Quadrise Plc (QED) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Quadrise Fuels International plc Annual General Meeting. [Operator Instructions] Shareholders have had the opportunity to presubmit questions ahead of today's Annual General Meeting, and therefore, no further questions will be taken online during this meeting. I'd also like to remind you that this meeting is being recorded. I'd now like to hand over, if I may, to Mike Kirk, Chairman from Quadrise Fuels. Good afternoon, sir.

Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Mike Kirk. I'm the Chairman. And I'd like to welcome you to the Annual General Meeting of Quadrise Fuels International plc. Thank you for attending today. And...

Is there are any microphones [indiscernible]?

There aren't. I'll just make sure I speak up. May I remind you that this meeting is also being observed via the web and a video link provided by Investor Meet Company. Just to clarify, though, only people in this room are formally attending the AGM. But before we move on to the formal business of the meeting, and the business update presentation, I'd just like to introduce my colleagues from the Board. And if I could ask, perhaps to start with you, Laurie, and then work across that way. Thank you.

I'm Laurie Mutch, and I will be taking over as Interim Chairman from the end of today.

I'm Phil Snaith, Nonexecutive Director.

Ian Farrelly, Company Secretary.

Jason Miles, CEO.

Thank you.

I'm David Scott, Head of Finance, but I'm not a board member.

The meeting today will be in 2 parts. The formal business of resolutions that are contained in the AGM notice center shareholders will be considered first. The shareholders will be asked to vote on a show of hands and the formal meeting will then be closed and will be followed by a business update presentation and Q&A session. So we can now turn to the formal Annual General Meeting. The required quorum for the annual general meeting is present, and I formally declare the meeting open. The resolutions on which shareholders will be asked to vote are listed in the notice of Annual General Meeting that has been circulated to shareholders. And with the meeting's permission, I'd like to take the notice of meeting as read. Is that okay with everyone? Thank you very much. We are holding the AGM as an open meeting, and voting on each resolution put to the meeting will be on a show of hands, and we will be displaying the proxy votes received for each of the resolutions. And to avoid any confusion of a voting, I'd like to remind the meeting that only those who have been given a voting card may vote on the resolutions put forward in the meeting. Voting cards are being given to registered shareholders, duly appointed corporate representatives and duly appointed proxies. Should anyone wish to ask a question during the formal part of the meeting, I'd ask that they be kept limited to the formal resolution being put forward as there will be an opportunity to ask more general questions after the formal part of the meeting has been concluded and Jason has taken you through the business update presentation through. If you do wish to ask a question, could I ask that you raise your hand, state your name and whether you are a shareholder, proxy holder or corporate representative before asking the question? I'll now turn to the formal resolutions to be considered in the meeting. And behind me, you will see now the summary of the proxy results that we have received on each of the resolutions. Thank you. The first resolution is Resolution 1, which is to receive the annual report and accounts of the company for the year ended 30th of June 2021 and the report of the auditors thereon. Now before I put the resolution to the meeting, can I ask if there are any questions in connection with the proposed resolution? No. Thank you very much. I will now put the resolution to the meeting. All those in favor, please raise their hand. Thank you. All those against, please raise their hand. Thank you. I declare the resolution carried by the required majority. The next resolution is Resolution 2, which is to reelect Philip Snaith as a Director of the company, who is retiring in accordance with the company's Articles of Association. Can I ask if there are any questions in connection with the proposed resolution? Thank you. I will now put the resolution to the meeting. All those in favor, please raise their hand. Thank you. All those against, please raise their hand. Thank you very much. I declare this resolution carried by the required majority. Thank you. The next resolution is Resolution 3, which is to reappoint BDO LLP as auditors of the company to hold office from the conclusion of this AGM until the conclusion of the next AGM at which accounts are laid before the company and to authorize the directors to determine the auditor's remuneration. Are there any questions in relation to this resolution? Thank you. I will now put the resolution to the meeting. All those in favor of the resolution, please raise their hand. Thank you. All those against the resolution, please raise their hand. Thank you. I declare the resolution carried by the required majority. The next resolution is Resolution 4, and this relates to the directors' authority to allot -- sorry, to allot shares up to a limited amount of 1/3 of the company's issued share capital. The full text of this resolution is shown in the Notice of Annual General Meeting. And with the meeting's permission, I would like to take the resolution, which is quite lengthy as read, please? Thank you. Before I put the resolution to the meeting, are there any questions in relation to this resolution? No. Thank you very much. I will now put the resolution to the meeting. All those in favor, please raise their hand. Thank you. All those against, please raise their hand. Thank you very much. I declare this resolution carried by the required majority. Thank you. The next resolution is Resolution 5 that relates to the disapplication of preemption rights. This is a standard resolution that gives the company limited authority to the directors to issue up to 5% of the company's issued share capital for cash. For example, in relation to a fundraising without offering those shares to existing shareholders. And again, the full text is in the Notice of Meeting. And if I could take that as read. Thank you. Before I put the resolution to the meeting, can I ask if there are any questions in connection with the proposed resolution? No. Thank you very much. I now put the resolution to the meeting. All those in favor, please raise their hand. Thank you very much. All those against, please raise their hand. Thank you. I declare this resolution carried by the required majority. The final resolution is Resolution 6, that also relates to the disapplication of preemption rights. This, again, is a standard resolution that gives limited authority for the directors to issue up to 5% of the company's issued share capital for cash without first offering those shares to existing shareholders provided that this power is only used in connection with an acquisition or other capital investment. And again, as before, if I can take the notice -- if I can take the wording of the resolution as read, please? Thank you. Before I put the resolution to the meeting, can I ask if there are any questions in relation to this resolution? No. Thank you very much. I will now put the resolution to the meeting and all those in favor, please raise your hand. Thank you. All those against the resolution, please raise their hand. Thank you. I declare the resolution carried by the required majority. Thank you. And just for those actually watching, I just want to confirm that within the meeting, all of those resolutions were carried unanimously. That concludes the formal business of the meeting. I declare the formal Annual General Meeting closed, and they will now follow our business update presentation followed by a Q&A session. Thank you very much, everyone. I'm now going to hand over to Jason, who will take you through the presentation.

Thank you, Mike, and welcome, everyone, to the room and also online. It's a great format to be able to reach out to as many people as we can during a quite interesting times at the moment. So without further ado, moving on from a disclaimer. Obviously, this year, we've had a very busy year. We've made some great progress, but also, we've met today, especially in terms of some of the updates that some of the projects are not quite where we would like them to be. Feel free to ask very specific questions. I'll try and address each of the projects as we go along. But to give you some highlights as we see it today. I'm sorry. You have it done?

Yes, I'm just trying to get rid of bars.

I think that's on -- okay, I don't know if you can get rid of those, unfortunately.

Just hold your mouse over the slides and away from the slide deck, it will remove the bars for you.

I think that's on. Okay. That's on. You can click over there.

Yes.

So MSAR and bioMSAR that really have a key role in accelerating the energy transition to net-zero. But we're in the middle of a real dichotomy. There's a space race going on at the moment where lots of people are chasing a dream with regards to green fuels, which requires a massive investment in new infrastructure and bring all sorts of additional problems to the world. While back on earth, there are some technologies today that we really believe are really key to and pivotal to the transition process, which will immediately reduce emissions today. So we are looking to change the narrative. There's lots of headlines being made by very large companies, promoting hydrogen and methanol, ammonia, all of which have their own features, some positive, some bad, and we'll try and put that into some perspective today. But we are looking to change the narrative. We really believe that we have a great part to play in the transition process, and we really feel that this is an area of the business that we can really develop both with MSAR and bioMSAR. But furthermore, we're not stopping there with what we're doing today. We're driving RD -- our RDI forward as well, looking at new opportunities and new means of producing a net-zero product. And it's important to say right here now that net-zero today is not really net-zero in reality. If you're producing green methanol or you're producing green ammonia, you're actually only getting about 80% to 85% reduction in CO2. So there's no such thing as having zero CO2 in the world with some of the options that are being put today to the marketplace. And we believe already we're getting very close to having something that's very tangible with the alternatives at a much lower cost and significantly less requirements for infrastructure. And in terms of changing the narrative for a small company, we really are punching above our weight. We really believe in what we're doing in the company. We're trying to get the message across to as many people as possible. We're getting good airtime through some of the industry associations that we're working with, such as the UK Chamber of Shipping. And we're getting -- we're trying to get the message out to as many places as we can obviously, with the resources that we have available. So we are really seeking to get -- to enhance the message both online in terms of some of the things we're saying through social media. And the work on the website is in progress as well to get to -- so people really fully understand the products that we're delivering and how they can help the transition process. It's not perfect yet, we admit. We're really working towards improving that messaging so that people really understand where we fit. In terms of the overall economics for MSAR, what's happened during the start of 2020 is that obviously, if you look on the graph at the top, there's a crash in prices as COVID hit, that really hit oil demand, especially in the transportation sector. And that's slowly, slowly creeping back up. Obviously, COVID has been here for longer than anyone would have possibly thought of. It does seem it won't go away yet either. But that's really -- that has hit transportation fuel demand and spreads. And we'll come on to what that really means for Quadrise as we've gone through this quite unprecedented period of time for oil. It is also hit biofuel prices as well, and it's important to stress that the biofuel prices, they dipped a little bit, but then they've got -- they've basically increased in quite dramatically as demand has recovered. The biofuel supply hasn't quite kept up. So the cost of biofuels today, in many cases, sort of 3 to 5x more than they were if you look 12 months ago. Glycerine is a product that we use in our particular fuel, which is -- and is a byproduct of biodiesel. So essentially, the glycerine prices increased by a similar margin. And again, we can look at the -- what that means for the relative economics of bioMSAR compared to other biofuel blends on the next slide. So in terms of MSAR and bioMSAR, the savings are still significant. MSAR has kept a very good competitive edge even during a period of very challenging demand. So the economics of MSAR have been maintained around 30% savings overall, which is then split between the refinery and Quadrise on this example, which is using the Mediterranean oil prices. In a similar way, bioMSAR has kept a pretty good saving over equivalent biofuel blends. So for the same amount of equivalent CO2 and saving in the fuel, the alternative of blending, say, heavy fuel oil with an HVO product. This is first generation of HVO. Basically bioMSAR has been very competitive. There are -- there's a slight difference in timing between glycerine prices and they lag slightly to biodiesel prices. Sometimes there's a period where the savings are not as high as it would be normally. But essentially, what we've seen with bioMSAR is around a 20% saving compared to equivalent of biofuel prices. And that percentage actually as a dollar per tonne number is quite significant. The cost of the bioMSAR or the biofuel blends are much more expensive. And it's important to stress that, that 19% number presented there doesn't take into account any efficiency benefits, which we've now seen through testing. So actually, the savings with bioMSAR we believe are even higher than the 19% presented by the order of maybe 5%. But coming back to MSAR, we still believe that MSAR has a real key role to play in decarbonizing especially. I think as a company, we haven't taken advantage as much as we could have done in terms of this efficiency saving, and this is something that now we're really improving the message to try and get people to understand that by switching from conventional fuels to MSAR on a -- in the diesel engine, you're going to get some pretty significant savings in CO2, around 5% -- up to 5% on the 4-stroke engine, but -- and we've seen even 9 -- up to 9% on a 2-stroke engine in a test that we did on the Flex -- Wärtsilä Flex engine. So that has -- that leads immediately across in terms of CO2 savings on a complete cycle basis. So well to wake is all the way from where the fuel is extracted from all the way through to the actual generation of power on the vessel. So in the same ways used to be called cradle-to-grave. So people are looking on a full cycle basis, and that's extremely important when you're evaluating all these fuel solutions to look at the complete cycle, not just how much carbon is in the fuel. Obviously, there's -- there are benefits in terms of smoke and NOx reductions, which we've presented before. But really CO2, especially greenhouse gases are really coming to a full. And in terms of bioMSAR, I think that's been a real -- we launched it less than 12 months ago. It's been a real success story for the company in terms of where we've got to now, the testing that we've done, both Aquafuel earlier in the year and then subsequently with Wärtsilä -- on the Wärtsilä engine, sorry, at VTT, have gone exceedingly well. We've demonstrated higher efficiency. The fuel has operated with a much higher efficiency. The Aquafuel testing has been completed. The second round of our fuel testing has been completed, but they're just processing the results. We've got half of the results through. We're just waiting for some final results in terms of the efficiency numbers and the emissions data before we can share that on the website, but we look forward to sharing that with you once ready to do so. But what we've seen is that the bioMSAR product is working exceedingly well. And now what we're looking to try and do is to then ramp that up to commercial tests of this particular fuel on a range of different applications during 2022. And that really drives us towards looking at various different opportunities, including projects where we may be able to get involved with hybrid generation. We require, obviously, reasonable quantities of glycerine. So we're speaking with crude glycerine suppliers. We've been gone out to tender of quotation for companies that can supply systems that can actually refine crude glycerine to turn it into fuel glycerine. So we know how much it costs to actually refine the glycerine as well if you want to get into that ourselves. We've also spoken with toll processes of glycerine as well. So we have that option potentially to support the business requirements. So glycerine is something that we're looking at. We're also looking at -- we're aware of the current production of glycerine worldwide is limited. So we're also looking into the production of glycerine from other means, including production from yeast and also the production from algae with the University of Greenwich with the study that's ongoing at the moment. And then as mentioned before, we are looking at future fuels as well. So we're looking at potentially blending in various different fuels. We mentioned -- in the past, we've mentioned product results. We mentioned lignins, that work is ongoing. We're also looking at potentially blending in methanol, butanol, and some other products as well. So there are some means of bringing some of these other green products into an emulsion space as well. And really, we think we have a competitive edge because we have a system where you can blend fuels that are water-based and fuels that are oil-based. They can come together in our system, and we can produce an emulsion of the 2 things, which is fairly unique. Most companies are looking at oil-based solutions or solutions whether you can only use 100% of that particular green fuel. So that's work ongoing. It's not going to -- it takes time to generate this data. Obviously, we're putting together information also for the patent as well. So that work will be ongoing during 2022. So in terms of MSC, obviously, a very large shipping company seems to be the largest, very strong on biofuels. I think their latest sustainability report, they mentioned 850,000 tonnes of biofuel blend is consumed. They've been using certain components up to 47%. And the decision with MSC was taken during around the middle of the year to really accelerate bioMSAR vessel testing. And why was that? Why did we take that decision? Well, that's to really try and secure the resources of the OEMs. The OEMs, the big engine manufacturers are only focusing all their efforts on activities that are looking at future fuels' sustainability. They won't look at -- they won't really support anything else, frankly. So future fuels is all of that -- and that's where the space race comes in. Future fuels is dominating the landscape. It's dominating the limited resources of the OEMs. The OEMs themselves had a period where there was a crash in their demand for engines, although people stopped buying vessels, frankly, as COVID hit. So they had to lay off a lot of people. So their resources are limited. And then they've been brought -- they're now having to test a range of different fuels as well. So we are working really hard with MSC, who are extremely supportive in trying to drive the OEMs to test the next -- in the stage of testing with the 2-stroke data -- oh, sorry, with the 2-stroke engines. And that really required the 4-stroke data to be assimilated in the right way. It took a little bit of time to do that. But now we have that data, that's been assimilated. It's being discussed with the OEMs, and we're trying to get some test slots at the moment from the 2-stroke engines. And MSC are really backing this particular project because they see it as a great transition option. They're already backing biofuels anyway, and they can see some of the efficiency benefits that we're seeing, and they'd like to get the data on the 2-stroke engine to do that. So -- but we haven't got that slots yet. So that really determines the timelines in there in terms of the project. And to put that into some context, if you look at a large container vessel, we've seen the example on the bottom right that we've presented before. For 25,000 tonne -- sorry, for a large container ship that consumes about 25,000 tonnes of bunker fuel today that emits quite a large amount of CO2. MSAR offers -- on its own offers, if you look at the 5% number, that's similar to buying a newbuild ship. Some people are trying to get that 5% by having to invest in large amounts to build a new engine. We really believe that with MSAR, you can save 4,000 tonnes a year just by switching to MSAR, and we've got the data to support that from the prior tests that we did. Obviously, things like LNG are vastly more expensive and they do save a small amount, but it's only about 14% of CO2 savings. And if there's any methane slip, obviously, any of those benefits are pretty much negated because methane is much more -- much worse in terms of global warming than CO2, as you read recently in terms of COP26 methane pledge. That's the reason why it's a big contributor to global warming. And with bioMSAR and other biofuel blends frankly, there's the ability to reduce CO2 today by more than 25%, which is extremely significant. However, there're also alternatives that the industry are focused on and well publicizing is dominating the headlines, frankly. A lot of it is debatable whether it's going to be fully achievable or not. And it really requires a paradigm shift in renewable energy, which is actually quite staggering. It's unbelievable how much more renewable energy is required to support some of these green fuel endeavors. We've looked at some of these numbers already. So if you look at -- they define these fuels the way they're manufactured as gray, blue and green. Gray is how things are done today. Blue is if you manage back to the fuel with natural gas and you then capture the carbon emissions by CCS, carbon capture and storage. And green is if you actually make it with renewable energy. So you can see on the right that the largest saving is if you make the fuel with renewable energy, that's where you get the largest reduction in CO2. That itself requires a huge amount of renewable energy. So for each container ship, you need 50 megawatts of power. Now that, in terms of a wind farm is significant because that 50 megawatts -- if you'd be able to wind farm, you actually need 4x that amount. So you need actually 200 megawatts of power, okay? So that's 70 to 80 turbines, a big area to do it. That's for one container ship. If you do the same thing with solar panels, you need a huge amount of solar panels. The number is quite staggering just for that 50 megawatts because a solar panel, you put it in 50 megawatts, you need 500 megawatts of solar panels because they only operate for 10% at the time. So some of these quantums are quite amazing. And when, I guess, there are certain very large shipping companies that are bringing in green methanol-powered ships something they're having to -- they require the same amount of renewable energy as a whole of Denmark produces today. It's -- and that's just for 8 ships. So we really believe that, yes, there's lots of impetus around the green revolution. We really believe that, that is the right way to go, but it's going to take a long time to do that. And in the meantime, we should really focus in the transition options that are available to date to make a real difference to the planet. And that's the message that we truly believe in Quadrise. Coming on to our projects in Utah. We've given, I guess, fairly recent updates in terms of where we are. And frankly, where we are today is we are looking to get customers now for the oil that we expect to be coming out of the ground in Utah in 2022. The timelines are still to be determined. TomCo has obviously raised -- has announced that they've raised 10% to take some of the ownership of that particular facility and start drilling exploratory wells there. And we're speaking with others in the region as well, who are looking to raise finance and start drilling wells with -- in Utah. And the key thing for us, frankly, is making sure that the economics of MSAR and bioMSAR manufacturer support those projects such that they get a higher margin for the Utah oil than they would do with basically selling it to a refinery or selling to other industries like the asphalt industry. So really, the key thing for us is to secure now the sales for those particular products and finalize the economics of each of those particular sales routes, which is something we're working on at the moment with the main players there. And really, the outlets for that are a range of different options. I would say that stationary power generation is focusing on exports. Marine is focusing quite a lot on exports as well. But there are some carbon capture and storage opportunities as well and also the potential retrofit of coal-fired power plants who are under a significant amount of EPA pressure now under the democratic government. In terms of Morocco, Morocco is a project where we really expected to be well underway here. I'm quite disappointed Bernard isn't actually in the room because he's in the shipyard there at the moment completing the trial. But what's happened with Morocco is that we shipped our equipment out following the last update. We then asked the client, the VP of the client to provide the go ahead to manufacture the fuel and then we heard nothing from the clients. So we've been chasing this particular VP and then there's been a management reorganization so the VP left, a new VP came onstream. He's had to be brought up to speed in terms of the project and everything else. And we are waiting to hear on a pretty much a daily basis, the go ahead to actually start the fuel manufacture, which is delaying it. But we don't really want to manufacture the fuel if this particular individual is going to change his mind for some reason. We also have a contract that we wish to renew and extend to for another 12 months, which incorporates some of the other opportunities as well, including potentially bioMSAR testing. So we're looking to try and push that particular extension through as well. So at the moment, I'd love to provide you with good news about Morocco in terms of the trials actually happening. But at the moment, we are in this impasse stage where we have new management coming in and our agent out is very busy at the moment trying to get that -- trying to secure that agreement. So like you, I'm extremely frustrating -- frustrated that this trial is not underway sort of where you have this project ongoing, but it's work in progress. Elsewhere, we are making very good process -- progress rather. So in Panama, we're making some good progress with a power generator there who operates Wärtsilä engines and we're looking to secure an agreement for a trial, both of MSAR and potentially bioMSAR at that particular facility. In Mexico, we have -- again, we've made good progress. We've had a lot of data now shared with the national oil company there. We process that data and run some preliminary economics. We're just making sure that we're using -- we've got the internal price deck. We've got -- we've been sent half of it, but we need the other half to finalize the economics. But on the face of it, at least the economics of MSAR manufacturer in Mexico are extremely interesting. And we see a couple of very good opportunities for refinery refueling, which is -- should be the most simple option if you've got any one particular customer. And that's something that we can look at doing ourselves and together with our partner Redliner. So we're making some good progress there, and I'll be delighted to give you some updates on that once we have a program in place. Ecuador, nothing too much to report there. We are working with a new management in Ecuador, Petroecuador in terms of that particular project and Freepoint is still working there as well in terms of fuel offtake. And then in Central America, there are a number of activities ongoing with our partners there, E&PC who we've been working with for a number of years. So they're making some good progress. Where there's been -- I guess, in Central America, there's been an interesting switch in interest. People have been obviously a little bit obsessed and focused with LNG. But given the spike in LNG prices, now people are warming up to other opportunities around the fuel or generation option as well. And then in Saudi Arabia, that's really its head again. We have meetings arranged or meeting arranged very soon with the Ministry of Energy, with one of the departments there looking at potentially sustainable options for oil going forward. So in terms of resources, obviously, people are fairly very well aware of the changes in management. We have a recruitment process, which is completed for the COO. He's due to formally start in January. Informally, he'll be coming in next month to start initiation process. And we look forward to sharing these details in due course. Contractually, we can't share that yet with you it's sensitive to him. But since we know -- since we are able to, we'll share the details of the individual. He's a very good candidate. Mike sadly stands down today, and I'm sure we'll have a chance to wish our thanks to him. The process for his search is progressing well. We recently received a long list of candidates that we're sifting through at the moment to bring that through to the interview process. So that's progressing well. Obviously, Laurie will very kindly has agreed to stand in as Interim Chairman, which we are delighted about, given his experience with the company. And the transition plan with Mike anyway had been in place. So obviously, his departure will be solely missed. But we had a transition plan in place anyway with myself and David and others were taking up quite a lot of those responsibilities. So it should be fairly seamless. And the new team are really -- we've got a good team of expert consultants, some of whom you probably see on the website, some of whom we don't and we probably need to I guess, improve our -- to let you know who we're working with, but we've got some really good people working with us as consultants as well who are really providing some great input to the team as well. In terms of finances, obviously, we had -- you've seen we had GBP 7 million worth of cash. Obviously, we'll be looking to try and preserve that as much as we can, where we see these unforeseen delays. But we still see -- we're still viewing in terms of our projections that we can get into revenue generation mode second half of the year with positive cash flows during the early part of 2023 is the plan. So as long as things progress as we would expect, and obviously, we're looking to try and accelerate some of the delays that we've experienced now we're looking to try and change that back to a positive progress. So as long as that maintains, we shouldn't need to go for extra funding. But obviously, if there are delays, then we'll have to relook at that at some stage. But yes, it's key to say that we -- and we know this already, but it doesn't take much for us -- it really requires one project with 2 MMUs to make it cash generative. So we can -- even one project would make a significant change then to in our revenue generation. So this is really a summary of where we are. We really believe in the products we build. We really think that they've got a great future in terms of the transition. We've got some very interesting projects, some of which are quite challenging from a timing perspective recently, but others are appearing to -- could actually accelerate relatively quickly. And we have some great opportunities in terms of some of the new decarbonization solutions in terms of hybrid power generation as well. And we're fully funded. We believe that the funding we've got -- we've took -- we got in at the beginning of the year, will take us through to the commercialization phase. So I think finishing on that, then we can move straight into Q&A, if that's okay. And what I'll do in terms of the Q&A for the benefit of the people online, there are some presubmitted questions. So I can answer some of those, but I think it's fair to the people in the room to ask their questions first, and I'll repeat the question for the benefit of the people online and then provide our answers.

Yes. And I think just -- as I think...

You've written them all?

Yes. As -- if I can just sort of very briefly, I think because probably most of the questions are going to be about our projects and things like that, it really makes sense for Jason to be here and answer those directly. If there any that are relevant for me to answer, I'll come up. But as this is being managed in a hybrid meeting, it really makes sense for Jason to stay here and direct the questions appropriately. Thank you very much.

Okay. Any questions? Ian, you hit first today, sir.

Yes. Thanks, Jason. [ Ian James ], long-term shareholder. The KSA meeting, how did they come about? Is it something that they requested it? Or is it because we've been badgering there?

I've been in contact -- sorry, the question was the KSA meeting. How did that come about? Was it done to them contacting us or us badgering them. It was us -- well, myself, I've been in contact with the people from the Energy Ministry on a regular basis. And one of the -- my contacts there have moved into a particular role was looking basically driving their all sustainability program. So I used the opportunity during his move to reintroduce us, reintroduce what bioMSAR especially could offer alongside MSAR and that then related -- that basically translated into the meeting that we now have planned next month. Sorry, this gentlemen who is next.

The MSAR, bioMSAR production unit at QRF, how many tonnes today will it do? And when would the operations begins?

So the bioMSAR production -- sorry, the question was the bioMSAR production unit, the new one at QRF or how much will it produce? So basically, we have a range of production units that we can use for both MSAR and bioMSAR. The same unit is used for both products. So we have a lab unit that works -- that provides half a tonne an hour. We have a pilot unit that can produce up to 4 tonnes an hour that we've just recently purchased. In fact, we have 2 lab units. We have 2 lab mills at 500 -- sorry, half a tonne an hour. We have one new pilot unit that runs at 4 tonnes an hour. And then we have 2 commercial units that we can produce up to 40 tonnes an hour of either product.

And are they all operational?

Now they're all operational? Yes, they all are ready to run. Yes.

So with that...

Sorry, the pilot unit is -- yes, is sitting in Denmark at the moment. Yes. So it's ready to -- we're ready to receive it. We're just waiting for some electronics to formally get that from the supply. But that does actually run today.

So that's a 40 tonne...

That's a 4 tonne an hour unit.

4 tonne unit.

But everything else is operational, yes.

So could we have produced the Morocco MSAR at QRF?

The problem is that the Morocco quantity is about 60 tonnes. So the question was, could we have produced the Morocco quantity at QRF? The Morocco requirement is about 60 tonnes and that's really beyond what we would like to produce at QRF unless we had to. So the decision has been made to make it at another facility. So all of our equipment is there ready to go. We're just awaiting for the instruction to actually proceed, and we'll use our pilot unit to do that the 4 tonne an hour unit. But we need -- there's no -- we're not going to make the fuel if the client is not ready to receive it. That doesn't make sense.

So 60 tonnes, through tanks?

Yes. Well 3 -- it's basically 3 ISO tanks, 60 tonnes is 3 ISO tanks. Sorry, go ahead.

Firstly, to Mike. Mike, I think because of you the AGM [indiscernible] was memorable for so many reasons. And you might have had a few memorable memory since then. I think every shareholder would like to join with me in wishing you the best for your personal and professional future. So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Jason, the question. You talked about Morocco. I'm sure we all understand that organization uncertainty can be a bit of a roadblock. From your comments, do you believe this is still a -- when it will happen? Or has it with the new VP that I think you mentioned become, it will happen?

No, we still believe it's when it will happen. It's just been a frustrating time when this new person comes onstream. And he's been holding the pen on not just our project to be fair. There are a number of other projects with other suppliers that have been put on hold. Whilst this happens slower, we're not the only company that's been affected by this recent reorganization. Sorry, Bob.

[ Bob Sharp ], exceedingly long-term shareholder. The 2 full-size units you mentioned is one of those the Cepsa unit.

Sorry, the question for Bob was the 2 MSAR units, the large ones is one of those are the Cepsa unit? Yes, is the answer.

So it's no longer in Spain.

It's still in Spain and storage. yes.

Thank you.

Yes. That unit is still in Spain.

That [ arises ] the third question, you'll not be able to answer. But where could that actually be making the ends up.

Yes. Hopefully, location too. Yes, sir.

Mark. I'm a retail shareholder. Do I understand the RNS from this morning correctly that basically MSC did not accept that the 4-stroke results that you got from VTT was sufficiently representative for their 2-stroke engines and hence, they want additional testing to validate that before we go ahead.

So yes, the question from Mark was did MSC not accept that the 4-stroke test was sufficient to immediately translate to a vessel trial on a 2-stroke engine. Is that correct?

Yes.

Yes, frankly, no -- so no owner would accept those results would -- they want to see those at the actual performance on a 2-stroke engine, which is -- the 2-stroke engine's performance is quite different to the 4-stroke engine. And there are components which are quite different in terms of the fuel injection systems as well. So we weren't expecting an immediate go ahead on a 2-stroke engine per se. But what we'd hoped is it would accelerate the testing program with the OEMs on the 2-stroke, and that's been at the moment a bit elusive. So we, together with MSC have been really trying to drive the next step, which is the 2-stroke stationary testing on the engines, which are the precursor to the vessel trial, which is the same program as we did with Maersk.

If I can sneak another question in. I've been listening to a few of the Maersk talks is that they've appointed some people who are now in control of future fuels and green fuels and so on. I noticed the relating questions she's mentioned several times, we have experience with emulsion fuel as well. Not going into any further details, but I don't know any other emulsion fuel Maersk has tried. But so what do you feel like the relationship with Maersk is like, do you think there's something that we have?

So the question from Mark was that some of the presentations that he's been watching with Maersk, they've mentioned the emulsion fuels that they have had experienced. And then is there an opportunity for Quadrise? Is that fair to say? Yes, I mean we are speaking with those individuals who are presenting. I think Maria Strandesen, she presented after me. So we were to meet between the meet and the sandwich between the MSC and Maersk at the recent Greentech shipping presentation, which is very good. Yes, we are in contact with Maersk still in that regard. They -- at the moment, their focus, frankly, is on methanol and everything related to methanol, but they are willing and open to discuss other opportunities, too. So we've had -- those discussions I have not stopped. Yes.

Sorry, Jason. Following on from that. First is you're rightly say talking about methanol testing, other people talking of ammonia testing. I haven't heard anywhere any of these companies talking about LONOs. So why is it that QFI seem to be the only people who have to go through this LONO process?

Question for me was that we've been hearing about other companies or company such as Maersk coming to being testing methanol and testing ammonia, but no mention of LONOs. Why Quadrise having to be drawn through the lengthy -- that LONO process. Is that fair to say? They are having to go through the LONO process. So is the reality. So all of the new technologies that are brought in and even in the most recent announcement, I guess, in terms of the LNG conversion with Wärtsilä. I mean all of those new fuels have to go through the same process of LONO testing. The reason that -- I think there was a question that were picked up or picked up from somewhere. Why are companies like GoodFuels have -- may able to go ahead with particular testing and why Quadrise is struggling? The difference is that GoodFuels are blending in a biofuel component, which is very, very similar to conventional diesel and already approved by the engine manufacturer. The reason that Quadrise is different is we're introducing an oil-in-water emulsion to an engine. And there's just not the experience there on the 2-strokes anyway yet. So that's really why Quadrise are having to go through that LONO process, but it is a barrier for us, which is extremely [ urgent ] given we know that fuel does work extremely well on particular engines. So we are looking at other ways as well to see whether we can find an alternative means of trying to either fast track or circumvent the LONO process so we can actually get up and running, but good question. Yes.

It's Tony, I'm long-term shareholder. We have a trial with Maersk, which got interrupted. If is in a way if we restart it again, we have to start back from square one with 4,000 miles per hour again? Or could we incorporate what we have used to offset? Is it feasible or not?

So the question from Tony was we had just under 2,000 hours, I think it was about 1,400 hours of experience with Maersk. Can we continue from the 1,400 hours to the 4,000 hours mark? Or do we have to start from scratch? The reality is to get the letter of no objection, you probably need to start from base zero again, really just because they do wear measurements from the start. So they want to look at what the incremental wear is. So that's the -- I guess the only thing is that, that particular 1,400 hours with Maersk took exceedingly long time because that vessel was not always operating on MSAR. So it took a lot longer than 4,000 hours really should do. The -- hopefully, the testing that we're doing -- that we plan to do with MSC will be on routes where the vessel is going to be utilizing MSAR or bioMSAR much more frequently so that those -- at least those 4,000 hours will be done in a shorter period of time, ideally 6 months, but more around that mark 6 to 8 months. Sorry, I'll come back to you.

[ Remember ] back to me. Am I correct in thinking that Maersk actually run MSAR in 1 cylinder or 2 cylinders of the engine?

So the question from Bob was OSHA was -- did Maersk run the fuel on 1 or 2 cylinders? During the proof-of-concept testing on the MAN engine that did -- that was run on 1 cylinder basically. So you can -- on the managing, you can separate the cylinders out and run on 1 particular cylinder. You won't necessarily get a LONO for that particular -- you'll get a test done on 1 cylinder, but for LONO, you need other -- you won't necessarily get the emissions data from 1 cylinder because all the emissions get blended into one. So ideally you want to get data for efficiency, which is extremely important to CO2, especially any one data for the other emissions for NOx, et cetera, you won't get that from a single cylinder test. But you will get some information from it. So it's not to be ruled out.

So does that mean the MSC ships will run on all cylinders in 12 or whatever it is they've built on this?

Yes. So if the vessel is going to run, and it's going to run to sort that LONO, it will run on all the whole engine. Yes.

Mike. The emulsion fuels are not mentioned in general press articles, how Quadrise is going to change that?

I think I mentioned during the presentation, we're really looking to, I guess, expand as much as we can our -- I guess, our PR activities to try and make people understand slightly better what the emulsions really are. Obviously, in the context of trying to keep the message quite simple as well. I guess we can -- people like myself, especially can get quite technical too quickly, and it's possible to lose people. So we are looking to improve all areas in terms of getting the message across in terms of what emulsion really are. The key thing is actually to get the fuel commercially tested and actually in use. So people can see it's actually a product that they can buy today, and that's really our main focus.

And also your videos and presentations seem to miss out the most obvious step. This is along the bitumen. Obviously, it's a bucket of thick oils. This is what we do a bit, and this is MSAR at the back. It'll take 10 seconds at the beginning of any presentation. And the presentation that's given in the Americas, it seems to be the very first question was, how do you make MSARs?

Yes, the comment from gentlemen was that basically, the presentations that we do could be very simply -- we could very simply explain the production process. So yes, we are -- we've gone through several iterations of that particular of how we introduce the fuel. And I wouldn't say we've got it perfect yet. So we take your comments on board, and we'll -- by this time next year, hopefully, we've got a better means of explaining what we do. But I think the message is also that's quite important, frankly, is that is the carbon reduction, the energy transition message as well, that's equally as important as how you make the fuel because that's really the why. We're doing this because it's lower cost, lower emissions means a transition to towards net-zero. And that's really the key part of the message, and it can be done very quickly without massive infrastructure changes. That's extremely important.

Got it. So following on to that question, there's observation here. As I remember that AGM going back 6 or 7 years ago. And the floor came up, we talked about MSARs. I think it was all about, why did we push the green credentials? Good. But at the time, the Board is going. No, we don't think we think we'll get too much back press on it. So going on from how we should have presented. I don't know if we've missed some opportunities over the years. I have been along some shareholder from maybe 10-odd years, still I'm investing . So I just think it's so important to get this message out, especially the new buyers.

Yes. So this is a great good observation. I think -- sorry, the question from the -- from [ Saskino ] was, been investing for a number of years. He remembers sort of 6, 7 years ago, why don't we push more the environmental message where we're maybe obsessed before about the economic message and the environmental that took backstage? I think what's changed in the last couple of years is that, there's just been this paradigm shift in terms of -- the planet is extremely important now. Sustainability is key. You've got people in really conservative industries like marine, the marine sector, for instance, who didn't do anything, frankly. They suddenly have to shake themselves up and they're running -- they're thinking about running on methanol and ammonia or hydrogen. These guys have their worlds turned on its head. So I think, yes, our message, we probably -- and we definitely, for sure, should have got the efficiency message out, better 1 or 2 years ago. I'll take that on the chin because probably that's me trying to get the message right as well and others in the team, frankly, but I think the world has -- I think the difference now 6 years ago and today, is that 6 years ago, people were obsessed with the economics, and it was great -- it's great it's got environmental bit to it, but that's sort of icing on the top of the cake. Now it's gone full circle and the environment -- the environmental bit is more important than the economic savings. So if you're talking to a refinery, frankly, they don't really -- it's not that they don't care, but it's the environmental message first and the economic message that supports is second. And that has really changed in the last few years. Sorry. Go head.

Jason, 2 questions, please. When we have the deal with Maersk, I think I was hoping to get the commission per sale. If they came in the last minute and say we did the trial with MSC and it's successful virtually drew back from the [ bond market ]. Will they still be entitled to some monies, even though they do nothing ready to promote outcomes. That was first one. And second one is as many updates on Japan, since when they were acquired, it was [indiscernible] or still in it?

Yes. So 2 questions, I guess, from Tony were. First one was is the Maersk royalty agreement still valid? The second question was we haven't heard much in Japan, what's happening in regards to the JGC relationship. So in terms of the royalty agreement, the advice that we've been given is that there's no royalty due. Frankly, bioMSAR is a different product as well. So we don't believe that, that royalty agreement is valid because they haven't supported the commercialization of MSARs, as I said. Having said that, we're not going to tweak the tail of a potentially future customer as well. So frankly, we've let that discussion for another day. Frankly, but the advice that we have is that we have a case to say that, that royalty is not due. Secondly, in terms of Japan, we have a -- we do have a reasonably regular dialogue with JGC in Japan. That hasn't really yielded anything yet. We have [ CHD ] project that we looked at together with one of the big OEMs when we submitted the date, and that's sort of gone to a bit of a black hole during the COVID period. But yes, we're still pushing that. And obviously, they're looking at other opportunities now that LNG has gone so expensive as well. They've certainly squared into run on fuel and other things. So yes, that's the relationship that unfortunately, from afar, it's sometimes a little bit harder to manage is something we need to get back to for sure. Yes.

So I think it's fair to say one of the key problems that Quadrise has passed in the last couple of years is getting the operational team onsite to actually run trials. So an obvious solution to that as someone who's not informed on the details is that more local engineering capacity would be useful as we keep -- the guys keep getting locked out basically. So how are you going to -- what's your thinking going forward on that in terms of local engineering capacity to run trials, for example, or to build infrastructure, that kind of thing?

Yes. So we do -- sorry, yes, the comment was made in terms of -- or the question was, can we use local engineering companies to facilitate the trials in the event that Quadrise are not available or are not able to actually visit the site? We -- so we do use third-party engineering companies today, in fact, with in Cepsa we utilized -- we work with our equipment supplier and their people to actually run the unit together with us. So where there's additional resources used, then we will use the -- we basically use resources from ENH who can actually operate those units anyway. What we were not able to do is completely outsource that during -- for a particular trial for the first trial with a new customer. It's not -- it's just not possible to do that remotely when you're having to problem solve as you go along, make sure the client is happy with how things are going. You just don't have that visibility. You're looking -- if you're at a boiler, for instance, you're looking through a cycle to see how the flame looks. You can't just -- there's things that you just can't do remotely. We have to have our experts onsite. From Quadrise, we've got a great team of people. Those people just don't exist elsewhere. They have the experience that we have, and it's very hard to do it remotely, frankly. I wish we could, but there are certain things where we have to be onsite.

Could that involve establishing local teams at some point so for example, Quadrise Morocco team or Quadrise...

Yes. So that was a good point. Could that involve establishing local teams? Absolutely. So as these trials develop and we start to get into commercial production, then that definitely is something that we would outsource to a local team. We wouldn't want the Quadrise people there tied up in Morocco, if you've got something going on in Mexico, for instance, or somewhere else. Yes, sir. Sorry, I'm sorry, yes. You're close to each other.

[ Nick Kay ], long-time shareholder. We've been really targeting major consumers, product consumers. Is there a possibility of getting something started like running your Perkins generator where somebody can actually run some piece of machinery out there by using product from QRF?

Yes. Good question. So the question was, obviously, we're chasing some very large customers. Is there a possibility to do something a little bit smaller, where we have more control over our own destiny? Absolutely, that's something that we are looking at as well in parallel. We would really like to have something up and running so that people can come and keep -- tell us see how a generator is operating, et cetera. So yes, that is certainly something that we're looking at in parallel to the key projects that we have as well. But even the key projects can offer that opportunity as well to be frankly, even at a small scale. So we are certainly a champion a bit to have something up and running again. Question. Sorry, this gentleman, next we go to...

Thanks, Jason. You helpfully included a slide around the cash runway for the business, and that was reassuring in a number of respects. So thinking forward in a year. So we're all sitting in another AGM, what would you say are the vital few milestones that have to be passed so that we are talking about the transition from an R&D company to a commercial revenues company and not talking about more delays and more hopefuls.

Yes, good question in terms of in a year's time, how can we transform the company from a company that's been in R&D mode and trial mode for a number of years to a company that's revenue generative. We basically have to convert one of these projects or one of the other projects that we're working on as well from a commercial trial phase to commercial revenue phase during the next 12 months to be revenue generative. We really want to be -- I don't really want to be standing here in 12 months' time saying that we are now generating revenue.

So just to check my understanding, you're saying that any one of those 3, which is MSC, Utah, Morocco would transform us to close enough neutral or free cash flow?

Potentially, yes. It depends on the scale, obviously, which are the opportunities. But even being revenue generative mode transforms how the company is viewed externally and demonstrates to people that this is -- we're serious, right? We've got a commercial contract. We're now running -- it really challenges how everything for the company. So that's really the focus. Sorry. Okay. Please.

If I could just come back to MSC for a moment. Thanks, Jason. You've explained I think one of the issues in the limited capacity in the OEM to test 2-stroke engines. And sort of the question I've got is -- sorry, MSC is obviously a huge client OEMs. And if they were really jumping up and down saying, we want this tested now, then the OEMs will probably do it for them. So as far as the question I've got is how important is bioMSAR potentially to MSC?

It's a good question. For me at the front was in terms of the 2-stroke testing, why is -- if MSC was serious, they'll be jumping up and down and forcing the OEMs to proceed with testing. I can assure you 100% that MSC are doing exactly that. They are just unfortunately meeting resistance with the OEMs who are not -- if I can share, I'd love to share with you the concepts of some of the e-mails that are pretty, pretty forceful in trying to make sure the OEMs take bioMSAR seriously and then force the importance that MSC have in terms of the bioMSAR project. I can't obviously do that for you, but I can say that they are jumping up and down. But at the moment, the OEMs, same story, we can't do it, and there's a bit of a discussion ongoing. But they are -- I mean, they really are backing our corner. So it's quite reassuring for me too, frankly. Because you do have those concerns. There are other things going on, but I can assure you that we are taking seriously. So there was another question from Tony, I think..

Jason, just MSC. If they say MSC is going tomorrow for trial, how long will it take us to get the infrastructure on the ship to commence? Or is it feasible for the ship to be still working through [ Zoom ] and have come onboard adapted in the vote. So from Maersk, from MSC point of view, ownership without a commission, is it still feasible to make it work while the infrastructures comes on board?

Yes. So the question from Tony was from the go ahead work -- MSC to give the go ahead for, let's say, a vessel trial, how long will it take to happen? And would the vessel be required to be out of service for any length of time, while it's being prepared. The answer is, most likely, it will take some 6 to 8 months to be ready for the vessel trial, both from the production perspective but actually on the vessel itself. One unpleasant outcome of the whole COVID thing or COVID event is that supply lines are taking longer, so to get especially electronic components for equipment is taking longer than it would do normally. So the guidelines that we've been giving recently are sort of between 6 to 8 months for delivery of some of those components. So we would -- we are discussing with some of the suppliers of this equipment, which long lead items are key and what can we order early. So that as soon as we get that go ahead, we can push a button and stop by the key equipment early to try and bring that forward as much as possible. To come back to the question about the vessel, the idea would be that the vessel would always be in service and there would be a crew on board but then you drop the fuel booster units in modules, so they go down the hatches and then you plan them in with the crew on board most likely. So the vessel is not interrupted. Yes.

A big long-term shareholder. Following on the questions about the OEM testing in the POC. Do you think the OEM testing will negate the need for proof of concepts on board ship to go straight to the full engine trial?

So yes, a question from Vic was following on from the question about MSC. With the planned or discussed OEM testing their stationary facilities will that negate the requirement to go for a proof-of-concept test prior to a letter of no objection trial? The answer is yes, we believe that the stationary engine test is sufficient, and that could lead straight into the -- straight to the vessel trials. So POC would be skipped.

Because there were stationary tests on every sold that brought to Maersk.

They were stationary tests on them. So yes. Yes.

The first line is, seemed to use a lot of electricity. Is this electricity generated on board by Cummins type generators or by silo-type engines?

Yes. So the question was that in terms of the cruise ship application, is electricity made on board by Cummins engines or [ silo ] engines. They tend to be for the bigger cruise ships, which are actually significant consumers of fuel, albeit not obviously in the last couple of years. But normally, they will consume about 50,000 tonnes a year of fuel of each cruise ship. And they tend to use the 4-stroke faster engines predominantly. There are some -- manage into and some of them as well but faster engines are quite -- use quite a lot in that application. So that's definitely an area that we obviously -- we have the bioMSAR results now from the 2-stroke -- sorry, the 4-stroke testing we did at VTT. So that's one of the applications we're looking at is the 4-stroke marine application with other potential clients. Yes, sorry.

Has any kind of timeline or insight into when you're going to get access to OEMs for testing being given? Or is it still just at the minute you've just going to have to wait and see prior to, et cetera?

Yes. Is there any -- I guess the question was we had any timelines yet from the OEMs in terms of the engine testing. The answer is no, that's still in discussion. We still haven't had that discussion. Those discussions yes, between MSC and the OEM still being negotiated at the moment. Yes.

Just adding up the timelines on that. So how long do you anticipate the OEM testing to take and then be analyzed and approved? Following on from that you've then got 6 to 8 months to get the trial ready for [indiscernible] and in 6 months of testing, that adds up to at least 14 months from start. That's a long way out from the original time lines. Does that concern you a little bit?

Good question. So the question was adding up the time lines, as you look at the OEM testing and then if you do that sequentially, the vessel testing that results in, I guess, an extended period that goes beyond what we've previously said. And are we as a company happy about that. Is that fair?

Concerned?

Am I concerned? The answer is yes, we're extremely concerned. And one of the discussions that we're having with MSCs, whether we can start the vessel adaptation now. So the vessel is actually ready such that when we do the OEM testing, we have the results, and we can go straight to the vessel testing immediately afterwards. So it doesn't have to be a sequential event in our view anyway. We believe that we can start getting vessel prepared such that, we do the OEM testing, we have the results, and we go straight to the vessel testing. And that's something actually we did with Maersk as well. So we -- it wasn't a sequential process, we could actually do some things in it.

Moving onto now it seem that maybe there's no interest in MSAR at all?

The question was moving on from that, there's actually no interest in MSAR. That's not the case. But the key thing for MSC is to get experience and get the OEMs to support the actual trial on board. And the OEMs will only support it if it's got a biofuel element to it, which means bioMSAR first and MSAR subsequently. But I can assure you that MSC is very, very interested in MSAR, but they just can't commit to the OEMs to support something that's a fossil fuel, which is crazy, but...

But it doesn't affect the MSARs already being proven on those engines. Not mean they could receive an MSAR test to work out the viability of MSAR fuel. And then at the point in time that your bioMSARs available which hardly looks at about 15 months from now, you could have finished the MSAR testing and then commence the trial in bioMSAR. I mean it just seems like it's going nowhere to me.

So again, an observation or yes, a concern from shareholders, basically MSAR has fully proven already or has been proven already. Why can't we start with MSAR first? And then bioMSAR could take you up to 15 months. I'd say that bioMSAR wouldn't take up to 15 months to commence the trial. We would be ready to start serving or start producing bioMSAR in the middle of next year, if we got -- given the go ahead from MSC. So that's not the case. But you make a very good point about MSAR. One of the -- to derisk an investment in modifying vessel would be to pick an MSC vessel that's got a faster engine on board, where we already do have the experience. And that way, if there is a delay for MSAR -- for bioMSAR testing at the OEM facility, we can start with MSAR. And that is a discussion that we are having with MSC. So I would say that MSAR is not dead, and there is an opportunity to keep the progress going with MSC and switch it back to MSAR on both of the vessel, where we have the experience. Yes.

Mike again. Given the improved lubricity of bioMSAR, is there a sales opportunity to say company, your engines are getting tired. If you use our fuels, your engines will last longer.

Yes, the question from Mike was given the better lubricity of bioMSAR compared to MSAR, does that enhance our opportunity to convince consumers -- or sorry, engine owners or vessel owners to switch to bioMSAR compared to what they're doing today. I think what we're saying about the enhanced lubricity of bioMSAR, that's really compared with our existing product MSAR. MSAR is water-based, so it doesn't have much lubricity, whereas bioMSAR is really quite heavily glycerine-based. And that's really where the enhanced lubricity comes as compared with MSAR. Conventional fuel oils, I would say that conventional fuel oils, we've already got a pretty good lubricity if they're clean where an engine is running on diesel and that sometimes that's where the lubricity is not quite so good. And some of the low-sulfur fuels as well, the very low-sulfur fuels they don't have a great lubricity. And that's where potentially bioMSAR would work. But really, the markets for bioMSAR are, frankly, where an owners looking at or using today biofuels or looking at running the biofuels, it's really comparing that biofuel with bioMSAR, and that's where the argument arises. And they're more likely to make the change because it's got better emissions, better efficiency and a lower cost than they are purely about lubricity. But it's an interesting point you make.

Yes. A question and also as a future question. It's regarding insurance liability in your view. I don't know if you've had any feedback from insurance. This must be fully insured once you go out as an engine blowing up or you get as [indiscernible] same engine assuming you're fine with what you've had from your insurance companies [indiscernible] that talking to insure Quadrise?

Yes. No, we could be doing it. The question was in terms of insurance, do we have I guess, is MSAR covered if in the event that there's an unfortunate event that will end you with engines is failing. Yes, we have covered by Lloyd's in terms of product liability to cover all the activities that we do. So yes, we've been supported all the way through. Sometimes it gets a bit more challenging. Things get a bit more complicated, but then -- but yes, it's not any easier, but we do have cover and we have just renewed actually quite recently. Yes, sorry. David, I think -- go ahead.

Just going back to Utah. I know it was mentioned that you're looking at other opportunities in Utah. But my understanding with any opportunities in Utah are wrapped up with Valkor because they have the right, does that trickle? Or are you able to alter other parties without Valkor or TomCo being involved?

So the question was in terms of Utah, can we have the ability to speak to other companies in that particular region directly as opposed to speaking to or are we compelled just to work with Valkor and TomCo outside it? We have no exclusivity with Greenfield, TomCo or Valkor. However, we've got a very good relationship with both Valkor and TomCo. And if we have to work with, I guess, reliable counterparties in that particular area, you seem to be able to raise money as well for the developments that they're doing. And those are the companies that we prefer to deal with, but that's not -- that doesn't prevent us from dealing with other people as well. But yes, we've got a very good relationship with those guys, and I think we're happy to continue there. Sorry, there was a question. No, you've had.

Last we're on the Utah issue. Is the product initially going to be used for raising heat? Or do we know if MSAR or bioMSAR has a use for any specific company or a specific of engineering?

So yes, the question with regards to the Utah project. Will the end -- will the fuel itself be used for heat generation? Or will it be utilized for or other their sales applications? I would say that at the moment, we're looking at both potentially for heat, for steam generation. But that's a little bit more sensitive in terms of some of the permitting. So more likely it would be for end use in the power generation sector, I would say, initially. So that's really the main sectors that we're focusing on both within the U.S. and also externally.

And is there a use, any lined up for you so sold at the moment?

Not yet, no. And that's one of the things that we're working at the moment is to try and find an end consumer where once these wells are up and running, hopefully, next year, we can take some of the products and actually give it to that particular user to do the trial, demonstrate how it works and then that will lead to a commercial contract.

And could they be a producer for MSC?

Could Utah be a producer for MSC? Yes, ultimately, for a low-sulfur product. Yes. Go on.

Coming possibly at the end. Mark, long-term shareholder. The -- just -- but I'm just taking a moment. But...

I forgot the answer anyway. I had some questions, presubmitted questions as well. I feel like it's only fair. The presubmitted question we have answered as well. So there will be -- those answers will be published online. But we have some presubmitted questions that it'd be useful to work through. The first one was in terms of the renewable -- the 100% renewable project or product, when will that be released? So in terms of that particular product, that's something that we're still working on. With bioMSAR today, what we've demonstrated in the lab is that we can achieve CO2 reduction just with glycerine to about 50%, which is quite considerable already. We are then looking at how do we substitute out the remaining hydrocarbon component to make 100% renewable fuel, and that's where we're starting to look at some of the other components, but I would say, it's difficult to give timelines for that. I'd love to give you an update in a year's time and have a product that's going to be fully renewable by then, but it's going to take some time to get these products. And then some of the renewable components are not -- you can't just immediately stick them in the mill. Bernard will probably kill me if we did. Some of them need to be. They're like wood chips and some of the other things we actually need to turn it into something that's really a fuel that you can then utilize as an emulsion. I'm just using a wood chip on its own. It's not going to be too useful and doesn't get bang for your buck. So some of these products require additional treatment. A bit like crude glycerine needs to be turned into a fuel glycerine. You need to treat these products as well to get it into a form where you can then use it for conventional applications. So that work can cause a bit of R&D as well to make sure it fit the purpose.

Could I have another go?

Yes. Go through Vic.

First and foremost, Jason, I think I'd like to say that I think the majority of shareholders, we do appreciate your position in the company that we're doing to try to get some line. I don't know that obviously that's tough. As shareholders, [ within or in ]to the product. We understand it is a game-changing product. We understand that it's disruptive. But what's the concern is that our prospective clients. There just doesn't seem to be the same urgency that in adopting that even not product can save them many thousands millions of pounds. And I think what is a bigger concern also is the fact that we just lost 2 senior executives of the company who have decided to walk away. Clearly, they don't share the same vision that we've got of what the possibilities are for Quadrise. And that's going to cause disruption to our business, clearly, as we appoint some executives. And it's perhaps not a good advice for other investors who might want to join us and attracting investors for the next fund release. So how do you respond to that?

Yes. Quite a lot of questions to try to remember. I don't know why you forgot them.

I thought and I reminded you.

You did. So me let's remember. I mean very good question from Vic was, it sounds like you're the guest. So, yes, okay. I started already. Yes.

Sir, we are picking up the questions from the audience in the room very clearly. Yes, sir.

Yes, thank you. So I have to repeat everything my goodness. The key thing for us is yes, we've got a great product that is not being used anywhere. And we really need -- during the next 12 months, we really need to have something up and running where we can demonstrate that this product -- this great product is actually being used, and that's really we're looking at a range of applications where we think that is the case. The thing that I think will help us during the next 12 months is that the focus has become very, very environmental as well. And I think we've got some great environmental credentials to support the economics, which we've presented are still very supportive. In terms of the executives that we've lost, I think, in the case of Mike, he can answer for himself, but there was always the intention that Mike was planning to go from an executive role to a nonexecutive role. And it just so happens at the various reasons he took it. He is still with the company very loyally for way longer than I think he planned to do and certainly when we with -- when I first met with Mike, his intention was never to stay as long as he did. So I'd like to really thank him for the biggest patient is staying as long as he did, frankly, enough. And that's been -- that -- you can say that's a disruption in terms of the case of Mike, we already had a transition plan anyway that we would be working on since the beginning of 2020, actually, where some of the Mike's activities we're been taken by others in the team, myself included and David and other people. So that disruption is for sure is there because we have to obviously interview new people, and that takes time for that, that's just life. In the case of Mark, he was snapped up by Green energy, right? He's the head of their Future Gen Renewables and working for people where he had worked with before. So it's hard for me to say to Mark, please stay with Quadrise because he's been snapped up with pretty sexy job from a pretty large company. And I think that's -- I don't know that's a good sign of the type of people we employ that we have -- that those guys are valued by people elsewhere. And I think -- it's also a competitive world out there as well. So in terms of the executives that we bring in, they have to meet the right criteria, frankly, and we get -- we've made mistakes before we've got people in and they haven't been able and willing to roll their hands up in each. One of the people you see here on the Board, we are scrappers, we are a small company trying to get this business off the line. And we need people coming in, you've got the fighting energy, you're going to wake up in the morning, jump out of bed and lead Quadrise and go off and take on some of these big giants here in the middle of this space race. And I think I'm not sure if I already answered your question. In terms of executives but -- and how is it going to be viewed? How has Quadrise being viewed by the people coming in and attracting investors but also attracting talent. I would say that -- in the case of the COO role, we had a number -- lot of really, really good clients on there, all of which a lot of which are from oil majors really excited about the Quadrise story. Then can really see -- we're sort of at that -- we've always been -- we've been there before. But we think that with the bioMSAR addition to this stable, we've got a very, very interesting ESG story. During the next 10 years, if we can nail this down in the next few years, and we really believe -- truly believe that there's a great future for the company. And that's exciting. That does excite people, frankly. If we were purely a pure-play MSAR company, I don't think we'd have the same interest from people coming in. And that's the same similar candidates we're now seeing for the chair role, we're now shifting through. We've got some very serious heavy hits that we're looking at. So yes, it's annoying to these people. As a small company, we do get hit by our staff leaving frankly. But we -- so far, touch wood, we had a very, very loyal team and it takes an exceptional reason for people to leave the Quadrise stable in general, unless we've decided they don't quite meet the scrapper mold.

And could I maybe just but in particular, I think just to absolutely come back on one thing, it isn't that I don't share that vision and that excitement. When I first came into the business, actually, Laurie and I were saying my first AGM was actually before I had actually joined the company and actually sat next to Bob on the front rows, about 2 or 3 days before I formally joined the board as a nonexec. I then went on 4 months after that to become Executive Chairman. And at that time, the expectation was, I would be in that role for about 18 months. When I then -- we then put in the plans in terms of moving to a nonexecutive capacity. It was my view that actually, I think it's a very different proposition for a Chief Executive like Jason to work with someone who's been executive chair for 18 months and then move back to a nonexecutive capacity than it is for someone that's been in that role for nearly 6 years. So I think in terms of absolutely getting the best out of Jason, my view was it was best that it's a new nonexecutive Chairman coming into this role. And I absolutely still believe that's the case. In terms of the disruption, I think Jason has put it really well. The disruption caused by Mark leaving is more challenging, but that has been actively managed and it's actually going to be effectively dissipated almost entirely when this new person comes in very soon, and I think you'll be really excited when you find out who that is and their experience. In terms of disruption caused by me, frankly, it's like taking your hand out of a bucket of water. When you take your hand out, there isn't a hole left there. So I -- Jason is irreplaceable. I'm not. Laurie will come in seamlessly take over that role in an interim capacity and through the process that has been gone through with external executive consultants will get absolutely the right person to be leading the business as Nonexecutive Chairman in the future, but with absolutely Jason leading the business as Chief Executive. I think the other thing is whilst I've been privileged to act as Executive Chairman, one of the things that we've been able to do is build up people who've already been within the business a long period of time, in particular, it's been great working with David, who's been a really invaluable supporter of myself in terms of the PR and IR, taking increasingly a positive role in that alongside Jason. And it's actually bringing that capacity up within the business so that it does have the people who are out there scrapping on a day-to-day basis, and I will continue to be supporting the business from afar, and I will be retaining my shares. And I'm not -- I talked to Nick about this earlier. I own those shares jointly with my wife. So when I say I'm not going to be selling those shares, it isn't the case that if I will, my wife will. The only things that you would see potentially in terms of me selling shares, if I do a better and nice because some of them are still not in a nice. Other than that, I am very content to retain my shares. I think there's huge value in them, and I've still got options in the business that I think there is huge value there as well. But absolutely, this business is going to be better led by a new independent nonexecutive Chairman in terms of the Board and it is absolutely best led by Jason as CEO, and he's doing a absolutely fabulous job doing that.

It seems like we've got time for me to say a few words as well, Jason.

Yes. Well, you do that.

That's online. I'm Laurie Mutch. And as you've heard, I'll be taking over as the Interim Chairman for a short period of time. And I'm sure those online and in the room here would all want to wish Mike and his family all the very best going forward. As Mike just indicated, he joined the company as a Nonexec Director in December 2015. He's been with us for almost exactly 6 years, and he was appointed Chairman 4 months later. And as we've spoken about today, the company has been through some challenging times during his tenure. After much promise, we had the disappointments, of course, in Saudi Arabia and Maersk. But on a more positive note, under Mike's guidance and leadership, and of course, with the continued support of yourselves, our shareholders, the company successfully concluded a number of fundraisers. And what this has done has substantially extended the range of potential business opportunities that you heard about today, including the exciting transition to biofuels and the net-zero potential for the company. And in my view, and I hope in your view as well, it's in one area in particular where Mike has made a tremendous contribution. And that is in much improved investor and shareholder relations. And I hope you would all acknowledge this. Let me take a moment and I'm going to touch on something Mark has said. Speaking personally, although I am the interim Chairman, and we hope, as you heard, to appoint a successor to Mark promptly, I do want to reassure you both those online and in the room, the -- and I think I speak for Phil and Dilip as well. We will absolutely break a leg to give Jason, David and their teams, our fullest support to realizing our hopes for the company over this exciting period ahead. So on your -- on behalf of the Board and on behalf of shareholders, if I may, if we could say goodbye to Mike and wish him all the very best in the future.

Jason, just to say that we can make available immediately after this presentation, all the presubmitted questions that you very kindly responded to, just for your reference.

So I think we haven't managed to get through all the presubmitted questions, but we -- I can assure you that we've answered all of those, and I've been told by Mark [indiscernible] company that they'll be available immediately after the meeting. So I think that we'll draw the meeting to a close. I'd like to thank everyone who came to the meeting today for the updates. And if you have any further questions, feel free to obviously send them into IR and we'll work through those as soon as we can. So thank you very much for your participation today. Thank you guys online. I hope you got a good experience. Thank you.

That's great. Thank you very much to the Board of Quadrise International for organizing today's Annual General Meeting. Could I please ask attendees not to close this session. We'll now automatically redirect you for the opportunity to provide your feedback in order that the Board can really better understand your views and expectations. This will only take a few moments to complete, but I'm sure it will be greatly valued by the company. I'm part of the management team of Quadrise Fuels International. We'd like to thank you for attending today's presentation. That now concludes today's session, and good afternoon to you all.