|Quadrise Fuels International
||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
|Oil & Gas Producers
Quadrise Fuels Share Discussion Threads
Showing 46226 to 46248 of 46250 messages
|Thanks for the correction. I guess the word 'Once' should really be changed to 'if' though.
Oct 2013 RNS
' Qualifying fuels have to be proven in both land-based and seaborne operations to merit a Letter Of No Objection (LONO) issued by the engine manufacturer without which no modern shipping company would consider using a new fuel in its fleet operations.'|
|LOL - A basher changing syntax of a posts. OMG how shocking, little tinker.|
|Your quote missed this part from the paragraph:
"Once the LONO has been received from Wartsila it should then make it easier to obtain one from MAN, though there can be no guarantees. He did not think that the lack of a MAN trial was a problem."
Think that answers the question. Wartsila issue the LONO.|
|dunno but the engine manufacturer is supposed to do the inspection at the start and end of the test by the look of it, as well as supervise :
I must admit that Im starting to get a bit sceptical about the value of the current LONO program if it really is intermittent. But perhaps the 4,000 hrs haven't actually started yet, or perhaps the LONO is not intended to come from the engine manufacturer ?|
|kreature, your first two paragraphs in post 35269 "appears" ambiguous, as does the statement!
DPE's 'no firm agreement' revelation is not really a revelation. Looking back at the October RNS, the key words are 'subject to'. The word 'should' also makes a friendly appearance again......
'When LONO certification and other regulatory formalities have been completed the early commercial phase should get underway. If there is no onus on Wartsila, then who "certifies" LONO
"subject to Quadrise agreeing appropriate commercial............. "is not LONO"|
|Aye thus. Giveth strength :
T'was ever thus. Nothing has changed since any of us started investing here.
That's why the LONO production at Cepsa and use by Maersk is non revenue producing for QFI. It is a trial that each party can afford to write off and walk away without further commitment having only spent minimal capex.|
|DPE's 'no firm agreement' revelation is not really a revelation. Looking back at the October RNS, the key words are 'subject to'. The word 'should' also makes a friendly appearance again......
12th Oct 2016 RNS
'When LONO certification and other regulatory formalities have been completed the early commercial phase should get underway, subject to Quadrise agreeing appropriate commercial terms with CEPSA and Maersk.'
The revelations are on 3i imv.....long term holders losing their religion - q rem .|
|Makes you wonder,exactly what have Maersk agreed with QFI
What on earth is going on?
Orchestra strike up please!?|
|Tongosti/kreature/sallad :From LSE and a very experienced Chief Engineer Investor
"The revelation apparently announced today that there is no firm agreement between QFI & Maerk to use MSAR2 post successful LONO notwithstanding agreed contracts of course, is exactly that .... A revelation."|
|So are Wartsilla not part of the Wartsilla LONO program? This from 3i poster :
'...the current trial with Wartsila was going ahead without permits from Wartsila, and it would be up to each ship owner whether to adopt the fuel once the results of the trial were known.'
Would that (if true) not suggest that there will never be a Letter Of No Objection from Wartsilla? Who will be doing the interim assessment ? Does the ship owner have to write their own letter of no obligation then ? Is it 'up to each ship owner' whether or not to take a risk ? Why are there no permits from Wartsilla ?|
If my memory serves me correctly one of the engines is a "single cylinder only" test.
Also engine control processes need to be heavily modified to enable MSAR to be the fuel and therefore Maersk having already put the gear onto 2 ships with different engines they were not prepared to refit other boats; so it is wait and see.
I think that for Maersk, MSAR is just one option out of many... but post 2020 it can't be used without scrubbers.
Investors have to just sit, wait, hope and pray.
Now KSA might just be different but its at least a year away. In the meantime a near £100m cap is probably unsustainable - particularly if the IEG boys are still selling into any upward blip. Did anyone bother to ask the "restricted" shares number at the AGM?|
|Sounds like The AGM was a "stooge-managed" affair, with nothing left to chance in respect of guests and questions.
Possibly with the help of Secret Squirrel Forum Mooderators who had tipped off BOD who to admit/not as the case merited.|
|Big in Japanhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tl6u2NASUzU|
|You must be wetting yourself with excitement Brookie thinking of the next ever so clever comment to put on this board. Interspersed with lines of "Z's" and vague references to orchestras. Grow up man.|
The MAN situation is worrying to me and I don't understand it. Last year or was it two years ago Maersk were so gung-ho after the POC that they wanted the LONO to be the start of commercial roll-out not the final part of testing. Now they can't/won't do the MAN LONO (and I doubt that Wartsilla and MAN would agree to exchange info or that MAN would accept accept the Wartsilla LONO). The fuel switching and non-continuous running on MSAR also seems a strange approach.
Seems Maersk are continually dragging their feet for some reason. Can anyone throw any light on this?|
Seems I didn't miss much as I couldn't be there as I had already told the FD some time ago
Trying to limit questions to 15 minutes? Best I attend next year to stop that sort of nonsense, although one confused bunny on LSE thinks I was there anyway.
Think their advisers need to get their act together over checking slide shows etc for previously undisclosed events.
TOBY29 as Jason said last year, the MAN trials are entirely in the hands of Maersk and ship availability. Seems nothing has changed.
The resident engineer on LSE seems to be raising valid questions about LONO timing and fuel switching.
And as for the secret squirrel board the less said the better.|
|Did anybody not record the AGM on their phone?|
|Natives are rebelling over on LSE, they are not happy! Distrust The BOD !!!!!!!|
|MAN diesel... not much said. Down to Maersk. Re. placing, the IC piece came out several weeks after the actual interview with IC. Inference was that the situation had changed regarding need for financing.|
Can someone who was at AGM kindly tell us what was said about MAN diesel? Why have they gone to ground? Did anyone tackle the Chairman why he said in September that there was no need for for further then only a few weeks later we have the placing?|
|Ali, it was a sentence on a 1 page, 2 sided, investor relation 'summary sheet'. Somebody in QFI jumped the gun in including it on that document.Once the cat was out the bag (any relation?), they were forced to issue an RNS.|