I am glad to say I have most of my AIMs money in Atalaya (the old Rio Tinto mine in Spain) reopened a couple of years ago. Its steadily risen about 4 times from its low point value since it went into production 12 months ago and is now a conveyor belt for profit. Not quite compensated for my losses in QFI but it is well on the way to steady growth from here on.
It has been very volatile in the past, prior to going into production, I can only say the management team have done fantastic, now making profit every month, under promising and over delivering, a painful 4 years but now very steady and I am well into profit by 60%.
I have learnt to reduce my AIMs activity and focus on a few longer term opportunities rather than a shot gun approach as most AIMs companies follow a similar profile, normally a quick rise followed by a steady, sometimes dramatic drop in value over a couple of years with a few up and down spikes along the way, plenty of promise with little delivery of results.
My only other real AIMs investment is in Sirius Minerals, a potentially massive opportunity still 18 months to 2 years away (DYOR).
I am still invested in QFI, its a sleeper as far as I am concerned, if it dies no major loss to me, more a disappointment. If it does win contracts then I will be happy. More a pocket money share now.
You might wish to take a look at FRR. Starting to motor today ahead of first well results from a four well campaign. All very low risk wells which have been drilled before, so just being deepened or sidetracked to target and frack formations which are known to be productive. The first well has already been fracked and production tubing is being installed (see twitter pictures and commentary here:https://twitter.com/FronteraRes)
One of the wells Ud2 is a gas well whose results could be transformational in establishing the commerciality of a massive gas field. It had a workover last year and heavy duty pumps and a large quantity of ceramic proppant are now enroute there to assist with well stimulation which should take place within the next few days. This should not be construed as investment advice though, and as ever you will need to DYOR.
Why is the country with the worlds largest oil reserves importing crude?
States production is failing to meet domestic needs. By Paula Rincon
i Newspaper17 Apr 2018
A woman walks past an oil pump in Caracas. Petrol remains the only cheap commodity left in Venezuela but the industry is still struggling
Despite having the greatest oil reserves in the world, Venezuelas government is being forced to spend millions of dollars a day importing crude to prop up its ailing industry.
Petrol remains the only cheap commodity left in Venezuela amid the collapse of most of its economy, but the oil industry is also struggling to meet basic domestic demands.
Experts say the industry is operating below 40 per cent of its potential output. Last month, the International Energy Agency reported that Venezuela is and will probably remain the biggest risk factor in a global supply crisis that may soon tip the market into deficit.
Waterskier "CEPSA already has an up and running MMU that has already produced a lot of MSAR so it does not make sense that it is CEPSA and so must be another new facility (presumably in KSA."
I believe during the conference call it was made clear that the production refinery is not in KSA
The MMU at CEPSA is a 1000 tonne per day unit. The trial burn was intended to use approx 1 million barrels of MSAR (I believe), which is about 159,000 tonnes, so almost 160 days of MMU production. Obviously that would take too long, so my thoughts were that perhaps a 2nd MMU has been recently commissioned at CEPSA, to cope with the volume required for the trial. If it was paid for by Aramco, then QFI presumably didn't have to inform us. It would also explain why CEPSA have lost patience with the delays, and and our now looking for other customers
Just my own surmising , and as usual I look forward to being corrected by those more knowledgeable than I
It's all in here Bobson if you care to read it:https://www.se.com.sa/en-us/Pages/FinancialStatements.aspx but Ministerial intervention now seems to be taking place with the Finance Ministry having become involved. The Energy Minister is currently on his way home from the extended Royal tour which ended in Spain yesterday, so one would hope that there might be something on his desk for him to sign off. It simply can't go on forever or the SEC would have no fuel supplies for the new power stations which are now being built, so a sensible solution has to be found imho.
It still makes a lot of sense to me for the MSAR for the trial phase to be produced at the existing facilty in CEPSA using the residues from the Saudi crudes which they process. However they (the Saudi companies) would have to move pretty quickly if they still wished to take advantage of that opportunity since CEPSA clearly have other options for the fuel tanks which the MSAR would be stored in. We can but hope that those options involve the production of MSAR for other customers of CEPSA, in which case it's then a win win scenario, albeit that KSA would take a bit longer to pan out if a MMU has to be installed in one of their refineries.
I'd happily settle for that if the company were to get some short term cash flow from the CEPSA operations.
Thanks for your response th2. Should there be a reference in ToTs post to a residential tariff/rate? So if I am understanding this correctly the Saudi Electricity Company has attempted to charge Aramco for both industrial and domestic use, the domestic being at a higher rate than the industrial? So I can understand the SECs position but wonder how the situation was allowed to arise, but can guess that the SEC effectively saw loads of domestic users (mostly ex pats) getting a cheaper electricity deal than native Saudi`s, tried to put the rate up but Aramco refused to pay.
It will only be a quid pro quo if the SEC really do owe Aramco for fuel supplied, which no doubt they will dispute. This could run and run, and the lights still come on with or without the use of MSAR fuel.
It is becoming a little clearer, no doubt Aramco own and run the refinery and supply the oil. Perhaps the reference to another party is the one who produces the MSAR from the MMU at the refinery, perhaps CEPSA. Still a mushroom.
This is no way to run a railroad.
"Further to my earlier post in this thread I have been digging a bit deeper. In its consolidated financial statements for the year ending 31st December 2016:
https://www.se.com.sa/en-us/Pages/FinancialStatements.aspx the SEC has inserted a note on page 31 regarding a financial dispute with Aramco. As it's a PDF I am unable to copy it here but the gist of it is that the SEC had been charging Aramco at the industrial rate for the electricity it supplies to its residential properties (think of the many thousands of ex pats it houses in its compounds) but Aramco objected and paid only the industrial tariff. The Council of Ministers issued a resolution to end the dispute but there were issues of definition etc, and numerous meetings were held between the parties and the regulator in an attempt to resolve it. This seemed to result in some resolution but as at the date of the accounts the SEC was still chasing Aramco for payment.
Going back to my original post as at 31/12/17 the parties are now in dispute over payments to Aramco for fuel supplied and it has been referred to the Ministry of Finance. It appears to me that there is a quid pro quo situation here whereby, given the history, the SEC wants this dispute resolved before it enters into any new agreement with Aramco. From what we heard in the conference call it would appear that the British Embassy have become involved in helping QFI and one would hope that some heads have been banged together whilst MK has been out there this week.
Hopefully a little more patience will be well rewarded.
Why don't you stop littering the Board with all this nonsense? It is the blind leading the blind.
If you have to resolve these technical points address your legitimate concerns to the Company not to us.
This non disclosure policy by QFI is ludicrous. It appears now we are unsure if a MMU has been constructed/installed in KSA, or the MMU to produce the fuel for the trial is the existing one in Spain?
If its the San Roque MMU then they have to tanker the base fuel from SA and tanker it back as refined MSAR fuel.
If this is true then why the dispute between the SA electricity company and the oil company?
If QFI had spent money on an MMU in KSA, the large expenditure should show in the accounts?
This is supposed to be the knowledgeable QFI bb, so what exactly is the accurate situation please?
America and KSA did not sign but 171 countries did sign and McNamara MD of Americas VPS will be exploring fuel choice implications at IBIA Caribbean Bunker conference in Jamaica April 17-19. KSA will soon feel the heat.
Waterskier, Yes, I have been pondering this and the business regarding the confusing continuing references to counter parties. Why is the oil company in dispute with the electricity company? Keep it simple, an oil company (ies) supplies the refinery and the refinery supplies MSAR to the electricity generating company. Simples.
I always thought the refinery was a Saudi project in SA. So is it CEPSA that has built the MSAR plant at the SA refinery? I did suggest in a previous post that CEPSA San Roque could produce MSAR for the SA electricity company. Lets face it CEPSA San Roque has b all else to do with its MSAR unit.
There is one thing that questions the assumption that the fuel was to be produced by CEPSA.
Having reviewed the latest batch of RNSs there are regular comments such as
" during the first quarter of 2018, Quadrise commissioned the MSAR® manufacturing facility on site at the refinery counterparty." and earlier "confirmed that the preparatory work for the fuel production was essentially complete."
CEPSA already has an up and running MMU that has already produced a lot of MSAR so it does not make sense that it is CEPSA and so must be another new facility (presumably in KSA.
we've never been told anything that wasn't true. All the negative people are either shorters or people who've never started a business and think "oh, good product, will sell, SP is low for no real reason and will be 3 quid in a 6 months lets chuck the pension in and buy a yacht for christmas"
Just chatting to a friend of mine who works for a pharma multinational buying biotech molecules to develop into drugs. He was telling me that he was instructed not to buy the one that he believe was by far the best because their marketing department said it wasn't as easy to sell. They ended up buying one that had very poor potential efficacy (didn't work) because it had a good story behind it. This is business, this is life.
"The announcement about JGC clearly said that QFI would pay them a royalty, not the other way round. Since QFI don't actually produce or sell any fuel, where does that leave the net cash flow? At the discretion of the refinery?"
JGC will identify and deal with the target customers. They are EPC (engineering, procurement and construction) contractors and will be paid by the client for designing, modifying and commissioning the MSAR production unit. QFI will receive revenue based upon the volume of MSAR produced, from which they will pay JGC a royalty
That is my understanding of the agreement, I could be totally wrong but it's the kind of arrangement that makes sense to me
"The announcement about JGC clearly said that QFI would pay them a royalty, not the other way round. Since QFI don't actually produce or sell any fuel, where does that leave the net cash flow?"
"At the discretion of the refinery?"
How could that possibly ever be the case? Akzo would never let that happen.
"To the extent that MSAR represents technology rather than an alternative fuel"
It's a technology for an alternative fuel
"it certainly is not disruptive"
of course it is, it would have saved KSA $500M per year. Fact.
"It is an emulsion process which has been around for decades. "
Well, emulsion has been around since the beginning of time but this is a patented process. Without going into the technology, if anyone could do it why would Maersk and Aramco and JGC and Akzo be spending so much time and money on this specific one?
"It will not create a new industry or a new market."
It won't create a new market, the idea is to replace HFO in the same market.
"Oil is yesterday's source of electricity generation"
Not for all the HFO plants in KSA, Japan, Nigeria etc.
"there is not a single shipping line or engine supplier who has approved MSAR use as a marine fuel."
Yeah, the LONO wasn't completed. Keep up.
"The interim LONO from the Maersk trial has never been published"
Of course it wasn't. You conduct and pay for the trial, you get to read the report.
"Even if a million ships are fitted with scrubbers to remove sulphur oxides, why would that imply a market for MSAR"
Because it would generate a cash saving for the user and the refinery while eliminating particulate emissions.
"which is 30% less energy efficient than HFO ?"
Quick question: how many QFI shares do you own? Just round numbers.
I agree with what you say about Apple , but the Orimulsion/ MSAR idea has been around for twenty years and has so far failed to gain any traction in the market. Even Apple had decent and sustainable revenue before it exploded.
I work in IT. From personal experience, winning business with a client can take months to years. That is from first contact to contract signed.
What business am I talking about? Maybe just one or two consultants to turn up Monday 09:00 at the client site with a laptop.
Now, let's look at Quadrise's business. The adaptation of a fleet of ships, or a refinery and power stattion. Imagine the complexity of the logistics, engineering, legals, and financials necessary to go from first contact to contract signed.
I'm as frustrated as everyone else and dearly want this to succeed. But, we need to consider how long things take in the real world.
People cite success stories such as Apple. But Apple was born in 1976. It took over thirty years to produce the iPhone. That is almost four times the lifetime of Quadrise.
Moreover, from 1991 - 1997 Apple was on the rocks. The share price near worthless. Imagine all the long term holders who had stock ten or fifteen years! I'm sure they savaged the company in the press and the incompetent BoD.
Things are challenging I don't disagree. But let's apply some context and history to the picture.
The announcement about JGC clearly said that QFI would pay them a royalty, not the other way round. Since QFI don't actually produce or sell any fuel, where does that leave the net cash flow? At the discretion of the refinery?
Anyway, I see the words "disruptive technology " appearing again.
To the extent that MSAR represents technology rather than an alternative fuel, it certainly is not disruptive. It is an emulsion process which has been around for decades. It will not create a new industry or a new market. It might be described as a sustaining or evolving technology , but not a disruptive one.
Oil is yesterday's source of electricity generation, and there is not a single shipping line or engine supplier who has approved MSAR use as a marine fuel. The interim LONO from the Maersk trial has never been published. Even if a million ships are fitted with scrubbers to remove sulphur oxides, why would that imply a market for MSAR, which is 30% less energy efficient than HFO ?
fyoz, He had just signed into a collaboration with QFI via a memorandum of agreement, and you quote from the blurb/spin statement that follows the announcement.
To which I respond: "Well he would say that wouldn`t he".
As I said at the time, (look it up) it was a nothing announcement that would just cost QFI money to pursue and money that it cannot afford.
Where`s the beef QFI????????
Looks like the sp heading to recent lows, look forward to the" couldn`t resist a top up" posts. Please let us know who is buying and how much.
The doom mongers coming out of the woodwork, who are guessing about the future of the company, or this guy:-
Takashi Yasuda, Senior Executive Officer of JGC's Technology Innovation, said:
"We are pleased to have reached agreement with QFI. Access to their MSAR® technology will enable JGC to offer its clients a cost-effective and environmentally beneficial alternative to HFO that can be implemented rapidly. We look forward to working with QFI and building what we expect to be a significant new business stream."
That's true but in this story Betamax doesn't have a competitor in VHS. It's true that technology doesn't sell itself but the biggest players have actually bought in, to the tune of millions of dollars of their own money, just not followed through. Doesn't help us of course, we're in the same financial spot as if none of this ever happened. But looking to the future and finding a buyer, it's not as if we've been wondering the desert for the last 8 years.
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.