The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
They simply couldn’t afford not to, is the reality.
The Edison report gives some ideas of potential outcomes for the marine and power market;
https://www.edisongroup.com/publication/value-from-the-bottom-of-the-barrel/25649/
I mean if all our projects came in and we took a decent share of the power and marine market we’d have an EPS of a couple of £’s according to the Edison report. Multiply this EPS by a tech companies P/E ratio.. You can see the potential is absolutely monstrous.
And then second shipping trial RNS, Utah samples, Morocco update...! Great to see it all coming together finally, it’s been a long time coming.
Apologies - it was Mike who stated this actually. But the principle stands.
JM stated in the AGM that Maersk wouldn’t be entitled to any royalties as that clause was only valid should they have actively participated and promoted the wider uptake of MSAR, which they have chosen not to do. So the Maersk royalty question can be closed now.
Even for those trading now is a time I wouldn’t want to be out. I don’t think the market has even partially respected the size and quality of the fish QFI have hooked here with MSC, and it’s future implications for both the company and industry as a whole!
The terms of the warrants state they expire on 1st October 2022. Exercisable at 7.48p.
The rate we’re going now I’m very much hoping 7.48p is a distant memory by the time end 2022 comes around!
Beauty is Grumpy we already know the fuel works. The BioMSAR testing will be interesting but the LONO achievement for MSAR at this point is basically a formality. Really exciting times ahead!
So it seems the delay was down to incorporation of bioMSAR after all - great news !!!
Indigo’s point clearly isn’t about risk/reward appetite as you describe below. It’s about an alleged investor who’s spent the last 2/3 years filling this BB with comments of how the management are either incompetent, fraudulent or both. Let’s also not forget the insider information they received years ago saying how the fuel, our product, doesn’t work.
What kind of genuine investor, who’s in their right mind, would still be here today should they believe the above be true.
Don’t pay attention to what’s shown on LSE.
If you’re interested check a live price by doing a dummy trade. Currently the sell price is 2.3p and the buy price is 2.5p.
Nobodies getting taken in Crippin it’s painfully transparent. Trust you’ll sell up given you have this new insider info from years ago that the fuel doesn’t work and we won’t see you again. Have a good weekend.
To my knowledge the last we heard was in October the first stage of construction was completed (100MW/400MWh) and this was forecast to be commissioned towards the very back end of 2020, so we should hear something anytime now hopefully.
Once this is successfully commissioned and proven to be operable they will proceed with constructing the remaining 100MW/400MWh.
Foxm, it’s fine to disagree. I’m not happy myself that we are where we are after all these years, but I am confident we have a solid strategy to break into a notoriously difficult and rigid industry. Time will tell.
I don’t understand however how you can feel so aggrieved at my post, yet ignore the utter tosh from other posters making up blatant lies about insider information about the fuel not working.
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!