Quadrise Fuels Share Discussion Threads

[kreature] 27/1/2023 12:01

Could do with an RNS Update here on the Moccoco 2022 trial to be completed last December, but stuck in customs in January ?

And an RNS Update on the global shipping fuel with no fuel trial, to start but not start in 2022, at the latest? (Subject to the vessel not wanting to be available?)

And a (projected) earnings Update (subject to there ever being earnings).

And a funding update on the pocket-money situation ?

[kreature] 27/1/2023 11:48

Could be a heavy container tbf

[vauch] 27/1/2023 11:29

and $10,500 Dollars for a 20” container to the East
it would be cheaper to post a 20 inch container

[sallad3] 27/1/2023 11:26

HAZL

Thought you might need some help on the maths.

Use of LNG rathar than bioMSAR is equivalent to less than 1% of the TEU's carried.

Cost to end user of shippping?

Economic case for QFI products in the marine sector? DYOR

"How much does it cost to ship a container from China to United States
The price to ship a container from China to the United States will cost you approximately $8,500 American Dollars (USD) for a 20ft container to the West Coast of America, and $10,500 Dollars for a 20” container to the East Coast of the United States, and up to $15,000 for a 40HC container to the West Coast, and $18,000 to the East Coast. These rates examples are for local charges in China + export docs in China + Ocean Freight from China to a port in the USA."

[sallad3] 27/1/2023 10:49

HAZL

Probably because they were sells if you simply look at the Bid/Offer spread at the time.

Recent Share Trades for Quadrise Fuels (QFI)
Date Time Trade Prc Volume Buy/Sell Bid Ask Value
27-Jan-23 10:12:03 1.4685 59,844 Sell* 1.46 1.545 878.81 O
27-Jan-23 10:03:35 1.50 10,000 Sell* 1.46 1.545 150.00 O
27-Jan-23 09:41:12 1.4771 200,000 Sell* 1.46 1.545 2,954 O
27-Jan-23 08:58:45 1.5317 15,701 Buy* 1.46 1.545 240.49 O
27-Jan-23 08:47:29 1.51 500,000 Sell* 1.50 1.55 7,550 O
27-Jan-23 08:25:36 1.51 100,000 Sell* 1.50 1.55 1,510 O
27-Jan-23 08:03:55 1.5101 425,485 Sell* 1.505 1.65 6,425 O

[hazl] 27/1/2023 10:36

Pity those that are likely 'buys' do not always show up in the buy column.
I must say.

[hazl] 27/1/2023 10:28

Don't forget the shipping industry is facing many changes .
If McKinsey's predictions are correct

'The view from 2067:
A smart, customer-focused
container industry'

digitisation is the major concern .

IMO

[hazl] 27/1/2023 10:22

Indeed, as the Suez canal for instance,charges more, ships owners are making the decision,sometimes,apparently, to skirt round Africa rather than taking the shorter route...saving money in one respect and not having to stop but slowly progress, saving money in the process.


Your question.

'Please read the following and discuss how many TEU's are displaced by either fuel and the financial impact on shipowners of the revenue lost by using the much more expensive (per your slide)bioMSAR
compared to QFI's products.'

Does your question make sense I ask myself?
BioMSAR is not more expensive it is cheaper than conventional fuels.
Look at the expense required for storage of LNG's.
Look at the safety....explosive.... needs stringent safety measures to avoid methane slip.
You have to look at the total package.
Individual parts will not do it is the oversall cost that counts.
Things change this 2017 McKinsey report talks about a consolidating shipping industry
MSC isn't even in it's list in diagram Exhibit 7 1996

[sallad3] 27/1/2023 09:40

HAZL

Your slide shows that bioMSAR occupies <1.3 times HFO whilst LNG is <1.8.

Please read the following and discuss how many TEU's are displaced by either fuel and the financial impact on shipowners of the revenue lost by using the much more expensive (per your slide)bioMSAR
compared to QFI's products.

"The amount of fuel carried on a container ship varies based on the engine capacity and size of the ship, which themselves are a function of the particular trading route the ship operates in and the optimal speed of the ship's engine.

One of the largest container ships to call on the U.S., the CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin, carries approximately 4.5 million gallons of fuel oil. Ship fuel capacity is generally converted to volumetric measurement. The equivalent on the Ben Franklin would be close to 16,000 cubic meters.

The CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin is considered an ultra-large container ship, as it can carry the equivalent of 18,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) in containers. Ultra-large container ships are more frequently used to bring goods from Asia to Europe.

Container ships that can go through the old Panama Canal locks are called Panamax ships and can generally hold up to 5,000 TEUs. Those vessels typically hold between 1.5 million and 2 million gallons of fuel.

Many container ships that call on the U.S. now are considered post-Panamax or New Panamax, named so because they are larger and can go through the newer, larger locks on the Panama Canal. Those ships are generally in the 8,000- to 14,000-TEU range. Ships in that size range can carry between 2.5 million and 3.5 million gallons of fuel.

The amount of fuel actually be used on a sailing depends primarily on the ship's speed. Most ship engines have been designed for top speeds ranging between 20 and 25 knots per hour, which is between 23 and 28 miles per hour. A Panamax container ship can consume 63,000 gallons of marine fuel per day at that speed.

Fuel use drops sharply as speeds decrease. A container ship can decrease fuel use close to one-third if it drops its speed 10%."

[hazl] 27/1/2023 06:05

Now you can see that the people above know absolutely nothing and seek only to disrupt.



It has arrived!



'The current position of MSC LEANDRA is at Persian Gulf reported 4 mins ago by AIS. The vessel is en route to the port of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE), sailing at a speed of 4.6 knots and expected to arrive there on Jan 26, 20:00.

The vessel MSC LEANDRA (IMO: 9313943, MMSI 255803590) is a Container Ship built in 2007 (16 years old) and currently sailing under the flag of Madeira.'


It has been purchased by MSC to test QFI's fuel!

[kreature] 26/1/2023 22:47

Hmm, I think maybe I sound less positive that I mean to on that last one, so sorry about that, I do apologise. Will focus on the achievements so far….

[tongosti] 26/1/2023 20:16

Get the gist

[kreature] 26/1/2023 19:47

And the position of the titanic is available online…..but prob won’t have wind in the sails anytime soon. Tbf they were stupid back then too, driving into an iceberg at full speed

[kreature] 26/1/2023 19:39

Who gives a flyingfk where the vessel is ? These no 1,000 ton fuel supply to put in the tank. (Ffs)

[kreature] 26/1/2023 19:37

Or some breakdown of the earnings that don’t disturb ? Or the thousand ton fuel supply that doesn’t exist, or the work to be done last year at dry dock in preparation for the nothing ?

[hazl] 26/1/2023 19:36

Position receieved 4 minutes ago.

[kreature] 26/1/2023 19:35

Some news on the Monocho rest that was to be completed in December would be nice. Or maybe some news on the MSc trail that didn’t stared last year at the latest ?

[kreature] 26/1/2023 19:33

Interesting, great read thank you. Any news tho ?

[hazl] 26/1/2023 19:28

Just look at this comparison table,those who are genuinely interested.

[hazl] 26/1/2023 19:27

In its attempts to fully decarbonise the sector, the marine industry must be cautious that its space-race to Net-Zero does not ignore the significant GHG reductions that can currently be achieved by investing in the deployment and use of transition fuels.

When compared to LNG and FAME, bioMSAR™ offers significant advantages:

Higher CO2 savings and improved engine efficiency
A lower fuel cost per unit energy
No competition for biofuel or gas feedstock
Low-cost implementation
Low safety risks, including no methane slip

[hazl] 26/1/2023 19:27

Future “Net-Zero̶1; fuels

Hydrogen, ammonia and methanol are currently seen as the frontrunners in the race to produce a net-zero marine fuel, although none of these green fuels are truly net-zero today without carbon offsetting. Whilst these may turn out to be viable in the long-term, each must overcome significant challenges in the nearer-term.

Hydrogen and ammonia’s low volume energy density and high-risk safety concerns pose enormous challenges with the storage and handling of these fuels. Both fuels are scalable and have large markets, however the cost of production from renewable sources (known as green hydrogen and green ammonia) are currently very high and require enormous levels of investment into renewable power generation from wind or solar which will not be available for many years.

Methanol requires large-scale biomass gasification to produce ‘bio-methanol&#8217; or carbon-capture to produce ‘blue methanol’. “Green methanol” production requires considerable investment in new renewable energy (~50MW per container ship requires 200-500MW new wind/solar capacity). Currently, due to limited commercial applications and challenging technological and infrastructure requirements, blue and green methanol will not be available for some time at scale.

[hazl] 26/1/2023 19:22

Compared to current marine fuels, bioMSAR™ offers considerably reduced risk as glycerine is bio-degradable, non-toxic and non-flammable. In the unlikely event of a fuel spill, both MSAR® and bioMSAR™ readily disperse in water due to the pre-atomised nature of the oil droplets in the fuel.

FAME is considered non-hazardous to humans and the environment; however FAME blends will not disperse as readily as MSAR®/bioMSAR™ in water, due to its lower solubility.

For LNG, stringent safety measures are required to maintain its liquid state, as in its gaseous form natural gas is highly flammable and presents a significant explosive risk. Any fugitive or accidental release of methane has an extremely detrimental impact to global warming.

[hazl] 26/1/2023 19:20

FAME and bioMSAR™ require only minor modifications to on board fuel handling systems, and require much lower additional storage capacity than LNG. The additional 20-30% bioMSAR™ capacity required is reduced when factoring in the decreased fuel consumption, due to higher combustion efficiencies in larger diesel engines.

The increased solvency of FAME blends may dislodge old sludge deposits causing blockage with filters and damage to fuel pumps[3]. FAME blending may also result in fuel solidification in onboard storage tanks, especially over extended storage periods.

As with MSAR®, bioMSAR™ is compatible with existing onboard fuel oil systems, with no significant vessel modifications required to transition to their use, and none of the risks of fuel blockages posed by FAME. The stable emulsion fuels can be stored at atmospheric pressure and pumped efficiently at ambient temperatures.

[hazl] 26/1/2023 19:19

Until recently, LNG was the cheapest transition fuel on a cost per unit energy basis, due to the economies of scale resulting from production in large volumes. However, LNG prices can fluctuate dramatically, with US hub prices rising over 200% since 2020[2], and prices in Europe and Asia even higher.

In addition, the costs of handling LNG are up to 40% higher than for fuel oil due to the capital and operating costs required to deliver, store and handle LNG as well as the required modifications to the vessel engine and fuel supply systems.

As with all biofuels, the cost of FAME has increased 2-3 times since 2020 due to the decline in supply during the pandemic. Future increased demand from the marine sector may result in costs increasing even further.

Whilst the price of the crude glycerine used in bioMSAR™ has also increased, by a similar factor to FAME, the cost of bioMSAR™ remains lower per unit energy.