Member Info for Tobythedog

Jakito & Salinger
My previous post was being crafted before seeing your inpts at 9.50 and 10.09. Sorry for the effective duplication.

Jakito
We may never know for sure but I don't know that you're right in your assumption. They may be focussed on ramping up production but how long does it take to collect a few samples at site and pack them off to QFI? If as we believe the MSAR process is fundamental to the financial viability of the project surely it's worth a couple of hours of someone's time to collect the samples and send them off. Also as I recall from one of the previous Investor interviews Jason was clearly expecting them around the turn of the year. Surely you would want to keep one of your key suppliers sweet by delivering the samples as close to time as possible. I don't know the reason for the delay but as time goes on I'm increasingly concerned about the delay. Perhaps we will find out more at Monday's meeting.

Kurly
.....and they've bounded back down again in the last two hours!

Lignumvitae
The warrants are at 7.48p

Everything has started to align for sure, the two recent RNS's, your Total find today, the expected RNS's re Utah and Morocco. I'd buy more but am already too heavily invested here to be prudent..... but I am tempted!

Tidetime
All the discussion in the press has been about reducing the £12400 capital tax tax theshold to approx. £2000 and not about removing the ISA tax shelter, however even if Govt. finances dictated such it is most unlikley they would retrospectively eliminate it . Even in these Covid times I think Colin (and me!) are safe.

Fitzy 66
My view FIW is that if MSC successfully test and ink a supply deal then Maersk and many others will follow suit and sign up PDQ.

Wonga FC

Suggest you read Crippin's message he said he needs 10p to break even so salinger is correct!

Techy Rob
Buoygate was the original reason given for the hold up in progressing the LONO, this then progressed by drip feed of information over time to the ship is queud to go into drydock for repair, to the repair is taking longer than anticipated, to it's been in drydock so long we (Maersk) have had to put a replacement ship on the route, to once it comes out of repair it will go onto another route where we can't get MSAR bunkering so we will need to abandon the trial, to finally we have decided to go down the VLSFO (non scrubber) route. My conclusion is that buoygate was indeed part of the excuse not to proceed. It sounded highly suspect then and still does in hindsight some three years later.

One Aussie

Sorry to contradict you but Switzerland is not in the EU, nor in the EEA. But it does have agreements with the EU. Not sure therefore if your second point is valid, although I 'm not disputing that it could be MSC.

Guys

Many thanks for the input and especially to my fellow dog. McDoog! I am a member of the Tapatalk QFI discussion board, but not visited it for months as it all gets rather Nerdy there. Big picture for me is that Orimulsion worked and was viable, MSAR is really 3rd generation on from that and you could argue that this new Green MSAR is 4th gen.

Guys

Sorry to labour the point.. but Indigo 2015 your point 2 is "If they're making a product we can assume they already have a customer - it's their money not ours that's on the line". I believe indirectly it is our money on the line, if their faith in being able to sell the MSAR produced turns out not to be the case then we (QFI) have wasted time, effort ,and our investment when cash is critical for us . I would like to be assured that Greenfield do have a market for the product especially since we have never been able to find one - in the sense of getting anyone to sign on the bottom line . Your points 1 & 3 I agree not directly but my point is if Greenfield are not viable because they cannot sell the product - guess what it could take us down - and out! So my point remains what makes us think they have got customers ready and able to sign on the dotted line when in the 10-15 years we have been knocking on doors we couldn't?

Prep H
Thanks but that only gets us so far. Presumably Greenfield have client(s) targetted for the product and have approached them before commiting to the expenditure of this trial. They don't have much cash themselves so I don't believe they have will just be "hoping" to find a buyer.

Indigo2015
You make an excellent point which I have also been concerned about and never seen explained. There have been a few references on this board to heavy industry inc cement plants in the area so perhaps it is down to local knowledge /contacts but it sure would make me more comfortable to know who exactly is going to buy the MSAR and what action they have taken to trial/test and carry out due diligence prior to its use in their plant? Answer please on a postcard!

Certainly sounds a game changer ......but we have been here before. There is light at the end of the tunnel!

Indigo2015

Well I'm afraid we are going to have to disagree on that one!

Indigo2015
The BoD has responsibility for amongst other matters , communications and by extension managing expectations of owners . I get hacked off with people and organisations that do not meet their own targets. It was not shareholders who imposed the early December 2020 date. It was the BoD, and once again they have let a date slip by.

Sorry for the typo it's 33%

Fyoz/Elir71

What's going on here? The Bod isssue today's RNS and you pair immediately fall into line. This is just a rehash with minimal change. Lest you forget you were critical of the increased salaries and now we are all going to pay for it by a 3% offer and consequential dilution. Never mind there is always that jam tomorrow!

46G
I agree there will be nothing new announced at tomorow's meeting. Just a rehash and that includes more jam tomorrow statements. The Bod continue to miss their own self-imposed deadlines and yet reward themselves with better compensation packages. That's not how it's supposed to work!