Member Info for Thefaceman

I sent Peter an email saying I was really upset and had overstretched in my investment in QED. Wondered if he would be able to reply to me and tell me everything is going to be okay, make me a cuppa and give me a big hug.

Be interesting to see if Michael buy any shares. Pretty good entry point currently I'd say. Looks to be a good appointment judging by his previous roles.

I've tried to stay away from this board and looking at the sp on a daily basis but was very surprised when my portfolio showed a large drop due to QED. I did say at the beginning of Peter's tenure that id give him a chance and was expecting to see a bad rns. However whilst there has been no communication of a bad nature specifically, it's disappointing that there is nothing. I share many of the views of feeling misled by Jason et Al as they gobbled up placing funds which I think is why so many feel hard done by. One of my accounts is very underwater now on QED and I am tempted to sell at a loss but given the share trades going through today I'm gonna let the dust settle and wait for the official announcements. It might be too late by then if there's a mad dash for the door, but as someone who has been on this train for over a decade, I've become numb to lack of news or progress with this company and I think I resigned QED to a pure coin flip in terms of lose it all or not several years ago. Once you make peace with the loss aspect it's much less stressful to move forward than to worry about an investment that you may have already lost.

Not to mention the fact that due to the lower calorific value of methanol and ammonia they would need far larger tanks for fuel and require at least 2-3 times more fuel bunkering stops for an eqivalent journey. There's plenty of space for msar (which ever version) to find a place, if we can just get the trials sorted.

Why don't you ask them.

Not strictly true. I wrote to QED ir and they said they are currently still working under the old agreement with nouryon. They are currently working on a new agreement. Perhaps this has to factor into any agreements with MSC et al…

It's hard to understand the mentality of someone who moans about the company constantly and has no faith that the bod will deliver. Surely if you believed any of this you would be cutting your losses and investing elsewhere? Not waiting for your investment to lose more value.

Just seems a really odd place to be unless the reality is that yr just angry with yourself for investing more than you can afford and you have to remain invested as secretly you hope that QED will come good and recoup those losses.

🥱

Looks like a couple of other people though swapping their shares into an isa is a good idea. X2 swaps this morning for 20k less fees etc

On the topic of Nouryon. Azkonobel sold them back in 2018 to Carlyle group. Nouryon owned by the Carlyle Group, through its investment in VARO Energy, is involved in the acquisition of the Swedish refiner Preem. Preem already manufacture biofuels and are a major player in the renewable fuel market and may become a leading European energy provider. A tie in with this Swedish refinery could benefit both the refinery and fuel clients because most of the raw materials for Preem's refineries arrive by ship, and most of the finished products are, in turn, delivered by the same mode of transportation. Preem places high safety requirements on the ships that carry out the transports. Energy-efficient vessels with higher environmental performance are rewarded. A drop in fuel like msar would therefore benefit both refinery and client alike. Come on quadrise the opportunities are endless, just get on with selling the stuff, we know it works.

I think it's fair to say there's a fair margin of biomass available to use for fuel. The 8 billion includes current use for paper pulp etc. I agree it's not perfect and there's bound to be a waste product of the biomass conversion that needs dealing with but Vertoro are steaming ahead with their Goldilocks fuel which could be a very important component in a future biomsar fuel or even msarzero depending on the carbon profile.of the biomass conversion processes and supply chain.

Globally, an estimated

181.5 to 182 billion tons of lignocellulosic biomass are produced annually, with only about 8 to 8.2 billion tons currently utilized. This massive volume of waste includes agricultural and forest residues, organic solid waste, and paper mill byproducts, representing a significant untapped resource for producing biofuels, bioplastics, and other products. For specific crops, rice straw and wheat straw have the highest worldwide availability among the major agricultural wastes.

Exactly 💯

Key points:

By 2030 biofuels crops will require land the size of France, which would make it the sixth largest country in terms of arable land use globally.

Today, the equivalent of 100 million bottles of vegetable oil are burned in cars every day, meaning a fifth of all vegetable oil is never even used for food.

On average, 3,000 litres of water are needed to drive 100 km on biofuels.

Just 3% of the land currently used for first-generation biofuels could produce the same amount of energy with solar panels.

Understanding the scale of fuel use is key to understanding why there is many options for alternative fuels not just emethanol or biofuels. Securing enough feedstock for whatever the fuel be it hydrogen for methanol (which comes at huge costs in terms of electricity production) or raw feed stock for biofuels leaves plenty of space in the market for crude sugar or fuels based on the bottom of the barrel tar. Ultimately future fuel use will be a multitude of options because the calorific value of fossil fuels is just so immense to be replaced with a sole alternative fuel. Then there are the other considerations such as the environmental impact of biofuels derivatives based on crops. The impact of deforestation in Brazil especially to grow palm oil for biofuel has been devastating. It's all a balancing act and for decades even greener fuels have failed to fully include all the environmental costs of production.

Leaves plenty of room for QED!

https://safety4sea.com/te-biofuels-globally-emit-more-co2-than-the-fossil-fuels/

Pre commercial company hence share price is where it's at. Peter has only been in post a month so give the guy a chance he's got to get up to speed with everyone and what's happened in the past. I'm sure he has his own ideas that we will hear about shortly.

I understand and share the frustration of people on here and it's generally when the share price has dipped that the negativity flows. 3p is poor, Andy and Jason are to blame for blatantly overhyping progress and timelines. I'm giving Peter the chance to put QED on a new course, something Jason should have done years ago as it was obvious from previous presentations that he was never CEO material.

We have a new man at the helm now so I expect a different AGM. Hopefully a bit more coherent than the bumbling Andy and Jason. I expect significant updates on progress and a clearly defined path to commercialisation next year as Andy has been saying since and before the last fund raise. It would be nice to hear of other trials that Peter has lined up to give me something to dream about and justify my insanity of still being invested in this stock 😂

Just been trying to buy blocks of 15000 shares but just going to Nt. No one letting em go or a big trade in background.

Just because the IMO are procrastinating doesn't mean everyone is standing still. It's interesting that ammonia and e-methanol are not currently accredited under EU ETS.

"The current FuelEU default tables cover CO₂ only. They do not include methane slip (CH₄) or nitrous oxide (N₂O) factors for most new, or renewable fuels, such as:

Bio- and e-methanol

Ammonia

Hydrogen and other RFNBOs

Dual-fuel engines (where N₂O formation can be significant)

This means that without measured data, these fuels are not yet fully creditable or verifiable under FuelEU or ETS. In practice, this could lead to under- or over-reporting of GHG intensity and exposure to higher emissions costs."

https://www.manifoldtimes.com/news/vps-imo-delay-more-likely-to-give-rise-to-emission-trading-schemes-including-eu-ets/

Https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2746644-singapore-s-mpa-affirms-net-zero-commitment-correction

"Overall, industry players expect limited short-term impact, as current demand for green marine fuels is largely driven by EU regulations, such as FuelEU Maritime and the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The delay also offers an opportunity to reassess investment strategies and technological advancements, with the NZF expected to be revisited by the IMO in 2026."