Member Info for Tobythedog

Do any of you accountant types know how the cumulative $60 losses would be treated in the accounts of an acquiring company? eg if Shell bought over QFI is all the $60 available for the acquiring company to offset against their profits? Is there any restriction in applying these losses if the acquiring company is in a totally different industry? And just for the sake of clarity I do not believe the recent statements by Jason and the Chairman that their reference to MA was about QFI being the acquirer. I've always believed that once we have commercial revenues and the markets across the globe open up to synthetic fuels that we will be bought out - most likely by one of the oil majors with the most likely being Shell. Views anyone?

Fyoz

Stop it! Now you've got me dreaming of fast cars, exotic holidays and things a fellow of my advanced years should not be dreaming of!

Stoater

I listened in, nothing factual new. Confirmation of some small slippages. A general positive but realistic tone. Personally I'm becoming more confident that provided they don't run out of cash due to yet more slippages that it will all come good as there seems to be genuine emphasis on environmental sustainability from the major players.

BP
Could you run that again - in English this time, please?

I agree this is a very positive signal from MSC and does give me some comfort.... but its a commitment to carry out the tests and LONO. A commercial contract is still some way off. As others have said we do need a commercial contract now to bring in some cash and restore credibility to long suffering shareholders.

Crownos

Thanks for your 11:13 post this is certainly in "the better informed by reasoned argument of other holders". Much appreciated.
I agree with your final paragraph about other sectors e.g. power (and industrial) since the greater volume of MSAR compared to HFO for an equivalent energy output is not much of an issue on land whereas it may be on board ships, although I've never seen this aspect discussed much in the past.

lowlife
You should believe me since you can check my previous posts about QFI stretching back several years! I will indeed make my own decision, but I'm trying to get better informed by reasoned argument of other holders, some with better knowledge and understanding than I.

lowlife
No agenda in the sense you mean! Surely I can put forward an alternative view. As a long term holder at an average price of just under 10p I do have an agenda in seeing this prosper and succeed, I'm just exasperated that even with this recent good news the SP is going no-where. Look play the ball and not the man here. The SP facts are as I documented below - we are at two year lows and that was achieved on higher volumes. All I'm trying to understand is why, and for the present I'm not convinced by the arguments put forward by others about just a continued drift down due to lack of commercial contracts.

Vince 72

Oh yes long before that - since 2013. The all time low was on 16/3/20, but since the climb to 7p a year later it has been down hill since to a new 2 year low of 1.261p. Recent lows have been accompanied by higher volume - never a good sign. Look I fervently hope you and the others on here are right, for me I have a lot invested here, but the overall market is voting with it's feet and it would be silly not to be concerned especially since our recent good news has had no effect whatsoever on share price.

semaphorRed

What do you mean "they basically did with us"? I don't recall any financial penalty suffered by Maersk. There may have been some sharp practice by Maersk at the time of buoygate affair but I don't see any similarity in the situations.

Crownos What I'm saying is that the future fuel - methanol has arrived and is about to be used much sooner than anticipated - 2024/25 is only round the corner. Whilst the order is only for 12 ships in a fleet of 700, it does show the direction of travel of a major tanker fleet operator with direct experience of MSAR and QFI. It's certainly not supportive for us or our share price and I still consider has likely had a direct negative impact.

Vince 72 I agree with your summary of options but that's the same for all of us long term owners on here. Recent comments seem to be split between those who believe these lower prices are a golden opportunity to top up and those who are not prepared to put any more money in but to hold. FWIW I did buy more shortly after the announcement of the framework agreement only to see the price fall further. What I'm trying to understand is why this had no positive effect ( I know the argument about nothing short of a commercial contract will move the price) on the SP and coincided instead with a fall.

Should read NO reference

Crownos and Vince 72

I assume your reference to wet paper hand towels refers to my recent posts. I made to reference whatsoever to transition stage versus future stage fuels, but for the record I do understand. I also appreciate that there are likely to be several different fuel solutions in the marketplace. My point is that Maersk have made a public commitment to go in a different direction with methanol now and have placed orders. These ships are for delivery - not way in the future but in 2024 and 2025. This discussion started from me postulating that the reason for the drift to even lower lows in the share price may have been caused by the leaked Maersk announcement. I still think this to be likely. Others have suggested it is just a continuation of the lack of firm (commercial contract) progress. Possible, but the SP has rather lurched down of recent and at some point all the sellers motivated by lack of commercial progress must be exhausted - and they have had plenty of time to reach that viewpoint!
Vince am rather disappointed at your flippant remarks "these guys" have signed contracts for the supply of methanol and for the 12 ships. They cannot flip flop out of contracts - well not without heavy penalties!

Vince 72
MSC are haven't even started the trials yet, so certainly aren't committed. There is nothing stopping those with scrubbers continuing to use HFO and not taking up MSAR/BioMSAR. The methanol news item indicates dates. See extract below:
" The letter of intent with Debo would see the Danish shipping giant purchase 200,000 tons of green methanol annually from the Chinese company, with plans to launch commercial production in September 2024.

The deal follows Maersk’s partnership with China’s CIMC ENRIC and Green Technology Bank, along with Denmark-based Ørsted and European Energy, WasteFuel in the US, and Swiss-based methanol producer Proman, to scale up green methanol production with the intent of sourcing at least 730,000 tons of fuel per year by the end of 2025.

In January this year, Maersk pledged to reach net zero emission targets by 2040 across its entire business, including scopes 1, 2 and 3. The carrier has twelve 16,000 teu dual-fuelled container vessels able to operate on carbon neutral methanol under construction at Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) for delivery in 2024 and 2025.

Maersk is also working with five other companies to establish Asia’s first green e-methanol plant, which converts captured biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) into green e-methanol. The pilot plant will be set up in Singapore pending the successful conclusion of feasibility studies by the end of 2022 with a minimum production capacity of 50,000 tons per annum.

In related news, one of Maersk’s future fuel suppliers, European Energy, has inked a ten-year deal with Canada’s Anaergia for the supply of up to 60,000 tonnes per year of liquefied biogenic CO2 for the production of green e-methanol".

QFI are not as advanced with production plans for MSAR/Bio MSAR. I hope you are all correct, but I for one am now very concerned about future prospects and a little surprised that so many seem complacent and do not see this as a threat.

semaphorRed

No. I think the market has had the news that Maersk ( a very large and influential player) has just pinned its colours to the mast on methanol and if they are doing so it may take the whole market with it.

Fitzy 66

I understand your point; indeed I agree with it .....but the fact of the matter is that Maersk have committed to methanol and not MSAR/BioMSAR. We may have a better synthetic/alternative fuel than anyone else but if the market is going for methanol then we are screwed. For those old enough think VHS vs Betamax etc

Vince 72
.... but why has it nothing to do with it? My question relates to the continued recent falls, with respect your answer refers to the future direction. Before anyone accuses me of de-ramping I am a long term - approx. 10 year holder here and own far more than I care to mention. Something has caused the recent selling when we should be seeing a lift due to the recent good news.

HF14 et al

So what's the consensus here? Do we think this is the reason our SP has been bleeding away in spite of our good news? Maersk are a very big player could this influence the entire market to go for methanol rather than MSAR/BioMSAR?

Well if Mister Market is right, and he normally is, this is telling me that it does not believe the story. The collective market is voting with its feet and its not positive, when it should be. I don't pretend to know, I'm just interpreting the price action and sharing my thoughts.

Something feels very wrong here. This is a fresh low in spite of what should be a golden period for QFI. I'm now more nervous than ever. With the recent progress and all the potentially good news in the short term this should be well and truly off the bottom by now. Something is a very wrong here.

Vince 72

....and better still it's owned by SSE so no foreign ownership/language/ cultural issues to overcome.