Member Info for Thefaceman

Yep granted the different manufacturers all have their own requirements re fuel specs. SC can you tell me why we dont have an internationally recognised fuel to a set standard? Genuine question. i know the reason for all these to and fros's are due to the water content of the fuel not being within recognised specs but having to get a lono for each manufacturer seems really long winded. Surely there must be a route to a more general classification or recognition of fuel.

QED already have results from VTT in Finland for Wartsilla type 32 4 stroke engine testing in Finland. Same type of engine, 4 stroke, same 320mm cylinder bore etc etc. This was carried out in 2021 so excuse me for bleating on but as i repeat, we know the product works, no surprise. It remains to be seen if management getting an agreement is the constant sticking point as the product has been proven time and again to save money and cut emissions.

No agreements in place yet for revenue. Just another test of fuel we already know works. You can do as many tests/trials as you like but they don't mean revenue.

I'm pretty sure most people on here were holding out that MSC would start Q3 when Andy said it would. It's already been delayed. I'd expected the worst and it's been confirmed. Yes the Sparkle went ahead as planned but it's hardly ground breaking. A company doing what it said it would and what we all as investors pay them their wages to do. When I see commercial revenue then its celebration time the meantime anything else is burning through cash reserves on the road to more dilution. Joint ventures, mou's' trials all require cash. Revenue and profit maketh a company not the most non executive directors or the shiniest research lab.

Msc seem fully able to advertise the other alternative fuels they are using in their sustainability reports and sign multiple deals with other companies. We don't even get a mention let alone paperwork signing off for a small scale trial. Remind me again when the MSC trial was initially due to start.......

Sounds like MSC is a non starter to me. Who writes like that? The company has received no feedback, how about you ask them what the issue is, all too vaguely sounding to me, and now we don't have any timeline. We have gone from very soon to who knows when. I did say I didn't want them to state timelines if they had no idea but this sound like being let down gently.

Well done SC on yr research, credit where it's due.

As far as I can make out Fowe have conducted a 4 hour trial of their fuel and have an mou for more testing on board ships? Man said that as far as they can tell if run the engine as previously on the same conditions they dont object to it but anything other than that they don't warrant damage. Am I missing something because it doesn't sound like they are ahead to me given we already have a part completed sea trial with Maersk?

Not even the same ballpark. A 20% biofuel blend is easy to market. No trials needed. A water in fuel emulsion, totally different. Look at the volume they cite. 200,000 tonnes. QED are looking at millions of tones of fuel. Biofuels Will always struggle due to the limited feedstock, hence why QED are looking at glycerine etc to be able to supply millions of tonnes of fuel reliable to the shipping markets.

Jeez come on QED even I couldn't resist another 50k shares this morning. I thought my last buy at 4p was cheap but this is crazy. I reached my holding goal earlier in the year but the delays have meant too many more opportunities to buy at these prices. Risk vs reward gamble. Let's face it it's more exciting than 3% in the bank. Lol

Anyone seen the film "the big short"? This reminds of that. Here QED have a product that cuts emissions, improves efficiency and therefore reduces costs of compliance yet the market is completely blind to it. Hands up I'm a conspiracy theorist but the product should sell itself. It's like the market is failing to work properly, as basic economic theory should reasonably drive demand for even old school MSAR let alone BioMSAR. This is why I said yesterday we need a charismatic CEO. QED have tried for decades the prove the product and it will sell approach which thus far hasn't been over successful. We now need a charismatic CEO to charm and sell the socks off QED products until the market can't help but be buying it's products. It's a huge salespersons role as far as I see it currently, we have the tech and brains but no one to sell the stuff.

Must just be the way he presents then as I watched the proactive interview again from may and he isn't very coherent. I have looked at his history and can see he has amassed large shareholdings via preferential share options within his sipp from many companies as a NED so I don't doubt his skill in benefitting himself, and probably saw QED as an easy cash cow. Mostly I dislike the way he communicated to pi's that they would be foolish to not support the company at the last raise especially given the support many of us have given for years. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and so far I don't see anything in his work at QED that makes me think it's a particularly tasty pudding. I'm more than happy to eat my words if he negotiates a successful trial with MSC.

I hope not. He has as much charisma as a wet cloth. We need an energetic go getter not someone who is happy to sit on their hands as the weeks tick by. If he was that great we would be hearing about all the fantastic stuff he is currently currently doing as interim ceo.

I'm expecting good news q3 as this is what we have been led to believe. The MSc trial is at least two years late and if it's not delivered this quarter I will want to know exactly what the issue is at getting it over the line. Is it Msc not engaging? Is it legal issues? Is it financial in terms of our cut? Another "oh it's just round the corner" will be an absolute pee take and I would make a very special effort to get to the AGM and make it very uncomfortable for the management in that room. As others have said today if they haven't pushed any projects further forward I would like to know just exactly what they are spending time and money on as three months is a long time to do sweet fa. The lack of news is frustrating but qed have been overpromising on timelines for to long. If they don't know when I'd would rather they hadn't suggested any time lines at all because their history of meeting suggested timelines is now bordering on fantasy and whilst I've cut them slack in the past any further delays and I'd seriously start to question the morals of the guys running this show.

The one major sticking point I can see is that biofuels are already an approved fuel therefore you can blend it in whatever ratio you want as fully approved. Emulsion fuels such as msar because of the water content are not currently approved fuel types so we have to go through the hoops of trials etc to get engine manufacturer's to allow msar use a due to the costs involved in engine warranties and breakdown and ultimately insurance. Because of the massive costs of engines for huge shipping vessels shipping companies are reluctant to take the risk without the proper approvals. However we must be nearly at a point where qed could have bought their own ship and trialled the fuel???

The picture for global biofuel bunkering is one of massive growth. Several large players including Petronas are increasing their bunkering facilities ahead of what they obviously see as future marine biofuel demand. This bodes well for the alternative fuels sector. Quadrise just need a customer for the biomsar because the industry is ready to accept the massive shift to biofuels and is investing massive amounts of money to facilitate it. Now really is the moment for Quadrise to capitalise on this shift or be left behind.

https://shipandbunker.com/news/emea/927198-germany-backs-alternative-fuel-bunkering-with-new-400-million-funding

https://shipandbunker.com/news/apac/166703-vopak-to-expand-biofuels-storage-capacity-at-malaysias-pengerang-terminals

Guidance on running the MAN engines used by Sparkle at anything less than full load is very specific. This is due to deposits building up and then the engines needing run down times In order to burn off deposits which vary if they are run on hfo or diesel. It's going to be very difficult to gather anything meaningful from them being switched on or not as there are so many variables even in normal operations from start up procedures to warm down and wether they have been on standby or not.

For example:

Full load (MCR): 100% (MCR) of the engine output

Part load: < 100% (MCR) of the engine output

Low load: < 25% of the engine output

Correlations The best operating conditions for the engine prevail under even loading in the

range of 60% to 90% of full load.

During idle or no-load operation, combustion in the combustion chamber is

incomplete.

This may result in the forming of deposits in the combustion chamber, which

will lead to increased soot emission and to increases in deposits.

Low-load operation

Operation with heavy fuel

oil (fuel of RM quality) or

with MGO (DMA, DFA) or

MDO (DMB, DFB)

Based on the above, the low-load operation in the range of < 25 % of the full

load is subjected to specific limitations. According to figure Time limitation for

low-load operation (left), duration of "relieving operation" (right), Page 43 im-

mediately after a phase of low-load operation the engine must be operated at

> 70 % of the full load for some time in order to reduce the deposits in the cyl-

inders and the exhaust gas turbocharger again.

▪ Provided that the specified engine operating values are observed, there

are no restrictions at loads > 25 % of the full load.

▪ Continuous operation at < 25 % of the full load should be avoided

whenever possible.

▪ No-load operation, particularly at nominal speed (alternator operation) is

only permissible for one hour maximum.

After 500 hours of continuous operation with liquid fuel, at a low load in the

range of 20 % to 25 % of the full load, the engine must be run-in again.

Ha at last yr posting something factual and not fairy story. Keep up the good work although you need to check the iso standards are relevant for gen sets. Multiple iso standards can apply and as I said the tests to determine generator output are as 8528. These are protocols to establish generator output not fuel emissions or lubricity.

Any test will be to that iso spec as it is the bench mark for diesel powered AC genies. You can't just make up a protocol for yr new fuel it must be to the standard test protocols in order for any gathered data to be comparable.

Iso 8528 is the one regarding testing protocols.id expect to see sustained periods of running IE an hour at each of 25%, 50%,85%,100% power. Sounds like very wishful thinking to me and certain posters should be careful what they write given the absolute fairy tale that was spun about a certain marine trial a short while ago. I,LL wait until i hear it from the horse's mouth, unless you are a time served power station engineer with experience of running such trials?

He can make a margin on options later any time. Makes no difference. I'd guess he has his hands full with his company Marine Capital.