

It’s excellently moderated and sensible discussion prevails. It’s also entirely free from trolls.

This place is becoming a bit of a swamp pit.

Biofuels aren't new. They are however prohibitively expensive. BioMSAR estimated to be 2x-3x cheaper than competing leading biofuels, which is the USP.

Give it a rest Instant, you’ve got snake written all over you.

It’s not the RNS we were all after but things continue to move along, we’ll know more after the call on Wednesday.

Nothing too unusual. The spread always opens high on the bell so the MM’s don’t get caught out. If it was over 1m+ shares I’d probably be more interested.

They are obligated to immediately release any market sensitive information - thereby any negative news or significant project issues they would have to publicise. The fact we’re getting to the end of June and haven’t heard anything isn’t a bad thing - it’s not a good thing either - it just means we’ve not hit any milestones or had any market sensitive news yet. What we do know;

- Utah confirmed this week to be proceeding as planned, albeit delayed. Timeline led entirely by greenfield.
- MSC progressing positively and RNS will be released once a significant milestone is completed (as per numerous IR reply’s)
- Morocco waiting to get on site, will likely get an update imminently in an end June / H1 update. (Remember we’ve already produced the fuel here from Scandinavia so we’re largely ready to go).
- BioMSAR results due any time. Hard to believe this isn’t somehow linked to the MSC announcement as this probably feeds into their trial plans and roadmap.

All in all - silence is frustrating but it’s part of the QFI game unfortunately. Everyone thought the silence at the start of this year meant the unknown shipping deal had fallen apart and then bang - MSC announcement and our sentiment turns on a sixpence. There’s no reason to think the same thing won’t happen on the coming days / weeks. Nothing has changed since we were 6.5p, except we’re closer to delivery.

Salinger - no offence intended. Quite to the contrary I highly value your inputs and welcome fair challenge of our commercial strategy and chances of success. Any rose-tinted view of this being a sure thing is foolish, I was simply trying to inject some humour and positivity.

I agree finding and signing a customer to burn MSAR will be a massive milestone for us. I do however think our chances of finding such a customer is significantly greater once an MSAR supply is secured and also now the ESG background has shifted massively in recent years in our favour. It would also help greatly if we can push MSC or Morocco over the line as the industry precedent for using our fuel is then set, which should quickly see a much wider rollout of our fuel.

Greenfield even, not PQE. You get my drift.

Don’t be a negative nelly ;-)

Products proven so no issues there. Customers will want it pending a secured supply is my bet. Even if it takes time to secure an MSAR customer it will still probably save PQE money sending MSAR to a refinery in place of the diluents used presently. A proven supply of quality MSAR coming from Utah I can’t imagine will have trouble finding a local home, if not further afield.

Such an exciting time for the PQE and QFI technology. Both compliment each other brilliantly.

PQE allows for clean/greener extraction, QFI allows for a clean/greener product. Both provide cost advantages that outperform any natural competitors. A really exciting hook up and I hope it all goes ahead like it seems to be, it’s not often you have a greener/cleaner solution that also improves the bottom line of producers and consumers. This has got to be gathering the attention of some larger players, it’s highly highly disruptive to the status quo.

At the close. Hopefully update due shortly.

Low sulphur MSAR would sell for more than a discount WTI price to a local refinery. MSAR would also reduce the cost of production by removing the need for expensive distillates to achieve a reasonable pour point. It’s also a more environmentally friendly fuel product than what the refineries would produce.

So basically barking it reduces their operating costs, increases their sales price and is more environmentally friendly. It’s a no brainier.

I suggest leave them to it. Oil sands by their very nature are bituminous, or at least very close to. It’s widely reported;

https://geology.utah.gov/resources/energy/tar-sands/

The only way this very viscous product becomes useful is either by blending with expensive diluents (same old historic oil sands story), or by producing a HFO at source using MSAR.

The potential USP as I see it for PQE is that they can possibly command a premium for the clean sand if this is proven to be viable as a sellable by-product. That could swing the economics and make it profitable even without MSAR, but it begs the question - why would you choose to have an unprofitable product stream when it could be profitable?

MSAR is still in the mix I’ve no doubt is the key consideration for the tech. It’s simply a no brainer that transforms the whole project.

I think the upticks are largely gratitude to HotFinance14 for sharing the IR comms.

You’d be forgiven for thinking QFI was a solution invented solely for the oil sands industry - it’s such a perfect fit. Be a real shame if politics got in the way of everyone making money and a greener environment to boot.

Suspect there’s a case of both parties not wanting to demonstrate an over-reliance on one another before commercial terms are negotiated.

Why not accept and just build a new position..?

I suspect it’s because he’s still in disbelief that we have MSC trials and BioMSAR on the go, both of which he would have scoffed at as possibilities towards the end of last year

Correct HF (except BioMSAR). The roadmap set out by the team showed the following;

Morocco;
End Q2 - Site B industrial trial completed
End Q2 - Phase 2 Study results
End Q3 - Site A commercial trial completed

Utah;
End Q2 - Commercial Demo on site completed (delayed due to late start up of POSP, no revised timeframe provided since)

MSC;
End Q2 - Trial definition completed
End Q3 - Trail preparation started (prepare vessels and MSAR supply underway)

BioMSAR;
End Q3 - VTT / Wartsila BioMSAR testing complete
End Q3 - Glycerine Production & Market Expansion report findings

No. We are expecting at least some developments on each front (MSC / Morocco / Utah / BioMSAR) before end June so no news would be disappointing for me. For what it’s worth I’ve every faith things are progressing just fine in the background though, as indicated in the recent IR communications.

As per investor meet presentation in March;

Q19: Has the EOR made any decisions around MSAR integration at the refinery? If chosen not to integrate MSAR can you relay to us the rationale.

Recent IMO2020 marine fuel sulphur rules, Covid pandemic, and the impact on reduced oil demand, together with decarbonisation have resulted in a number of clients including the EOR from changing how they operate. We are still reviewing the fit of MSAR and bioMSAR, but cannot say more at this stage.

Q20: Has there been any development relating to the EOM for MSAR manufacture given our developing projects?

Following the launch of bioMSAR we had a positive call with the EOM, but cannot say more at this stage