Quadrise Plc (QED) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

And so which is now just to welcome you to the business update presentation, which I think many of you have been waiting for and certainly people online have been waiting for. And hopefully, you will have seen we did an RNS this morning of a business update, which enables us to -- which is talk to the same -- to you here about the same things which are in that business update, which is now in the public domain. So look forward to that. And then there will be a Q&A. We will, this time, cover some of the pre-submitted questions, which we didn't manage to do last year because we got -- where we took all the questions from the room. So we'll do it the other way around this year. Just to start off with a few things. The -- who are we? And why we hear this? A lot of you will know this already. And we have identified a huge commercial opportunity to decarbonize the shipping sector and the other difficult to abate energy-intensive sectors. So we see -- if we start -- first of all, we start off by saying there's a huge opportunity here. And we are looking to create the sustainable marine fuel, which you could compare in a way with the sustainable aviation fuels that we hear about such a lot. So we have a huge opportunity out there. And our strategy, fundamentally, we are a technology business, and we have a licensing and tolling model for our products and technology and that's our strategy. And how do we do it? We do that through providing a transition technologies, particularly emulsion fuels technologies to supply MSAR and bioMSAR fuels. And these are lower cost and lower carbon fuels for these marine and other sectors. So that's who we are. Most of you in the room will know that already. And you're going to hear a story today about the progress that we're making. And the stand back just a little bit. I joined Quadrise early in 2022. And at that time, I came in and I was thinking this is quite a difficult business. And I was ready to say, you know what, it's too difficult. We'll stop this, and we'll carry on and we'll do something else. But by the time we got to the AGM in 2022, I've been convinced by the opportunity and by the shareholders who many of whom are still in this room today that we needed to give it another go. So by -- in 2022, we said, okay, we are going to use these resources. We are going to give it a go. The opportunity is too good to miss. And then by this time last year, in 2023, we were in a room. There was a very significant optimism about the progress we had made, and we were about to make. Everything was imminent. We know that this is 12 months ago. And here we are now in 2024. And it's been a testing year. It's been -- because we haven't been able to get out as much news as we wanted to. But you're going to hear why we are remain confident that we're on the right track and why we think we're making progress, and why we will continue to make progress, and there's still plenty of 2024 left in which to do it. So our -- and you're going to hear the progress, which Jason is going to explain in a lot more detail in our 3 core sectors in the marine sector, the industrial sector and in what we're now calling the U.S. lower carbon and low sulfur fuels, the Valkor, Utah project, as you would understand it. And so with that, I think, Jason, I'm going to hand over to you, and I'll be back to lead the Q&A at the end.

Thank you, Andy. Yes, and I guess, a very neat snapshot, first of all, in terms of our company. And welcome, everyone, in the room today. Good to see all of you again back on last year. So in terms of how we view the company, essentially, we've got 2 different types of products. We basically have our fuels and the bit that we really make money out of is the actual licensing and tolling services, blending technology that makes the fuels. We are fairly unique in terms of a company in that we supply a technology that makes an oil and water emulsion, and we'll talk about those in a minute. But that technology is using proven systems to make fuel in bulk. And we're serving a number of different sectors. So we're serving the utility sector, the marine sector, downstream oil and upstream oil. So the touch points are quite varied. The expertise needed in each of these areas is pretty is very detailed as well. So we need to have people on board within the company who really fully understand each of these different areas. So we have -- it's quite a challenging business, I think as Andy indicated earlier, in terms of what we're facing. But we have -- the key thing is really hinging around the technology itself. Our core products are emulsion fuels, the first one being MSAR, which is using lower-cost residuals from refineries as a feedstock and as an energy feedstock and that reduces the cost of making the fuel and essentially then offers the opportunity to offer a discount to the consumer. So this particular product is our base fossil product. And then with a view of the future and the demand -- increasing demand for biofuels now, we launched bioMSAR several years ago, done all the testing to the point where this particular product is ready for the market, and we'll be produced in bulk next year for the commercial trial. And then we've done a lot of development work, which we can tell you about during this presentation with the net zero solution as well, which is called bioMSAR Zero. The market derivation is something called B100, so it's 100% biofuel. And it's a blend essentially of oil-soluble biofuels and water-soluble biofuels. So again, nobody else can do that. We are the only technology that can utilize water-soluble products to produce a fuel that actually behaves like fuel oil or like essentially biofuels. So there's been quite a bit of work done on all fronts in terms of these products. We're continually developing each of the technologies, even MSAR, we've come up with a new additive that seems to work extremely well this year. So there's a lot of work that we've done to support this technology platform. In terms of the adoption process, what's driving people to start looking at our technology and other things as well. The whole markets in which we're operating are being shaken up by environmental regulations. The European Union is leading that, obviously not affected by the election in the U.S., but the European Union are really stamping down and putting quite challenging limits on power companies, refineries and now most recently, the shipping sector. So the emissions EU ETS, which is the emissions trading system is starting to mandate people report their emissions. And if they're operating in European waters, they have to start buying allocations, which will become more expensive as time progresses because they'll start removing how many bits of paper that is available for people to buy. And then FuelEU Maritime is another directive, which is really starting to bite with some quite severe penalties now for shipowners. So they need to start reducing their CO2 emissions as well. And then the IMO sort of catching on that, then basically the IMO basically setting some fairly strong standards or guidelines themselves. So really, what's happening is the shipping industry, which is one of the biggest sectors that we're really dealing with, is having to look at the challenge of finding biofuels. The shipping sector produces a relatively small amount of greenhouse gas emissions, 3%, but it's from burning 280 million tonnes of fuel. So there's a large quantity of product of fuel used today. And essentially, what's happening is that they're having to look at greener feedstocks. Predominantly, the feedback, I was in Singapore quite recently that predominantly people are looking at the immediate solutions, which are biofuels, which is something that we can supply and LNG, which we would argue would have a questionable environmental well-to-wake emission factor anyway. So what's happening is that this is driving demand for the biofuel space. There's a limited amount of biofuels available and some of those biofuels are going to other sectors. So basically, these biofuels are becoming quite expensive and going elsewhere. And essentially, people are looking at technologies such as ours that can access lower-cost biofuels. And that's really the driving point between -- behind the MSC project is a good example. So how do our solutions -- how they fit for 55, which is the EU buzzword for the EU -- latest FuelEU Maritime legislation. Well, our base core MSAR is essentially a fossil fuel. And basically, the way FuelEU Maritime works is it's looking at the percentage of biofuels actually in the fuel. So you can't avoid -- it doesn't take into account carbon capture or anything else. So if you look at our base product, it's obviously suitable today, not a problem. FuelEU Maritime also allows pooling. So if you operate a number of vessels, you can run one vessel on a low sulfur or low carbon fuel rather and that vessel will then count as a pool. So you can achieve your 2% or 6% reduction just by using a pool system. So it means that you can start running vessels 100% on particular fuels, which is quite good for us. BioMSAR, this is the base bioMSAR that we're manufacturing today and testing in large scale. That's essentially -- if you look at the CO2 reduction potential of that product, that could go easily to 2040. And based on the results that we -- the testing that we recently did this year -- this financial year, it will go on to 2045 because we've already made a B55 products, which is basically has about 40% CO2 reduction. So our core products are there. Having said that, people are now utilizing B100 fuels as well. So the bioMSAR Zero product is definitely needed by the market. We're being asked for it by certain clients. And that's something that we want to launch well in advance of 2030. So in terms of our focus, where we're really focusing our efforts is on getting up and running and putting systems into marine bunker hubs. The first bunker hub being the ARA region, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Amsterdam. That's really -- the intention there is to get the system up and running in Amsterdam -- sorry, in Antwerp rather. And then following up with that, then the Mediterranean is next in our target list. So right in the middle of the map is our main focus serving in the Northern Europe, the MSC project and then in the Mediterranean, potentially both MSC and our Moroccan clients. Elsewhere, we have Valkor on the left-hand side of the map, who offer a low sulfur. I say low sulfur, extremely low sulfur potentially. And we can -- I think there's some questions around that coming up anyway. But yes, this is a very low sulfur product. The idea is it's a very heavy oil. They'll process it and remove the diesel and what's left is essentially a bitumen type product, a bit like the old or emulsion product that we used to -- I was personally involved with before. We're taking that bitumen and taking it straight to market. And by taking it straight to market and avoiding the refining process, which is quite carbon intensive, then you have a product that's essentially 15% lower CO2 compared to conventional fuels. And then you have the opportunity also then to add the biofuel component, so we can add glycerin, or we can add FAME or anything else to produce a biofuel version of that as well. So that's the Valkor project. The intention being it's going to go to the marine sector or local demand. And then we have 2 other projects, which have made some good developments this year. One is in Panama for a power station and the other one is in Southeast Asia, which really covers then potential supply to Singapore, which is the world's biggest bunker hub. So in terms of our projects, where we are with the marine projects, and there's a more detailed slide on this. So -- but essentially earlier the year, we approved the agreement or signed the agreement for the Antwerp terminal with MAC2 and Cargill. So last year, we couldn't disclose cargo we're working with, but now we could -- now we can rather. The binding 3-way agreement, which I'm sure people are very interested in, is still pending, but we certainly expect that to be done before the end of the year. In order to not hold up the project, we've carefully purchased some of the key lead items of equipment, items of equipment that could delay the project if we hadn't purchased them, and we found some of those -- that equipment from sort of secondhand markets as well. So we know that we got to resell value should we not use them. But we fully intend to obviously install them into Antwerp. So if we're able to sign the agreement before the end of the year. The plan is definitely to start supplying the ship in Q1. And I know you've heard deadlines before from us, but that's firmly what we believe sitting around this table at the moment. And then we're obviously progressing discussions with others. We're not exclusive to MSC. So there's -- there are other shipping companies that we're speaking with, and there are other potential partners in this industry as well who can open up the business for the Marine business. In terms of Morocco, we've been working under a commercial framework agreement, which was negotiated and signed in May. So again, last year, we completed the test or in the process of completing the test in Morocco, which we successfully did. The commercial framework agreement we signed is where they actually fully pay for the 30-day trial in Jorf Lasfar. And where we are essentially is everything is already there and delivered to site and the team are waiting to be deployed, and which is one of the reasons why Bernard is not here today. And he says [indiscernible]. And then in the U.S., essentially, again, last year, they hadn't drilled many wells or hadn't drilled any wells at all. There was dispute with Hoodoo. There's lots of clouds hanging over this particular product -- project. Valkor got through all those challenges. They've got -- basically, they drilled successful wells. They've got state approval from the authorities in Utah, and they're starting to produce. It's not -- they're not quite up and running as fast as they would like to have been. But they're essentially -- they drilled the wells; the wells are producing. They've got 100 barrels per day planned by before the end of the year. And they're doing a lot of test work now underpinning basically their project finance. So I spoke to Steve Byle yesterday, and he was confident that they will get their project finance approved by the end of the year. So they're positively making good steps. The key thing is to demonstrate the oil is of the quality that they said it would be, oil is flowing and then the treatment process is actually going to deliver the products that they expect to make, and they've demonstrated that in their lab, which again has taken a little bit longer to set up, but is up and running. So we're expecting samples any day. We're planning to test them before the end of the year. But yes, I'm planning to get out to Valkor before the end of the year to talk through the next steps. And then in terms of the other projects we're working on. We've -- as I mentioned before, the R&D guys and the guys -- some of the guys in this room as well have made great efforts to keep pushing the envelope for bioMSAR and B100, up to a bioMSAR Zero product. So a lot of work has been ongoing. We've actually got formulations in the lab, which are working extremely well. And we've recently completed engine testing on those products as well and results will be out very soon in terms of the results of those tests. To the point that because we may be making good progress with the B100 work with Vertoro and focus motor yachts and placing to planning a first test next year on a B100 products, which will basically use our technology and our fuel to run basically sort of a 25-meter yacht. That's just one of the smaller ones, and then they're talking about larger yachts as well. But this gives us, I guess, a floating lab to start testing the fuel on engines, which would be very useful. And then I've mentioned before that the projects in Panama and also in Southeast Asia are both progressing positively. Now in terms of the challenges that we've had along the way with the 3-way agreement. We've not been able to give a blow-by-blow account of really what's been going on behind the scenes because we're dealing with 2 very large, quite private companies who are very conscientious that they don't want to have live events basically displayed in public, okay? So where we are and where we were last year because I guess people will be asking the question is, last year, we were talking about signing a nonbinding trial 3-way agreement myself and Andy have been out to Geneva before the AGM last year. Everyone was positive. We issued a -- jointly prepared an agreement, which is nonbinding. And then during Q1 next year -- that basically took a little bit longer to do. The reason it took longer to do is that one of the counterparties wanted to get the terminal set up first because they are concerned that we wouldn't have a terminal to do this in. So the Antwerp terminal deal was done first. But in parallel, the 3-way agreement between MSC and Cargill was drafted, getting to the point of conclusion in Q1. And then there was a request by one of the counterparties at the 11th hour a question basically say, why are we doing a nonbinding agreement, why don't we merge this with the future binding agreement for the operational trial and work on that. So basically, we had to pull together commercial terms, agree price formulas, draft the new binding agreement very rapidly. And in Q2, that was basically submitted to the clients for their review and approval. The final draft was pretty much agreed -- well, we thought was agreed in the summer. And then because of some of the events that have happened around the world in terms of the Baltimore incident, for instance, and some of the other aspects of shipping, which has become -- it's become obviously a little bit more hazardous these days because of the some of the wars around. Basically, there was a request for -- because Quadrise are basically providing the fuels, we are exposed to product liability, and that's the same case as we had before with the Maersk trial. But the quantum that we had for our insurance was not the quantum that was required by one of the counterparties. So we had to speak with our brokers, talk about the quantum and negotiate something that was sensible between the parties. That took a little bit of time, several months to get done, more or less agreed. And then we came -- one of the other counterparty came back with another request in terms of enhanced confidentiality, cross liability cover with our insurance with them, which was a problem because we're a U.K. company and the other counterparties are not. Anyway, revision of wording, where we are is we've got an agreement where we got the wordings approved, and we are waiting for the signatures to be done, okay? So that's where we are with the 3-way agreement. This is a very summarized version of the ins and outs in terms of what's happened, but we can give a blow-by-blow account during the year. It's just -- as a public company, it's sometimes a disadvantage because a lot of people question whether we'll have to -- we'll be giving a blow-by-blow account. So we're very careful about what we do disclose and what we don't disclose. We're in constant dialogue with our NOMAD as well to make sure we are always compliant. But we can't always provide full disclosure, while we're in the middle of quite complicated negotiations. So what does that mean? By the end of the year, we're going to be -- we should be signing -- we should have a signed agreement. And again, Bernard is going to be very busy getting everything ready to deploy to site in Antwerp -- and the team, obviously, not just Bernard on the zone. Q1 of next year, the equipment should be ready. There's some further bilateral agreements that are needed, which basically are covered by the 3-way agreement now that we should be signing very soon. The terms of that would be turned into bilateral agreements, one between MSC and Cargill for fuel supply, one between ourselves and Cargill for the tolling, and one between ourselves and the terminal for the services that they're providing. So 3 further agreements are drafted ready to go. And then we're up and running in terms of the commencing fuel supply. We need to get obviously cargo to get a barge prepared and ready as well. And yes, and then basically, we'll start supplying the vessel, which is currently on a route, which is coming back into Antwerp on a regular basis, and we're assured will be deployed onto a route that always comes into Antwerp. So that gives us then a facility in Antwerp that we can start supplying other clients. So that particular facility itself is designed, obviously, to supply the MSC vessel. But the purpose of some of the discussions we're having with other shipping companies is to expand our network of potential people who are interested in trialing the fuel. So myself and Phil have been very busy talking with clients who are interested and all of whom are looking at decarbonizing their fleet. And obviously, we'll have a production facility there. So this is extremely important in this particular project. I think everybody knows that. It's been quite a painful year to get through to this point, but we're certainly very optimistic that by the end of the year, the 3-way will be signed and there's going to be action. In terms of the net zero product, I think I've talked about that in great detail, and there's another slide on that anyway. In terms of the blend onboard business, there's certainly an opportunity there, and there's certainly a possibility under the MSC agreement that we have to test that particular technology. But it's apparent to us that we also need a channel partner to make it happen. We need an implementation partner both for the blend onboard system, but also when you look at converting ships to run our fuel in the future, we can't do it on our own. We can't rely necessarily on third party to help us out. So we are -- we've been very active in looking at potential partners who can actually do the implementation phase on the ships as well. And again, we've made some good progress there that we're looking forward to announcing before the end of the year. In terms of Valkor, where they are is that I think I mentioned that the samples are due imminently. They're expecting to increase production, drilling more wells before the end of the year as well to get up to 100 barrels a day or plus. And then also looking to close out their project finance for a sum that's more than $15 million. That should trigger then the site license agreement with us, which will give us the GBP 1 million -- $3 million down payment, and then we deliver equipment to site. So that's still on track in terms of -- again, in terms of the timing of it, there's been delays admittedly. But in terms of getting the money in and getting paid, that's still the intention from Valkor. And again, I'm on a weekly call with Steve Byle just to find out what's going on. So that's the program there. And I mentioned before, with Morocco that we've got everything ready to go. In parallel, we're also initiating discussions, or we've initiated discussions with EU refineries as well. So we're talking with refineries in the Med who can potentially supply both Morocco and MSC with MSAR. And again, that could lead then to a system being installed in the refinery to be ready to go by during 2025. And then the other 2 projects are literally at the point of agreeing the contracts and signing them and announcing them. And then the intention is basically to do the commercial trials in the first half of next year. In terms of the financial aspect of the business, I think you've seen our annual results, and David is here to answer any questions on that. But we ended up with a cash position of GBP 3 million as of the end of June, thankfully, due to the April fundraise, which I'm sure some of you participated in for which we're very thankful. The planned receipt, obviously, the funds from Valkor are key. And the current spend rate means that we've got enough funds into Q2 of next year. And obviously, we're building up tax losses as we go along, which could potentially be used in the future. There's been a number of new recruits in the company this year, one of which in QRF with the team with Bernard and one of which in our office in terms of new process engineer you see today. And then we basically we've got a network of industry experts still retained, doing work behind the scenes, both in terms of the R&D and where we're doing detailed combustion testing or diesel engine testing that these guys are involved as well. We're expanding our portfolio of IP all the time. So we have a new sugar patent that's going through the PCT approval process at the moment. And our blend-on-board has been filed and accepted granted in the U.K. and then subsequently should be granted elsewhere as well. And yes, the state of the R&D facility in QRF is ever being improved and quite busy at the moment getting kit together, some of which is very sizable for the MSC trial. In terms of the ESG focus of the business, the funnel is getting quite busy. We're essentially doing a lot more work on other feedstocks because we are spreading out and speaking to other interested parties to supply biofuels. We've done a lot of work this year on methyl ester streams. These are byproducts. The not necessarily biodiesel products, they're biodiesel residual products, which are not -- can't be used in diesel. They work very well in our process. We're blending those with glycerin. And in fact, we've got to the point where we've got a B100 bioMSAR Zero product, which is -- which we've engine tested, and we will obviously publish the results once they're available. Similarly, with BTG, we've been doing a lot of work on the pyrolysis oils and their sugars, and we're getting stable blends with those products. And we've done a bit more work with Vertoro’, really gearing up for a B100 test with the focus mostly is a typo. And then ethanol is another potential. We've been working with some parties that are very interested in looking at ethanol blending as well. So there's a possibility there that we've already done some proof-of-concept work with second-generation bioethanol, and that's a possibility for bioMSAR in the future. So there's a number of things that we basically have a mixing device, and we can blend these fuels to make a lower-cost biofuel, always with a view that this can be 10% cheaper, more efficient and lower emissions. Andy?

Thanks very much, Jason. And I'm keen to get on to Q&A, but I will just summarize a couple of things before we do that. And so the summary of what we're hearing is that I think we're focusing on delivering our shareholder expectations. We have an ambitious purpose, and our solutions are increasingly relevant. And we aim to help decarbonize the planet, while making money for shareholders. And our focus is on the marine sector with the other projects increasingly being used to support that initiative into the marine sector. And I'm going to -- I received an e-mail, which is I'm taking a little bit out of sequence in a way from yesterday. But I thought it was an interesting question, which we will also get in the -- come through in the Q&A. It's from somebody who's, I think, online, but is not able to join us today as you would normally, Chris Amos. And he says, in the annual report, the Chairman states that our ambitions for the business are limited more by the availability of financial and operational resources than by the scale of the significant opportunities. Is it not rather truer to say that ambitions are significantly more limited by the inability to bring any contracts, any projects to contractual fruition. Without these, Quadrise is a shareholder-funded perpetually loss-making operation. What is the company doing differently now to ensure commercial opportunities are contracted with a heightened degree of pace? And I think that's a question that many people would echo and would understand. And I think we will come to the Q&A. And if we don't come to the -- answer that question as fully as you'd like, I'm sure you'll think of other questions in the room. And we do have that powerful mission, I think we more see what we're trying to achieve. And in Jason here, we have a world expert in emulsion fuels that no one else has got. So we have lots of things going. The thing is, is our execution flawless? No, it's not. We've seen that. We've seen that there are things which we would have wished to have done better or would wish had happened better. Do we know that? Yes, we know that. We know that the execution is not flawed. Are we doing anything about it? Yes, we're doing stuff about it. And can we do more? And yes, is the answer to that as we scale up. And we'll discuss some more of that in the Q&A. You will maybe have noticed in the RNS we put out this morning a sentence or 2 about the fact that we're looking to recruit an additional nonexecutive director with shipping and marine experience, and marketing and sales experience. I think -- that I think can easily help us. It's a -- we talk about a nonexecutive, and we're doing it in anticipation that we will get the signature of the MSC deal. So that's one step. But of course, there's more we can do as we scale the business. So thanks very much for that. And I'm going to move on to the Q&A. I'm going to be skip -- it's going to be a little bit of a paper shuffle at this because I've got to read the questions and work out which one -- who I'm going to ask as well. So excuse me on that. There were a couple of questions, which I was going to give to Jason at the beginning. But I think actually, he done such a good job on explaining -- they're all about what was the reason that NSE were delays for MSC. But I think that there was a good slide there and you do a good explanation of that. So I'm going to pass that question, so we have time on other ones. And I'm going to go straight to one is a question for myself. Does Quadrise have any -- have sufficient funds at the moment to avoid any further fundraises? Is the question. So Jason already commented that at the end of the year, our results are -- we had a cash balance of GBP 3 million June 2024. And based on those forecasts and including the receipt of $1.5 million from Valkor, those funds would be sufficient to last until quarter 2, 2025. All that is already in the public domain. And we're continually monitoring the cash position of the company and reviewing that. The Notice of Meeting states that we have no immediate plan to raise money, and that remains the case. Mathematicians can work out that we will eventually need to raise money. And I wouldn't be doing the meeting any favors by saying that we've got a specific plan to do so. We don't have a specific plan to do so or to give you any specific timings around that. Of course, we will need to raise money at some point in time. What we said last year and what remains the case is that we don't want to raise any money until we have used the money that you've given us to achieve something. And at the moment, we're kind of saying, well, hang on a minute, we're just about to announce stuff that we've achieved. Okay. So we do -- so it remains the case that we don't want to raise any more money until we have got some milestones to show for the investments that you guys have made in the period up to now. So that's the answer on the cash position. Question 5, Jason, this is one for you. It's about MSAR and bioMSAR. Once the MSC project proof-of-concept is completed, what is the plan for supplying MSAR? Is this dependent on the bioMSAR LONO?

The answer is no. The supply of MSAR is independent. We already have an interim letter of no objection for the use of MSAR on the Flex engine. So basically, we're going to be using that interim letter of no objection potentially to supply MSAR independently of bioMSAR from the Mediterranean to MSC and potentially others who are interested in doing and getting involved with that as well. So the answer is no.

And assuming that there is a successful LONO on the vessel, what's the plan for the LONO for other engine models?

So our discussions with the OEM is that essentially, the letter of no objection we get for the Flex 96 engine will cover the other engine types, other engine models of the Flex, of the Flex model as well. So all the different sizes of Flex should be covered. We may need to do some proof tests on some of the models. But essentially, the OEM has confirmed that the Flex LONO that we'll get from for bioMSAR will cover the other rest.

And then there are 3 questions, all different aspects of Utah. I'm going to read all the questions and you can just answer them in an integrated way, Jason. There seems to be confusion around Utah project funding. When do you expect the project to breach the $15 million threshold to trigger the license fee, et cetera? Communication from other stakeholders suggest much later than projections from Quadrise. That's one question. Then what grade of marine bunkers is being targeted by the Utah project? [ Valkor ] suggests MGO and not lower grades. And the question 17, we were told glycerin and hence, bioMSAR was not a target for the Utah project. Recent communications suggest bioMSAR is a -- product is a product from the Utah project. What has changed? Is the Utah project only viable if targeting marine gas or not lower grades?

So the first question, I think I've answered in terms of the project funding. But our information from Valkor is that they're very much engaged in terms of the project finance. The project finance that they're raising is for basically a processing facility. It's independent of the money that they're using, obviously, to spend the drilling. But as far as we -- as the feedback we got as of yesterday is that they're on track to get that project financing in excess of the $15 million that's needed for the processing facility. So yes, project finance and that the financial trigger for us is on track for the end of the year. In terms of the product that they're making, essentially, they're taking the oil at the ground, getting rid of the water, distilling it to getting rid of the diesel, so they can sell the diesel. The bitumen itself should be based on the processing that they're doing with the solvents should be extremely low sulfur below the 0.1%, which is the MGO spec, okay? So the likelihood is that we'll have a bitumen that meets an MGO value, and that's really the key driver for the business. Having said that, if it doesn't make the MGO value, it still has a very low sulfur fuel oil value, which is still in excess of crude oil. So essentially, either way, whichever product they end up making, and we expect it's going to be MGO sulfur, but it's not going to look like MGO. It's not diesel. It's a brick. So it's a low sulfur fuel. They need that technology to get it to market because of the viscosity of this product. But if it meets the 0.1 sulfur spec, it meets -- it's very attractive for cruise ships for other ships. So basically, if you're today running an open loop -- if you're running a ship and you go into an emission control area, if you got -- if you're basically running a scrubber, it's got an open loop, which means it takes seawater in and the seawater goes out into the open ocean, you can't run that ship in the emission control area with a scrubber on cheap fuel. You have to switch to MGO. So that MGO market is extremely attractive, both for the marine industry, but also for the local power industry as well potentially. So there's a number of applications. The sulfur unlocks it. The fact that it's not going to a refinery is amazing. And the touch points of our technology are extremely good. So Valkor looking at MSAR is the best outcome and MGO is obviously the best value outcome for them as well. And I've forgotten the last question. Glycerin. Glycerin, yes, I mean, there are many options available for production. I would say the base case is still MSAR and the fact that it's lower carbon anyway means it should get some carbon advantage and some CO2 value from the nature of the hydrocarbon itself. But there's nothing to stop blending that material also with glycerin or with other biofuels to make a biofuel product as well. And that's certainly something that we'll be testing when we get the samples in.

Thanks. Next questions are short questions, but -- and they're for me. Why has Andy informed the market that we are turning potential customers away? Given the very slow progress since the last AGM, are we sure we are targeting the correct customers? And is there any update on -- relating to the bulk carrier marine customer who seems to have quietly disappeared? And so we are not in the business of turning customers away. So that was an impression I must have given incorrectly. What I did probably was meaning to say was that we're looking for the -- as we get the LONO, then obviously, it facilitates our ability to get to other customers. We've certainly experienced a big increase in interest on the marine sector in our technology. And we do have a methodology to target the customers that have the kind of engine types that we're able to supply and so on based on geography sectors and applications and so on. And the -- specifically on the bulk carrier question, the bulk carrier has not disappeared and it's just a case that they take time, and it's actually also connected to the same point. The -- that customer is keeping a close eye on the MSC situation as well. So sorry if I gave a wrong impression last time on that. So next question here, and I'm going to bring Laurie in here. It still feels like Quadrise is still not going anywhere. The share price looks like it will never rise. Are you embarrassed that over 10 years ago, the share price was 40p, and now it's between 1.5 and 1.85p.

I don't think that we should feel embarrassed. I think we're frustrated. I think we're like you, we're disappointed at the slow progress we've made, but the challenges that we face, think about decarbonization of shipping. Think about the scale of what we're endeavoring to accomplish. It's phenomenal. We've got a small team. So I don't think we should be embarrassed. I think we should be proud of the amount of work that's gone into this, the effort that's gone into where the company has got to so far. I think it's unfortunate that we've not been able to disclose to you as much as we would have liked of the challenges that we faced and the work that's gone on behind the scenes. Let me take a moment to take us back to 10 years ago, and it's useful to remember where we stood with the marine sector. We have 1,300 hours under our belt with the Seago Istanbul. We had a significant project opportunity in the Middle East, and it's really disappointing that those 2 didn't come about. If they had come about, this company would have been in a very different position. And those companies would have benefited enormously from our technology. So I think those 2 and where we were 10 years ago is a reminder to all of us of the potential of this company. I'm going to go one step further, and this company is different from many others that some of you will be shareholders of. And that is how tightly bound this team is. The NEDs, the 2 of us right here and of course, Andy, are really closely engaged with the development of the company to the extent that we're looking at stuff at 5:00 in the morning, et cetera, to do our best to deliver to you, our shareholders, the promise that we think we've shown you. So embarrassed, no, frustrated, yes, but we're doing our best for you, our shareholders, and we thank you for your support.

Thanks, Laurie. Jason, I'm going to ask you to try to -- we've got a few more questions we do want to get to. I'm going to ask you to try to keep your answers as short as possible here. But there's 3 questions on the scale-up plans after the MSC LONO. Assuming a successful LONO with MSC, what's the plan to secure sufficient quantities of glycerin for bioMSAR from supply from Antwerp? Assuming a successful LONO with MSC, what is the plan for fuel supply from Antwerp? Will it continue to be heavy fuel oil? Or will the supply convert to heavy residues? And if so, where will this be supplied from? And after glycerine, what's the next planned feedstock we can expect to see incorporated into bioMSAR for commercial supply? So maybe you can have a quick go at those.

Yes. So in terms of scale-up of glycerin supply, that's really the purpose of the partnership with -- that we have with Cargill. Obviously, they're producers of biodiesel glycerin to byproduct from their processes. And it's -- that's potential the feedstock for that. They're also traders of glycerin as well and obviously, a very competent company in the biofuel business. So they have the ability to purchase additional glycerin supply. But beyond that, there's also other streams that Cargill are putting in our direction that are either supplements or complements or additions to glycerin. So the security of supply and the ability to scale up is really the purpose of dealing directly with Cargill. So that's really covers the glycerin supply at least from Northwest Europe and probably around the world, most likely. And then in terms of Antwerp, the system that we're putting in is geared up to run on fuel oil. We're putting very large purifiers in to take any residual stream or any fuel oil stream, get rid of any cat fines and put it into our cleaner fuel. So yes, fuel oil, but the heavier grades of fuel oil or even some of the residual products that end up going -- being blended into fuel oil, that's the type of product that we're going to be using from that terminal. If we talk about really heavy viscous resid, most likely that would be better served from a refinery. But for bioMSAR production, the Antwerp terminal is perfect. And then again, I keep forgetting the last question. In terms of the last question was around other fuels. So yes, I mentioned some of the other streams that we talked about, the methyl ester streams, [indiscernible] streams we're looking -- we've done a lot of test work with already. And then we're talking about the more sustainable streams available from companies or technologies such as BTG Bioiquids and Botoro's technology as well with the crude sugar oil plus some of the other products that are available as well. So there's an increasing range of products that fit quite nicely into the bioMSAR technology platform and produce a lower cost version of the fuel. So really, we start with glycerin. Glycerin will be proven, but the idea will be to start testing some of the other products for some of which are already approved and known, some of which are not, and we need to test and work closely with the OEM to make sure they're happy with that fuel going in the engine.

Thanks, Jason. I'm going to skip a couple that I was planning to do, maybe come back to them at the end after we taking questions from the room. I'd like to bring Vicki into the conversation now, if I could. And there's a couple of questions. They're different, so I'll do one at a time. Vicki, how does the Board evaluate executive performance given Quadrise's delayed timetables and limited contract success? And what performance-based criteria specifically determine executive compensation?

Good afternoon, everyone. The Board does have a very robust process to make sure that executives' performance is evaluated and that there is a way to remunerate them and reward them appropriately. On an annual basis, the Compensation Committee identifies key objectives for the company that are based on what will deliver value to you as our shareholders and to our key stakeholder groups, whether it's employees, potential partners, key clients. And those objectives are then turned into the criteria, which is mentioned in the question. That forms the basis of our corporate scorecard. There is a certain passing mark that is required to trigger a bonus and for performance options for the Executive Director. That passing mark has not been met in the last year. And indeed, in recent years, it has not been met. And therefore, there has been no bonus awarded to the Executive Director and the performance options have lapsed. It would not be possible for me to disclose each and every one of that criteria. There are about 15 to 20 of them because they would be commercially sensitive information. But I can say categorically that the committee designed this scorecard in such a way that it would be impossible to meet this passing mark without delivering the commercial value and some of these milestones that we talk about in the projects.

Thanks, Vicki. And the last one is also for you before we move on to questions from the room. Are there independent reviews conducted on the company's strategy and operations? And if so, can you share recent findings or action steps?

As regards to an independent review, that's the job really of the nonexecutives on the Board. So that's Andy, Laurie and myself. We do review these with the executive team. On an annual basis, we have a Strategy Day that focuses on this. And on a monthly basis, there is a formal review for project delivery. We go through this in great detail with the executive team to make sure that we are prioritizing our resources and our efforts. It is true that in bigger corporations, it would be good practice to bring in an external party like a management consultant to look at the strategy and operations separately. But that is -- it tends to be a costly exercise and a very time-consuming one. And our resources are actually very focused on delivering the projects. So at the moment, that kind of external review by a McKinsey or Boston consulting group, that's not in our plan. That's not in our budget or our resources.

Thanks, Vicki. So we didn't get to every single question that was presubmitted and nor have we touched on any of the questions that might have come in online during the course of this afternoon that we will publish. We'll review any other questions and publish answers to those in due course. So I want to turn now to the room. And I hope that some of the questions that have been pre-submitted that people have thought about in advance will have answered some of the questions that you would have had as well. But nevertheless, I'm sure there are still questions in the room that we would -- that you'd like to ask, it would be a bit of a double act between Jason and myself.

Thank you, Andy. I must say I came here today, and I've written out quite a large sheet to go through about how disappointed and frustrated I am as a shareholder of constant promises that the Board has made, printed in its annual report and accounts year after year, poor updates when we're given deadlines, and we're just left in the dark, and it happens time and time and time again. And although I'm very encouraged with the update, Jason, you've just given, it's more of the same that we've had prior years. And I accept and fully understand the constraints you have in terms of actually being able to give dialogue to shareholders, particularly with private companies. And as you said, the -- sorry, I've lost my track. But the question I've ultimately got is on the finances that you talked about, Andy, but I just wanted to come back to what Laurie was saying about not being embarrassed. I take a little bit offense to that because the Board puts out news from time to time about some exciting development that's going to happen. Based on news, which is all we have, we then go and buy some more shares for hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands of pounds. And then it just doesn't happen. And this has happened time and time again. And sadly, I've built up a pretty significant holding now in the business stupidly based on lots of news that's come out time and time again with nothing actually ever happening as a result of the news that's come out. And Although I'm a very loyal shareholder, been around for a long time, I am getting tired of getting these wonderful updates where I actually sit back and think, oh, actually, things are about to happen. And Jason, Andy, they never do. So I'm really hoping -- I'm hearing the deadlines, December, Q1, Q2, next year, it really does happen, it needs to. And we've raised 2 -- there's been lots of fundings year-on-year, GBP 6 million in the last 2 years. The 2 of you are not really focusing on this cost just shy of GBP 0.5 million a year in real cash to the business. And we need stuff delivered. I've held shares in this company for a long time, and I really want to get a return on it. So I think there should be a little bit of embarrassment, just to come back on your point, from all the news you put out year-on-year and actually no follow-through ever happening. Having said that, I've taken on board what has been said today and wish you luck on that. My real question, though, is on the financing. I think there's a bit of a glitter being put on what you've actually said, if I understood it properly. If Valkor doesn't come through, GBP 1.5 million, which is about GBP 1.2 million with a burn rate of about GBP 0.25 million roughly, these are round sums. Let's choose June next year as your long stop. You said Q2, you need to do financing. That really means if Valkor does not come through January, February at a stretch, you run out of money. And what you said to us just a minute ago and you looked at Jason, is that you've got no plans at the moment to raise any money. Well, that's only 10 weeks away before you run out of money if Valkor doesn't come through. Did I misunderstand that? Or...

No, you're one of the mathematicians in the room that I referred to. And so your math is not a million miles off. And when I say we have no specific plan, it means that we have no immediate project, say, with the brokers, some of whom are here to say, go and raise us any money. And we don't want to do any of that unless and until we get some milestones done. So yes, I mean, you're on the money. You understand it perfectly. And the other people in the room.

Okay. So no VAC, there will be a funding not at the last minute, probably December, early January, just so there's no surprises. If Valkor comes in, you've got a breathing space up until probably April next year when you need to raise some money, just so everyone understands the reality of what you said.

David.

Yes. I mean I'm happy to chip in on this one. The reason we may need to raise money sooner is if -- when we get the project agreement signed, we're going to have to start to spend the money on the projects. So our cash burn rate is about GBP 3 million a year. We got GBP 3 million at the start of this financial year. So without any projects, we would have enough through to the end of Q2 approximately. Now once you start factoring projects into that, if we get the Valkor money in, that could be extended. If we then need to start spending money on MSC, on Morocco, on Panama, et cetera, that deadline then comes further forward. So the only reason we would need to raise money in the shorter term is without Valkor, but with evidence of project progress. Yes.

Okay. Well, thank you for that. Well, I wish you all the best. I really do wish that this happens and...

Yes. And it's hard to make much comment on the first part that you said. I mean we do -- we genuinely share that frustration, and we don't want to be in a situation where we are saying it's going to be one day and then it happens to be another day or it doesn't happen at all kind of thing. We don't want to be in that situation. We put out announcements in good faith, but there's not much point in me saying it's going to be all right in the future because you won't believe it or you won't believe it until you see it. So we are heading in that direction. And once we've got projects going, there will be a higher level of predictability. It's the unpredictability of how long is it going to take a lawyer and another company to turn something around or these kinds of things that takes -- that makes it. We give -- always give timetables with the best of intentions. And we know that it doesn't -- hasn't worked out. And as I said before, is our execution flawless? No, we have to take our share of the blame on that. But it's always given in good faith.

Andy, Jason, I'll just speak on behalf of myself. I found that very informative. And personally, I do feel quite sort of reassured and uplifted, which is not how I expected to feel coming into this presentation today. I've got a couple of quick questions. The first is around the MSC and the information that you've shared today. You mentioned that very good points about why there's only so much information that you can disclose given that these are sort of large public companies and they want to -- sorry, large private companies and they might not necessarily want to have all of their information shared in public. However, what's changed? Why today have you effectively gone from 0 to 100 with the information that you've been able to share with us? That's my first question. And secondly, I'd like to just ask how the MSC feel about your prospective discussions with other shipping companies? And is there potentially any sort of commercial angle that MSC might have, especially given that you're talking about wanting to form a base out of Antwerp, which they've played a big part in setting up. Is there any link there similar to what Maersk had with us in the past?

Yes. I think I'll let Jason answer most of that. I think -- but the -- I think the question about updates, we put out a generalized update today, the cleansing update, if you like, so that we could talk about everything that we knew. And when we do annual reports and interims and so on, we will also summarize our -- the position so far as we can. So we are able sometimes to put out generalized information that's not specific to a contract or something, and we do that when we can. But Jason, there's a couple of questions on MSC itself, which you might want to address.

Yes. And to come back from why the 0 to 100, I guess, because you've gone through the year having to cover a number of different issues, all of which we believe now have been resolved to the point where it's coming to the end of the point where there should be a signature. That's where -- why we can disclose where we are because if we're in the middle of that particular activity, the last thing we want to do is jeopardize potentially an agreement not being signed because we've gone public on something, which will then could mean one of the counterparties goes nuclear because it's -- we had to manage this process all the way through. There's been both -- we were still in the middle of a very large elephant sandwich. And we've had to try keep everybody talking to each other all the way through this process. So I wouldn't say that it's -- everybody is talking to each other and they're willing -- we've gone through this process now where we believe that everybody is willing to sign it off. But that's why we are at the end of that road now in terms of having gone through it. We don't think there's anything else coming, which is why we feel it's a good time now to let shareholders know because we appreciate there's been frustration. We haven't apparently said anything, and we -- the reason -- I guess I've given the reason as to why. In terms of MSC why they're being so open about this? Because we're not a competing technology. We're not really something that can go on their ships and make it more efficient necessarily other than the Bard technology, but there's lots of other things they're looking at there. Really, they appreciate that ultimately, they want to bunk of the fuel in terminals around the world. To do that, they appreciate that it's a collaboration. We need a fuel supplier. We need obviously a terminal to do it in. And they appreciate that no business is going to set up with them being exclusive counterparty. And they wouldn't want to put that risk on us anyway or even some of the other counterparties we're dealing with like Cargill. So they don't want to go exclusive purely because that would kill the business case on the other side. So that's the reason why they're being quite supportive is that they're willing to collaborate and they don't have to do it off their own back in order Cargill, frankly, but they're doing it because they think there's a good business opportunity and -- but it needs to be more widely available to others in the business as well. Having said that, they can probably buy the whole lot. But yes, let's see.

So one of the points you put up on the MSC slide was around an enhanced privacy or disclosure agreement that you have with the company. Can you talk a little bit about what the implications are for us? Because going way back to the Maersk deal, I know that one of the unintended consequences of the agreement there was that data that we needed, I say we, Quadrise needed was not disclosable because it fell within some sort of privacy agreement. So that's the first question. Second question is that I tuned into one of the podcasts from one of your brokers a few months ago not long after the last raise out of interest. And they commented that it's a great trading opportunity for our customers and our clients. So not investment opportunity, trading opportunity. And so I thought one of the missions for the company, I hope, is to really transform us from a trading opportunity to a real investment opportunity. Thank you.

Confidentiality, I guess there's nothing that -- there's nothing negative from the confidentiality provisions that we alluded to in the slide there other than this particular agreement, the idea was that we're going to have a separate 3-way NDA as well. And basically, a lot of the terms of the 3-way NDA were basically transported from the NDA itself into this particular agreement. But one of the counterparties said, we don't need a 3-way NDA. So the other counterparty said "Right, we need some NDA provisions in there. " But that was really the issues. But again, those things then require lawyers on either side, you lose weeks to go through the confidentiality provisions there. So in terms of the, I guess, the broker podcast, I think was that you, Andy, on that? Or was that -- was that just the broker itself or...

I don't mind helping to address that question. I mean I think that we're very fortunate actually in Quadrise that we have -- we're one of the AM stocks with the highest liquidity in the market. And that liquidity is made up of all different people actually. And I think we benefit actually from -- I don't know about calling it a trading opportunity, but benefit from the presence of traders on our register from time to time. I wouldn't want everybody to be a trader. We wouldn't want everybody -- I don't think it would be right for everybody to be sort of jump on at the beginning and never sell a share until the end kind of thing. It doesn't -- that's not how I work. So I think that the traders actually perform a useful function and giving liquidity, which draws attention to us. And it means that we have a room full of people for an AGM, whereas most AGMs for AIM and small-cap companies are the directors plus maybe 2 if you're lucky. So this is -- I think we've got a very engaged community here. We've seen some shareholders, if you can go back maybe 2 years. I mean, some of the people who are in the room at the AGM are not here now. So some people haven't believed us and have started up and moved on. We do need to keep on finding new shareholders to replace that. And I think actually, in many ways, we find it easier when we're doing presentations to new shareholders because the vision of the company is our mission is so clear and so necessary that people get it straight away. And it's the people who have been around for a long time who have been through the ups and downs who are more difficult to persuade actually. But anyway, it's a long answer to a short question, in fact, about trading. But we do obviously see this as an investment opportunity. But on that way, on the journey, there will be all sorts of people coming and going, I guess.

And I think -- yes, I mean, just to add to that, the trading versus investment. I think if you look at the clients that we're dealing with as well, they're investing their time and their resources in a project with Quadrise because they believe it's a viable opportunity as well, right? They're not doing it off the love of just helping us out. They're doing it because they think they can make money out of the business, right? And we've got a technology that no one else has got. So to be continued. But yes, I think it's -- I think we're definitely an investment opportunity.

Mike Frey, retail shareholder. Three short questions. First one, in today's RNS, the term channel partners appeared for the first time. What is the benefit of channel partners to Quadrise?

Simple answer is quick implementation of dealing with a trusted partner in the business that's well respected. So in terms of video, there are modifications that are needed to convert the ships to run on our fuel. They're fairly minor, but they need to be done. We want to make sure that we have a partner that can do that. Secondly, it expands our network in terms of sales opportunities as well. Obviously, Laurie and Vicki mentioned, obviously, a future [ NED. ] But the reality is also there are other companies out there firmly in the marine business and been there for many, many years with a wide network and a good reputation. And if we can sign a deal -- or do a deal with one of those partners that can open up our scope. Again, they're doing it not for the love of Quadrise, but they think our technology works and they've given it a very good dusting down to make sure that they're investing their time and resources to sell our technology or help sell our technology, then that's a real win-win for us. So that's really the reason behind the channel partner I mentioned in the RNS because that's something we've been very active on.

It's a good question. Other ones.

Okay. Quadrise has 0 debt. Why don't we make more of that?

Why don't we make more in terms of a selling point?

Yes, as a selling point, letting investors know.

Good point. I'm not sure the answer. We obviously don't. So we can do in the future. I guess, yes, I think...

Well we've got a bunch of accumulated losses as well. We don't make a lot of that either. But it's possible that it is because we are debt free, it might appeal to some people. But I think most people would understand that it's an equity play really.

Okay. Third and last question. GoodFuels have pulled out of Singapore. How does this affect Quadrise and is it a benefit to us?

We don't really deal with -- GoodFuel -- well, we are -- we have had dialogue with -- GoodFuels in the past. I think -- GoodFuels seem to be going through a restructuring process at the moment. The holding company is actively rebranded themselves as GoodFuels. So the -- GoodFuels brand has been taken over by Finco Energies. Is it an opportunity for us? Maybe yes, maybe not. I mean, Cargill are quite active in Singapore as well with other parties. So yes, potentially, yes, I guess where -- GoodFuels are is that they're focusing their efforts on Northwest Europe initially. They probably tried to spread their wings a little bit too fast too quickly and they don't have the -- they're not making enough money there to make it work. So -- and Finco Energy is taking a good look at the business and making sure that it's profitable going forward.

Mike, the question you asked about whether we should take on board debt is a very good one. I think one needs to reflect on our balance sheet at this stage. The point though, the very relevant point though is that once we get a commercial contract, then we can look at project finance, and that will make a difference potential.

Thanks, Laurence. Bob, I think maybe you're not next, unfortunately, but I'm sure we'll get to you.

Just inquiring on 2 thing questions really. The first one is value for the shareholder. I say Laurie over there says that he shouldn't be embarrassed. I'm afraid that I want value for money. That's why I invest in this company. And yes, over 10, 12 years, it's been appalling. I have had more money invested in [ Obon ] society and got better returns than we had now. And then the other question is regarding the time line. Everything from -- so we're looking at MSC and Morocco, the time line is we should be done by the end of this year. Yet for me, I'm looking at that. And in the past, it's never been achievable. The only time lines you achieved is your pay rises and your share issues. But when we look at MSC in particular, I've never heard them say partners are QED, to be honest, heard nothing from their reports when they've done presentations for net zero. Why is that?

So David, you'll probably correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that we were mentioned a couple of years ago in their sustainability report -- 3 years ago, was it? Yes. So never is a long time, but so we have been there. We haven't been recently. We would have liked to have been in this year's one as well. And hopefully, now that we're heading on the right way, we'll be in next year's one. But they haven't done next year's one yet. They haven't signed yet this.

Time lines have never been achieved and yet, they haven't said that we're working with QED to achieve the net zero. Why?

So I guess I mean they'll have -- they will only want to work in the fact. So they -- 3 years ago, they had -- they started working with us. And when they get to the point where they've confirmed that they are working with us on a specific project, I expect they'll say so.

Yes. I mean I've sat in a conference with Prabhat Jha, who's the Head of Ship Management in Cyprus, and we've jointly presented our project to the shipping industry. So they're willing to do it, but it's the reason being that there's nothing to shout about until the agreement is done. So they've been making sure that there's something concrete that should be signed off before the end of the year. And then we expect to get some PR from that essentially.

[indiscernible] Quadrise [indiscernible] gives us that expectation that working. They've never promoted because they're working.

Well, we've not had an agreement with them. This 3-way agreement is the key to the next step, right? And that hasn't been signed. So they've -- Pardon?

Before the end of the year?

Before the end of the year. Yes.

Big companies will be like that, unfortunately. If you're sitting in a big company and dealing with a small company, you're not going to go out on a limb and say that you're working with them until you know for absolute fact it's happening because they'll say, well, what if something goes wrong, what if something happens. So that's just -- unfortunately, that's kind of how life is. But we do understand this point about time lines. We've tried to address it in different ways. And I'm trying to resist saying, don't worry, it will be all right kind of thing because you don't believe it anyway until you see it. So we are standing here hopefully looking confident that we are going to deliver, but you can make your own mind up on that.

I think coming back in terms of pay rises as well, I can put my hand up, obviously, for the highest paid member of the company, but I've not had a pay rise in 4 years. So essentially, I think the performance of the company is under scrutiny, and we do take your point in terms of we need to get -- you need to get shareholder value.

Yes. Just Bob, I think had one here.

Andy, I'd like to correct you on one thing you just said. You said there are people not in the room. As somebody who's been investing in Quadrise since Laurie was a young buck, I can tell you, some are dead, but an awful lot of the people not in this room have locked their shares away with their betamax recorder and done nothing. They haven't left. And this is relevant to when you do need money. In the last year, because of the silence, which I completely understand or it frustrates the hell out of me, you have leached -- hemorrhaged, I should say, hemorrhage support amongst your long-term holders. But most of them haven't actually sold. Why would they sell out at a fraction of $0.01? I have got the losses that mirror yours going forward for the day you ever give me a profit. Now when you need money, this has got to have happened. It's no good turning around to me on January 1 and say, well, Cargos loyal went on holiday. There's been an unexpected religious event or something, Christmas and Ramadan, they're very unexpected. You have got to get something over the line. And when you do, all those people who are not in the room who never vote and you know how many don't vote will actually be tempted to put some more money into that fund raise. And you have got to do something to encourage them. I don't know whether the reverse of hemorrhaging is a blood transfusion, but that's what you need to do. Now one last point. I have grown old waiting -- even older, waiting for the samples from Utah. How difficult can it be to fill 240 -- is it 40-gallon drums, painted blue on a crappy crapped out pallet and get them over here. Now did they already supply the see slot and it was polluted. There has to be a reason. I could write a pedal across the Atlantic in the time it's taken.

So do you want to comment on the sample set? It's a good...

I've just got visions of Bob pedal. Would be a good tv series. The samples themselves have been tied up with them having to basically -- for the project finance, having to demonstrate the technology to financiers, right? So they've had to demonstrate oil flow and they've had to demonstrate the technology at scale for the 500 barrel a day plant that we're looking to install. So because the samples that are sending us need to be treated, some of the delays have been around getting the lab up and running, making sure everything is working in the lab so they can demonstrate it not only to the project financiers, but to give us in samples, which are representative which we can then analyze, we can test are not full of sand like they were last time. And actually then we can put them into the engine Aquafuel and do all the tests that we need to do to go on the road and market this fuel really quickly and start getting customers in. So that's really been the delays their lab has been delayed in setting up. They have delay in drilling, which is now working, delays in the lab, which is now working. That helps their project fiance, but it also -- the delay to our samples, which I agree, is been frustrating, but our lab people are quite happy. There's been a delay because they've sent us some quite interesting material before. But this time around, it's sand-free.

I live in hope.

On the subject.

I'll send you the pictures of the ,Bob, barrel.

On the subject of the maybe dormant shareholders, you may be right. You know that you're probably more in touch than we are directly on that. I do know who I was referring to when I said who wasn't in the room. But nevertheless, you may be right. And we do hope that they will feel rejuvenated once we get this out, get the news out.

Mark, proxy shareholder. I do appreciate the explanation that you've actually given surrounding MSC. Obviously, it's disappointing that you couldn't give us that explanation during the year. And I do understand what you say by unable to give a blow-by-blow account. But it probably -- if there's a criticism, then it's that there was a lack of understanding of the complexity of that agreement that you were trying to get over the line. And therefore, it's disappointing then that we were told 12 months ago that we were literally going to have that deal done by last Christmas. But obviously, today, you're telling us that we're going to get this done by the end of the year. What I would like to know is what are the blockers or obstacles that are remaining in that deal, if there are any. And I'd like to know what leads you to believe that, that end of this year truly is achievable. And I'd like to know what your confidence levels are of achieving that at the end of this year, both yourself, Andy and Jason.

Yes. I think that Jason has answered most of those questions during the course of this. And there's not much more we can say. I am very confident, and I will be embarrassed if we don't achieve it. If that helps you feel we will achieve that signature by the end of the year. In fact, we could do it a lot sooner than that, but it hasn't been done today.

Yes. I think the agreement has changed its form as well. So when we were talking about an agreement last year, it was 1/3 of the size of the agreement we're now looking to sign and gone through all of the hoops, all of the legal reviews, all of the issues. We're at the point where we're very confident it's going to get signed off.

So obviously, we've only got, you.

Might say, 4 business weeks left until the end of the year, haven't we? So that's a very...

Work that needs to be done. It doesn't need 1 business week. So...

Yes. Okay. All right. Well, I think along with other shareholders, I wish you luck. It certainly given me a different feeling coming into this AGM than I had on the train coming here because I was feeling quite negative. So...

Yes. We would certainly have wished to have had some of these milestones done before the AGM. It would have made us have an easier train journey in as well. But no, we have made a lot of progress, and we are confident.

[indiscernible], shareholder. Just one observation from my looking at this. Projects have been moved around and shunted and so forth. And Quadrise, as you said, is a small team. Do we feel comfortable that we can run these projects up on board when they come in concurrently? Do you have the resource? Or will we get some sort of pushback? I just -- from a view looking at things are probably coming to fruition. They all come together. Can we cope with that? Or do we start having to push things away. So it's really looking at the sort of time lines, your confidence on that, the team size because that makes deliverability happen as well, which I really has been talking about. And so from my point of view, looking at this, you think, if everything comes together, will it implode -- and that's, I suppose, my worry, that's my concern...

Do you want to start on that...

It's a good thing to have.

Yes. Yes. I mean it's a constant planning exercise that myself and Phil and the team and others have a nightmare of, right, that everybody is going to sign on the same day, expect something to happen next week. The difficult thing really is until the agreement signed and a line is put in the sand, you can't really plan forward. I guess there was big questions around that regard, right? So once that line is in the sand, then some of the customers we're talking to, they understand that we're going to be -- if we sign this before the end of the year for MSC, we're going to be pretty busy that for Q1. So we are managing expectations with our clients to say, if certain things happen, your project will be next in the list. In terms of how we manage it, we obviously we're a small team. We have third parties that we use, contractors, consultants. There are companies that we're working with like E&H, for instance, who are the mill supplier. They have their own people as well. They're commissioning plants around the world. So we use those guys quite a bit. We use them in Sepsa. So we have an external team of people that we can manage as well. Having said that, if everything comes off at the same time, it will be a challenge, and we'll have to look very carefully at that planning activity. And it may lead ultimately to a slip a month or 2. We'll obviously try and let people know if that happens. But it's -- until you sign an agreement and you have that deadline, it's very hard to plan at all, frankly. And we've had everything moving backwards, but looking like it's coming to the end at the same time. So...

I think one of the things we've done over the last 12 months, I mean we've made more of an integration between the QRF operation and the office in London. And I mean, Bernard is always busy. He keeps himself busy anyway. But I think we were working as a -- making the best of the whole team, which I think has given us a bit of extra resource and Bernard is out at the moment doing stuff, and he will be an integral part of these projects. So it doesn't require Jason to be on the ground of each of them all the time. So I think that's been a step -- a practical step we've been able to do within the resources we've had available.

I think one other thing that it's not mentioned today, but as part of the strategy review, we also do a very detailed risk assessment, and that risk assessment is a live exercise that goes on, on a regular basis, Laurie and Vicki and Andy and everyone else is actively involved in that. And that's things are flagged red as we see that there's going to be a constraint on some one parameter or the other, especially resources, that's something we do actively manage.

Yes, we're coming towards the end, I think, of the time now, but we'll take one more question then, yes.

My name is James. I concur with a lot of shareholders. I've known quite a lot of people in this room for about 14, 15 years. So there's a lot of long-term shareholders here who've obviously been very loyal. I always understand about contracts because I've just signed a lease, which took me about 2.5 years with major law firms. So I understand how long contracts can take as well. My question is, on the first slide or second slide, you had Honduras and Panama. And throughout the rest of the slides, it was only Panama. So I'm just wondering for Honduras was a slip up as we had a few years ago with the Japanese firm that we never heard about after that. And secondly, I'm curious on what size these 2 projects really are or what you believe they are? And the second question I had or third question is you mentioned clients are interested in testing things like bioethanol. And I'm curious who's paying for that or who's paying for those tests because then it will go on to the financial question this gentleman had earlier about project -- not project finance, about the financial situation of this company. I believe you said on the financial side that you have enough money for June. But if you need to do various tests, et cetera, that money could be absorbed a bit quicker. So if we're paying for everyone to do the tests, if people are asking you to do the tests and we're paying for that, then that's not going to be very promising in my view.

Questions all wrapped up...

I'm going to write them down this time because my memory is clearly shock. Honduras, the reason it's there is basically, in Panama, there are a number of different generating companies. Sparkle Energy is one of the counterparties there. And the plan is when we run that particular trial, which is on the 50-megawatt power station, there will be one engine there. The plan is that we'll be bringing other generating companies to that site, and Sparkle have actually agreed to make that happen. One of the generating companies in Panama is a company called Panama. We've got War engines. They're owned by a very large family that basically own a large power station or a number of power stations in Honduras. That power station -- the Panama one is about 100 megawatts or so, just a bit over. The one in Honduras is 300 megawatts and operates pretty much continuously baseload. So the Panama power plants, the fueler ones they operate seasonally because of whether the rains fallen or not, they've got a lot of hydro there. But the Honduras facility is a baseload facility. So the idea is demonstrate in Panama, but ultimately, the big prize in Honduras. That's the logic there. So yes, size, we're talking about initially less than 1 MMU equivalent for us, one unit, but could easily be sort of multiple MMUs if Honduras come on board. And then the purpose of really being in Panama as well is to address the marine business. So once we've got a supply system there, supply the power stations, we can supply marine. It's a very good hub. It's a bit like Rotterdam. It's a lot of the feedstocks come in there and blended and supplied there. I mentioned bioethanol. The scale of testing we do at the moment is in the lab. So we're using our existing resources in the lab. We're not spending an awful lot of money on it. We're just demonstrating proof of concept. We're working with people like the Maersk, McKilli Miller Center and others who have got some ideas around how the future of biofuels is going to go. So we're doing work just to demonstrate proof of concept to fit with fuel EU maritime. As soon as larger scale tests are done, we would bring in one of the big ethanol suppliers, which they are numerous. So they would start -- they would ultimately pay for the test. We wouldn't be doing that. And ultimately, most of the work that we're doing with other counterparties, we're not paying 100% for those costs anyway. A lot of work we're doing with BTG is being shared with other BTG or some of their clients as well. So we're trying to offset as much of the larger scale costs as possible. But to make it work in the first place, we have to do a little bit of -- put in a sweat equity to get proof of concept done. So we're trying to minimize costs. Larger scale trials as well, we're trying to get people to pay in full. so that like OCP, for instance, they're paying for the trial, the 30-day trial, having successfully done elsewhere and another site and now paying for that trial. So wherever we can and as the company develops, we shouldn't have to keep paying money or using our own money to do these trials, people should start paying us to do it. So that's where we're heading to. We're not there yet, but we are as many -- as much as we can, we'll make sure that clients pay. And the last one, I can't...

[indiscernible]

Oh, the trials. Yes. You get project finance if there's a guaranteed offtake. So that's where it works from that point onwards. But to demonstrate the trial that the fuel works in a particular engine type like you would do in Panama, that there's a cost associated with that, first of all, we get project finance to do it. I try and get the client to pay for it as much as possible.

[indiscernible]

Okay. Thanks for that question. And if you haven't had a chance to ask a question that you wanted to, then we're not all going to be packing our bags and rushing off. So there'll be a chance to catch it individually afterwards. But I'd just like to really thank you for your engagement as usual and your interest today and for coming along for the formal part and for the Q&A. So thank you very much for your attendance. Thank you to my fellow presenters, Board members, and see you again next year.

That's, Andy, thank you very much indeed. That now concludes today's Annual General Meeting. We are now redirecting investors online to provide you with their feedback. Thank you.