Member Info for Thefaceman

Wow some negative Nellie's on here. Peter is the man for the job no doubt my mind. He's clear that our fuels can deliver cost savings as well as emission reduction. He's got the background and contacts and I'm pretty sure he'd have a fair idea before he took the job how the IMO would pan out as they have procrastinated for years on the same topic. He is right that we have a window to prove the fuels and get the lono and be perfectly placed for when the IMO do eventually pull their fingers out of their behinds. If cant do it then I don't think anyone could.

I wish I knew....

Eu ETS will still be in force in the EU so companies can still trade carbon credits. The ETS will be expanded next yr I think to include offshore boats too. With methane and NOx emissions also included going forward there's plenty of scope for ship companies to decarbonise early and it be cost effective.

Of course it's not. Quadrise have a product that not only cuts emissions but cuts costs. It makes the rubbish in the bottom of the barrel into a viable stable liquid fuel meaning it's good for refiners too. It's not just about the emissions although that has caught the headlines most recently with the IMO. Fossil fuels are still a finite resource being controlled by the few, alternative fuels still have a place. Quadrise just need to get on with trials and prove up the product and start selling to someone. I don't care if it's one man and his yacht, a sales a sale in my book.

I think that Peter the new CEO brings a totally different perspective to QED. I very much like the tone he cut at the investor meet and his contacts and experience within the industry means he's well placed to push QED forward, something the previous management have always been to shy to do. Rather than making waves they were happy to sit back but the time for that has passed and we needed the kick up the posterior that Peter provides. I'm positive for the near future and am happy buying at these levels (3.41) when I get the chance. IMO regs or not I think the economics will be a driving force for the products not necessarily the environment as it is always a by-product to money and profit.

Hopefully at the AGM Peter will have had enough time to put some flesh on this thoughts and provide even the doubters with something to look forward to.

I'm surprised they haven't issued an rns about renewal of nouyron agreement yet. It's due within the next couple of weeks at the latest.

Does this rns say that 13 million options have lapsed and a net 10 million new issued? So in effect 3 million less than before and at a higher exercise price??

I also liked the fact that Peter mentioned Maersk several times. Whether that's actually an option who knows but let's see a few of the majors played off against one another. maybe its just to put a rocket up MSC to say "hey, yr not the only ones who might want our product", but like that nothing is off the table. QED have 12 months to pull it off.

I like Peter already. Sounds like a good CEO choice!

Well tomorrow we get to hear from the new CEO, Peter Borup. I'm very excited to hear what he says. QED say they have built a team to take them to commercial revenues let's hope Peter is the cherry on the cake. I always assumed that Msar would sell itself due to the environmental and economic arguments but that's clearly not been the case. Previous efforts and personnel have failed to break what ever barriers exist, so hopefully Peter will have the key to breaking the industry. I would doubt he's been given any ground breaking secrets but Im sure he would have been plenty satisfied that there was a good chance of success prior to taking the position. It’ll be interesting to see what his renumeration package is and what options he chooses to take.

If Shell are all about investing in the alternative fuel sector now rather than being in it directly then QED ought to be in their sights. As has already been mentioned QED have already identified feedstock limitations in traditional biofuels, it's a perfect fit. (If only)

Doing some digging I found this which was interesting as I had always assumed lng ships meant goodbye to diesel fuels but apparently not.

"The LNG fueled diesel engines run on 5% MGO at all times, since a diesel engine does not produce enough heat of compression to ignite LNG, so the lower ignition point MGO "gets the combustion going". The amount of MGO carried onboard has to be enough to get from one port to another on the longest leg of the cruise. "

Thanks to chengkp75 on cruise critic for the info.

It's not all rosy for LNG and shipping. Little issue at the weekend for MSC,s cruise ship, the first to run on LNG. They had to rely on back up generators which presumably were run on liquid fuel. Might help strengthen the case for MSAR based fuels.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/msc-cruises-first-natural-gas-fuelled-ship-loses-power-off-coast-of-italy/ar-AA1LklYw

Yes there is plenty of potential and that's what we are all here for. I'd prefer the next sp rise was based on a concrete commercial revenue creating contract and not speculation or potential though. Be nice to have a revenue stream no matter what size although obvs the bigger the better. :)

Talking of bells Oliver MC donnell is amongst the biggest. He always got some positive spin, just like when he said in December 2024 He stated:

“We expect that this announcement should give the market confidence that the trials are now really going to start, which should provide support for the share price."

Where upon the raise was announced, they missed several timelines and the share price droppes to nearly 2p. Great support for the share price. He knows as much about f,all as the rest of us.

8p was before dilution from raise and after the board ramped up the MSC trial in order to float the raise to investors. They were then spouting q1 for the trial start. Not being negative, just realistic.

Sparkle's bid for power generation runs until 2030 so if they can save even a fraction then i'd assume they make more money although I'm not sure how their bids are priced and if it is fixed throughout the period.

RE: Big Hint?19 Aug 2025 17:18

"Any idea anyone what you think the share price might be if we get positive feedback on the Sparkle trial?"

I'd expect 7-8p on confirmation of a commercial contract which generates revenue, with a share price increasing above that dependant on whether it's just Sparkle or any other power generation companies in the region joining onboard too. Note I base this on confirmation of a revenue providing contract not just confirming the trial was a success.

Yep nice to see some blue for a change. How far this goes on the Sparkle trial results depends on the other interested parties present. The Sparkle Panama generators don't to me seem like they will be burning masses of fuel given SC,’s research and the fact they aren't running full time. Other power generators in the region may have greater demand and could be the driving force behind commercial scale revenues. For me it's always been about the shipping which is why I'm so pee’d after the MSC delay. I've been waiting since 2011 when the Maersk trial was in pipeline for them to get the product in commercial shipping bunkers and sold. Patience of a saint or a sadomasochistic streak, I'm not sure which.

Just awaiting signatures.....

Marine aee

RNS Number : 2357N

Quadrise PLC

22 November 2024

“Signature of the 3-way trial agreement between Quadrise, MSC Shipmanagement Ltd ("MSC") and Cargill has taken longer than originally anticipated due to the inclusion of binding terms which strengthen the commitment between the trial parties. With final legal provisions regarding insurance liability cover and confidentiality now resolved, we now expect that the binding agreement will be signed before the end of December 2024.”

RNS Number : 5867N

Quadrise PLC

26 November 2024

“In parallel, bilateral agreements, including a toll manufacturing agreement between Cargill and Quadrise in respect of fuel manufacture, can be finalised now that the outline commercial terms have been agreed in the Project Agreement.”

RNS Number : 7526B Quadrise PLC 24 March 2025

“Work is now well underway to prepare the Quadrise trial equipment ahead of installation and commissioning at the MAC² terminal in Antwerp, Belgium in Q2 2025. In parallel, bilateral agreements between Quadrise, and Cargill and MAC² respectively, are expected to be concluded soon.”

The RNS Number : 0192D Quadrise PLC 01 April 2025

“bilateral agreements to facilitate the Trials, including a toll manufacturing agreement between Cargill BV ("Cargill") and Quadrise in respect of fuel manufacture, continue to be advanced and further announcements will be made in due course.”

RNS Number : 0858M

Quadrise PLC

10 June 2025

“The expected bilateral agreements between MSC and Cargill, and Cargill and Quadrise, to initiate the commercial-scale marine trials are now in near final form and are expected to be concluded soon.”

RNS Number : 6922V

Quadrise PLC

18 August 2025

The bilateral agreements between MSC and Cargill, and Quadrise and Cargill (the "Agreements"), remain in near final form, as announced by the Company on 10 June 2025. The Company has not received any adverse feedback from the relevant counterparties, and their internal processes remain ongoing, albeit slower than anticipated.

Whoa steady on SC. It's not written that MSC trial is starting q4. That's pure speculation. I'd take the marine update with a huge pinch of salt. Why were we told soon, very soon and now no timeframe at all. I sure as hell was led to believe on more than one occasion that it was imminent from the last few marine updates. If it happens then it's a game changer but it feels to me like it's slipping away not getting closer. Maybe it's the poor communication and contradictory content of messages over the last year or so. At one point I even thought the equipment was already installed at Antwerp only to find out it was going to be once it was fully signed. Depends if yr cup is half full or half empty I guess..

Don't worry ive found it. ISO 8217, riveting read if you get the chance. Basically emulsion fuels are currently not included as due to their composition they are currently classed as containing too many contaminants to meet current specs for universally accepted bunker use. This may change as biofuel blends become more innovative but its difficult to establish the difference between a water in fuel emulsion fuel and just water in fuel as a contaminant i would imagine.