Member Info for VINCE72

Until Msar or BioMsar is proved in a trial and contracts with MSC secured i don't see it Wonga.

We are still doing the talky talky explore potential stuff.

I hardly think so Toby, since MSC and Maersk have dissolved their alliance just recently.

https://shipandbunker.com/news/world/231837-green-shipping-corridor-planned-between-california-and-japan

If Utah ever gets its act together and we can bunker low sulphur Msar in LA this is a perfect opportunity.

In the time its taken to get this far for testing BioMsar first, we could have tested Msar and obtained a full LONO with or without a scrubber. With 1300 hrs behind it, they know there are no outlying problems with MSAR.

But they still like to burn that HFO despite the conferences,
Seminars and green rhetoric.

https://shipandbunker.com/news/world/419208-worlds-largest-container-ship-is-running-on-hsfo-with-scrubbers

And to think they could be using standard Msar, but decide to burn HFO.

https://shipandbunker.com/news/world/930776-worlds-largest-shipping-firm-signs-five-year-partnership-deal-with-gcmd
Awww thats nice,rhey'll provide financial support for their trials.

If that's the case why not put Eco or Green inberween Quadrise and Fuels. Its all minutiae. All bones and no meat.

Reading the RNS again also suggests that standard MSAR isn't going to be playing a big role in QED"s future.

With an upcoming fund raise,I would think its more designed to attract green investors. Not a nod and a wink that anything major is on the horizon.

If its solely to attract green in investors then changing it to something like Quadrise Eco Fuels or something similar would be better than just dropping fuels.

Any RNS other than those that count.

On a serious note , if the markets go tits up as a result of the Silicon Bank default and contagion soreads,then Qfi are going to have a really hard time with a fund raise unless we have some concrete news on a lot of fronts.

Its gonna be batten down the hatches time.

Maersk is big on green methanol as well. The company has bought several dual-fuel ships which could burn green methanol if they could source it in sufficient volumes, and signed several sourcing agreements with firms promising to build green methanol capacity. When I assessed their initial announcements in 2021, I put the increased fuel costs at four times that of diesel. At the time, they’d committed to purchase green methanol sufficient for half of one journey for one of the eight ships once a year, well under 1% of the annual fuel requirement.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/cleantechnica.com/2023/03/06/atlantic-crossing-by-methanol-powered-ship-is-neither-viable-nor-carbon-neutral/amp/

A very eye opening article on Methanol

The methanol industry likes to assert that manufacturing methanol is relatively low carbon, at 20 grams CO2e per MJ or 400 grams CO2e per kg, but independent modern assessments put it at 110 grams CO2e per MJ and about 1.4 kg CO2e per kg methanol. So that’s problem one with methanol as a shipping fuel,

The energy density by mass is lower as well, with about 45% of the energy density of diesel. So when you burn it, you have to burn over twice as much to get the same energy. And that means that burning it results in virtually the same CO2 as diesel, about 97%. Doesn’t seem so good after all, does it?

The only important speaker there really is the guy from MAN. If JM has spoken about the test results with Wartsilla then it might be of interest to him at a later point.

But again its just a lot of bluster and greenwashing until we have evidence that the chicken and egg problem has been solved ( and it will only do so with an announcement of a fuel supplier) then its buisness as usual.

Its down to MSC to show really it is committed. The Leandra needs to get into dry Dock and and get sorted and ultimately they have to pressure the likes of Shell to say we really want this as part of our solution mix.

The fact that negotiations have been taking place since last July says a lot.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/bloomberg/the-world-s-top-container-carrier-sees-hurdles--costs-in-green-energy-shift/48332722

It’s a chicken-and-the-egg situation, because the people that are going to make multi-billion dollar investments into the future fuels, they want certainty that there’s demand, and the ones that are contracting ships, they want to make sure they have fuel available for the ships to sail,” Mediterranean Shipping Co. Chief Executive Office Soren Toft said.

Yes the same old circular argument, round and round in circles.

No doubt the same is being said at the conference JM is attending.

We've always known that. This is down to MSC to push things harder with fuel suppliers on our behalf and show so commitment by at least getting the ship in dry Dock instead of trying to screw every last penny out it before doing so. One ship out of nearly 600 and and **** poor shape and still we wait for some commitment.

https://shipandbunker.com/news/world/701657-worlds-largest-shipping-firm-willing-and-ready-to-take-on-alternative-fuels

Great, so stop talking and get on with it. Starting with announcements of dry docking and fuel supply.

https://podcasts.apple.com/nl/podcast/the-npt-podcast/id1570076803

A podcast by Vertoro for Lobsterman1965 on the forum, seeing as I still have to get approval to post.....a year later.

Yes. We can all flip flop HF14. Like you saying there would be no RNS Fact about Msar being released from customs.

Whether I'm optimistic or pessimistic is my opinion. I don't or couldn't care less if anybody agrees with me.