Quadrise Fuels International Live Discussion

Live Discuss Polls Ratings Documents
Page

Ripley94 20 Oct 2018

ADVN Share Tip Article Hi waytogo. Are you still in this one. I see JQW was another we were both in did you ever hear anything more about that or did they just disappear with our money ( was it a fraud )

dustofnations 19 Oct 2018

Latest QFI Community Newsletter: "Quadrise yearly report released amid IMO 2020 upheaval" I see you mention crowd funding in the newsletter. Any inkling as to how they will fund the Company going forward. Would love others to chime in on this, but my thoughts: We need to know more about the state of the described opportunities to figure the funding question out, IMO. The more solid the opportunities (e.g. signed contracts), the more funding options will become available – e.g. cheap debt, merchant finance arrangements. I would imagine more distant and uncertain options would make fundraising more difficult and expensive, and possibly more reliant upon equity raises, or expensive debt arrangements. I’m also cognisant that we need to be extremely careful with debt, as it can be highly problematic if schedules slip or projects are frozen (something QFI have experienced repeatedly). Although things aren’t great right now, it’d be much worse if we were accruing debts or had repayment events that could torpedo the company – the lack of debt has afforded QFI flexibility (whether that’s enough we shall hopefully learn soon).

979matagordabay 19 Oct 2018

Latest QFI Community Newsletter: "Quadrise yearly report released amid IMO 2020 upheaval" Dustof, I see you mention crowd funding in the newsletter. Any inkling as to how they will fund the Company going forward.

979matagordabay 19 Oct 2018

Latest QFI Community Newsletter: "Quadrise yearly report released amid IMO 2020 upheaval" Yes, was having a senior moment. Seem to be increasing with age as I wait for QFI to commercialise. Wonder if the wonder fuel will happen before full Alzheimer’s kicks in.

dustofnations 19 Oct 2018

Latest QFI Community Newsletter: "Quadrise yearly report released amid IMO 2020 upheaval" BTW, I presume you mean Ian Williams rather than Ian Newton? Not familiar with the latter name.

bobsson 18 Oct 2018

Latest QFI Community Newsletter: "Quadrise yearly report released amid IMO 2020 upheaval" dustofnations Great questions, and questions that need to be put to the Board at the AGM. I would suggest these are sent to MK prior to the AGM so he knows they are coming and ones which shareholders require to be answered honestly and clearly. Do not let the Board out of the room until all questions are satisfactorily answered, even if the answers are not as we would have hoped for. You may wish to raise the question as to whether MSAR is easily transportable in tankers without the need for their modification or expensive clean outs after offloading. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to produce your newsletter. I hope the next one will contain news of a contract win for MSAR!

dustofnations 18 Oct 2018

Latest QFI Community Newsletter: "Quadrise yearly report released amid IMO 2020 upheaval" Broadly agree with @979matagordabay. The market and regulatory conditions are ostensibly very good for QFI, and I believe the technology and economics are sound, but there’s so much we don’t know at the moment about the status of key relationships and potential contracts that I don’t feel confident in making any predictions. Some examples of things I think we need clarity on to understand where things are going: How far from contracts are any of the JGC opportunities. How far from commerciality/contracts are any of the FP opportunities. Is the non-KSA ME client serious and progressing their project? How far from contracts? Are any marine clients progressing projects beyond initial stages? How much progress has been made in making MSAR available at globally significant bunkering locations? Are Maersk reconsidering MSAR in light of their scrubber reassessment? If not, has the contractual situation been completely resolved? What are the key concerns expressed by customers that have slowed or prevented them adopting MSAR? For example, we’ve seen exotic ULSFO products seemingly used without needing full LONOs. Are any other revenue-generating opportunities at, or approaching, the contract stage. Ideally with more detail. If any projects are approaching contracts/commerciality, how will they be funded? Assuming nothing is forthcoming soon via RNS or Annual Report, we will have to firmly press at AGM.

Fillpot 18 Oct 2018

Are we still positive? Well they would say that wouldn’t they?! “What will everyone use in the future or will there be a myriad of fuels? For me, the only way forward is to go with gaseous fuels – and the infrastructure will follow in due course,” Jones said. “MAN Energy Solutions believes fully in its technology, to the extent that we pledge to subsidize the first 10 shipowners that convert their engines to LNG or a gas-derived fuel – up to a cumulative total of EUR 2 million – because I think someone has to stimulate the industry to think more holistically and long-term.” Go with gas and let the infrastructure catch up - great idea mate! I think this calls for a industry financier like Freepoint to do a deal with QFI to provide infrastructure for MSAR and make it available to the scrubber adopters as and when they want it.

979matagordabay 18 Oct 2018

Latest QFI Community Newsletter: "Quadrise yearly report released amid IMO 2020 upheaval" Bobsson, it is one thing to have a wonder fuel, it is another to have it readily available at strategic bunker hubs worldwide. The msar fuel is not a like for like when compared to HFO. The vessel fuel delivery system and ullage or fuel tanks need to be modified as well. I’m not sure what limitations there might be with transporting or putting msar in holding tanks. I know tankers transporting oil do not accept water and if water contaminates the tanker tanks they levy premiums for water removal. I don’t know if that applies to water in emulsion fuels but the point I’m trying to make is its not apples for apples. Post 2020 the fuel spreads are going to go ballistic but can QFI survive to then and beyond. In addition only an interim LONO. Do we have time patience and capital to fund another trial or are we expecting another player or even Maersk to come on-board and adopt the fuel as is based on the positive interim LONO. In the early days of the KSA MOU it was promoted to be a deal whereby the Oil Company would produce msar in KSA and delivery to the SEC power generation site or sites. This would and did seem the optimum approach to take but later we found out the deal was to use an out of country refinery to then import the fuel for a trial burn, seemed impractical, an expensive way around. Couldn’t we offer KSA the redundant MMU at cut price to produce msar in KSA? Or is it worth more in scrap value. We currently hold our breaths while we wait for QFI to find a buyer/end user for the MMU. QFI have said if no use for it then its going back to the manufacturer then what? Recently MK said he was at the helm but the business plan of Maersk and KSA was implemented by Ian Newton. BTW QFI need to update FAQ on website. However two big fish got away was that Newtons fault? Anyway hindsight is a wonderful thing. Now we await MK’s strategy to work out. I’m fearful like yourself that this is too little too late. Time will tell all. Good luck QFI, we certainly need some…

bobsson 18 Oct 2018

Latest QFI Community Newsletter: "Quadrise yearly report released amid IMO 2020 upheaval" dustofnations, I have just read your article. I would expect QFI are negotiating with Maersk to exit their original agreement as Maersk no longer intend to play a part in bringing MSAR to market. I would also expect that QFI will be negotiating with CEPSA to bring the San Roque project to an amicable conclusion, QFIs kit appears to be taking up space that CEPSA want to use for other hopefully profitable uses. I guess that any future production of MSAR will require our two prospective joint venture partners to negotiate a production agreement with a refiner(s) somewhere in the world. With more EGCS being installed in ships and the widening spread between HFO and MGO, and the additional 10% (?) cost saving which MSAR has over just using HFO, you would have thought that given the tight margins that shippers will face they would give MSAR a try. So if MSAR is so good why does no one use it? IMHO

979matagordabay 18 Oct 2018

Low sulphur fuels Bad fuel out there:- [link]

979matagordabay 18 Oct 2018

Low sulphur fuels Some interesting reading:- firstly indicating a short lifespan of scrubbers and secondly on scrubber promoting:- [link] [link]

979matagordabay 18 Oct 2018

Are we still positive? This point of view seems to be gathering pace. [link]

bobsson 18 Oct 2018

Are we still positive? Looks as if a lot of shareholders are selling out for anything they can get. Still a long way until the AGM on 30th November, but probably game over if nothing to report by then. No doubt the Board of Directors will try to put a brave spin on things but it is likely that those investors attending who can monitor mood, tone and and body language will have a sense of what is in store. The Board may of course avoid all this by putting the company into liquidation before the AGM. Sadly I am going down with the ship thinking, “if MSAR was so good why did no one buy it”? IMHO

dustofnations 17 Oct 2018

Low sulphur fuels The last bit is BS, well-to-wake CO2 emissions are lower for scrubbers than doing additional refining to desulphurise or produce lighter fractions (i.e. refining costs a lot of energy in of itself):

Page