Quadrise (LSE:QED) — Annual General Meeting

0:03 Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Jason Miles. I'm the CTO of QUADRISE. And I'm standing in today for Andrew Morrison, who, as Chairman, unfortunately couldn't be here today due to the last minute illness. So we will pass on regards for him and hope he recovers very quickly. I'd like to welcome you to the twenty twenty five Annual General Meeting of QUADRISE PLC. Thank you very much for attending today. Before we move on to the formal business of the meeting and the business update presentation, I'd like to introduce my colleagues from the board. To my right, I have Peter Bourrup, I have David Scott, I have Laurie Much, and I have Vicky Boynton Lee. Unfortunately, Tony and Dilip couldn't be here today for travel reasons.

0:49 So the meeting today will be in two parts. First of all, I'll take you through the formal business of the resolutions, which are contained in the AGM notice sent to shareholders. And that'll be considered first with shareholders being asked to vote by way of a poll. And then the formal meeting will close and will be followed by business updates presentation by Peter and a Q and A session by all of us. So we can now turn to the formal annual general meeting, if we can, please. The required forum for the AGM is present, and I formally declare the meeting is open. The resolutions on which the shareholders will be asked to vote are listed in the notice of the annual general meeting and have been circulated to shareholders.

1:36 So with the meeting's permission, I'd like to take the notice of the meeting as read. Everybody okay with that? Thank you very much. So in terms of the voting, voting today will be done by way of a poll on each of the resolutions put to the meeting. This is seen as best practice as it gives all shareholders the opportunity for their votes to be recognized in the business of the meeting and to have their votes recorded in proportion to the number of shares that they hold. I'm appointing the company's registrars who are present today at meet at the meeting to act as scrutineer. When you register your attention your attendance, you would have been given a poll card. For those shareholders who already have already lodged a proxy vote, you do not need to complete a poll card unless you want to change your vote.

2:22 You have three voting options for each resolution. You can vote for the resolution, against the resolution, or you may withhold vote. A vote withheld is not a vote in law and will not be counted in the calculation of the proportion of the votes for or against a resolution. When you have voted on all resolutions put to the meeting, will you please return your completed poll cards to the company's registrars? It will take some time to complete the poll procedure, and the results of the poll will be announced through our regulatory information service and posted on the company's website as soon as practicable. Should anyone wish to ask a question during the formal part of the meeting, I would ask that the question is 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 concluded.

3:11 When asking a question, can I please ask that you raise your hand and state your name and whether you're a shareholder, a proxy holder, or a corporate representative before asking the question? I will now turn to the formal resolutions to be considered in the meeting. The first resolution is Resolution one, which is to receive the annual report and accounts of the company for the year ended 06/30/2025, and the report of the auditors thereon. Before I put the resolution to the meeting, can I ask if there are any questions in connection with the proposed resolution? If there are no further questions, I will now put the resolution to the meeting. To vote, would you please put a cross in the appropriate box on your poll voting card?

3:57 Thank you. The next resolution is Resolution two, which is to approve the director's remuneration report as set out in the company's annual reports and accounts for the year ended 06/30/2025. Before I put the resolution to the meeting, can I ask if there are any questions in connection with the proposed resolution? Yes, sir. I'm going to vote against this resolution. I don't believe the remuneration committee has done a good job on behalf of shareholders. I believe it's been excessively generous in some cases, and I would quote the numbers for Jason's remuneration over the past five years in excess of 1,600,000.

4:46 So if you want to comment on that now or later, I'm happy with that. But I will be voting against this for that reason. Do we feel we need to comment on behalf of the remuneration committee or should we is there any more questions? Yep. I'm happy to take that question. I chair the Sorry. I chair the remuneration committee alongside with Lori. And I think your comment is a valid one, and I think it is important that we all recognize that as long as the company is loss making, any burden on remuneration is a burden on shareholders. I'm acutely aware of that as are all my colleagues. We have a responsibility to balance both the cost as well as the retention of talent.

5:37 And it's always a difficult one for a company which is our size, which is pre revenue. So I do take your feedback. It is, something that the board debates and votes on considering all the risks and opportunities for the company. So I I hope that, next year you will see the results that show why we it's important that we keep the talent that we have in the company. I also invite Laurie if you've got any further comments to make. Thank you, Jason. Thank you, Vicky. So if there are no further questions, I will now put the resolution to the meeting. To vote, please put across in the appropriate box the two. The next resolution is Resolution three, which is to reappoint Laurie Much as a Director of the company.

6:26 Before I put the resolution to the meeting, can I ask if there are any questions in connection with the proposed resolution? If there are no further questions, I will now put the resolution to the meeting. To vote, please put a cross in the appropriate box under three. The next resolution is Resolution Four, which is to reappoint Tony Foster as a director of the company. Before I put the resolution to the meeting, can I ask if there are any questions? No questions? I will now put the resolution to the meeting. And again, please vote as a cross in your box four. The next resolution is resolution five, which is to reappoint Peter Borup as a director of the company.

7:13 Before I put the resolution to the meeting, can I ask if there's any questions in connection with the proposed resolution? No questions? I put the resolution to the meeting. And please vote on the card, number five. The next resolution is resolution six, which is to reappoint PKF Littlejohn LLP as auditors of the company. Before I put the resolution to the meeting, do you have any questions? No questions, I put the resolution to the meeting. Please vote accordingly under Resolution six. The next resolution, and this resolution relates to the director's authority to allot shares up to a limited amount of one third of the company's issued share capital, the full text of which is shown in the notice of the AGM.

8:04 Before I put this resolution to the meeting, can I ask if there are any questions regarding this resolution? No questions, I'll put the resolution to the meeting. And please vote under resolution seven. The next resolution is resolution eight. That relates to Disapplication of Preemption Rights. This is a standard resolution that gives a limited authority for the directors to issue up to 10% of the company's issued share capital for cash. For example, in relation to a fundraising without offering those shares to existing shareholders, together with an additional 2% of issued share capital of the company to be used only for the purposes of making a follow on offer, which the directors of the company determined to be appropriate.

8:52 The full text of this resolution is shown in the notice of the AGM. Before I put this resolution to the meeting, can I ask if there are any questions? No questions, I put the resolution to the meeting. Please place your vote under Resolution eight. The final resolution, Resolution nine, also relates to Disapplication of Preemption Rights. This is a standard resolution that gives a 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. The full text of the resolution is shown in the notice of the AGM.

9:38 Before I put this resolution to the meeting, do you have any questions? No further questions. I put the resolution to the meeting. And to vote, please vote under Resolution nine. So that concludes the formal business of the meeting. And I declare the formal annual general meeting closed. As I mentioned earlier, the final poll results of the meeting will be announced through our regulatory information service and posted on our website as soon as practicable after today. A business follow update presentation by Peter Borup, CEO, followed by a Q and A session. Thank you.

11:00 All sorted. Good afternoon, everybody, and thank you for turning off. I know many of you have been shareholders for a long, long time. I've spoken to a few of you already in the lobby. And I have looked very much forward to meeting you. This is my first time where I get a chance to put myself before you and share my first impressions of the company, where we're at, what our main challenges. I want to talk a little bit about where I come from as not my childhood, but shipping, because it's such an important part of our clientele. I will also go through many of our projects and a number of the questions that have been posed before the meeting hopefully will be answered throughout.

11:46 There are some of them that I will take in separate questions after my presentation, but please don't be shy and please ask questions if you feel that I haven't been precise enough or not detailed enough. I'll try to, the best of my ability to give you a proper reply. A couple of reflections. So obviously in a recruitment process, it's a little bit like a courtship where you show the best side of whatever you have. You do that as a candidate, but you also do that as a company. Generally speaking, I will say that it did live up to the dating profile. But there's also the fact that the less you know, the easier it seems, right? So the more you dig into the details, the more you realize that there are certain things that are probably harder or at least more complex than what you originally anticipated.

12:37 So my first impressions: very, very strong partners. So partnerships previously with Maersk, a nascent relationship with MSC. You don't get bigger than that in container shipping or for MSC's part generally in shipping. They're also very big in a couple of other segments. But also on the tech side, we have the right partners. We have a strong board with people with real experience from the energy sector and increasingly, probably mostly from the last year, people that has some knowledge of shipping as well and has a network. What I also found was that we are in a complex marketplace, so the chicken and egg situation doesn't really begin to describe the competitive environment that we are in. So on one hand, we need trials, I'll come back to that, in order to get our technologies approved and get on the shift, but we also need the trials to have been convinced and preferably successfully completed in order to convince the feedstock suppliers that this is something that they should set feedstock aside for the coming year.

13:44 We also have a number of external stakeholders that doesn't have a direct impact on what we do, but that are the passivity can actually harm us, right? So a good example would be the two main producers of main engines for shipping. That's Wirtella and and men or Evelyn's as they're called. For now, Wirtle are issuing letters of no objection, whereas MAN or Evolence are saying they don't want to do that anymore, but they will guide ship on us on how to conduct trials. I'm reasonably familiar with particularly Evolenz because I worked with them for many many years at my previous jobs. We have classification societies, we have academics who spend a lot of time looking into how the environmental effect of the IMO and the fuel EU legislation will pay out in shipping. Many of them have been advising on this legislation as well.

14:40 So it's not our main focus, but we're just very mindful that engaging with these, let's call them NGOs, is helpful for how we succeed with the other ones. The last thing I will say from first impressions is that it's just not enough to conduct good trials and to convince refiners and others to provide feedstock. We also susceptible to substitution effects. So the fact that the aviation industry needs some of the same feedstocks that we are demanding just adds a little bit of complexity to the whole picture. So if I were to sort of summarize, one of the challenges beforehand is that despite the high salary bill, we did have limited capacity. We're only so many people that means that we have not, I think, been able to be proactive enough vis a vis some of our stakeholders.

15:34 We have generally preferred a sequential approach also because of sort of lack of bandwidth. So it means that we have done a trial with Maersk. Probably been happy about it because it doesn't get much bigger. Whereas I think that one of the chances, one of the opportunities we have now is that we need to operate in parallel rather than in sequence. So we need to have more trials, we need to put more ships in the sea, so to speak. We need already now to make sure we can start having conversations with the feedstock providers, whether that is on the glycerine or whether it's on the high sulfur residues. Need to, I think, look at whether the project management skills we have, which are very much focused on how do we manage research projects, we need to make sure that we also have good commercial habits there, so that you can of course, can have good projects that we are researching and that we are testing with our partners, but there must also be a way to get them off our table, if they don't hold the promise that are required. So I think some of this is also that we need more projects.

16:48 Right now, we're defending four projects. You're frustrated because there's not enough updates or we haven't started the MSC project and there's no news from Morocco. I'm pretty frustrated too. So one thing is that we've got to focus completely on the ones that are most important, but we need to get ourselves more chances by adding projects, particularly on clients and trials. A maritime sector update. Don't worry, I'm not going to go through all the scary details of the IMO propositions. I think what is important to note is that the meeting in London in October didn't go as expected. So the proponents of these new rules, which were somewhat more strict than the few EU dictated, didn't come through.

17:38 There are many ways of reading it. A lot of people read it as sustained US attack on the multilateral system and the system in which you collaborate between nations and you give a little and you take a little. Whether that is how true that is, the short truths of the matter is that too many nations did not feel that they were ready to do it now. Let's not forget that the reason why the EU started the fuel EU and adopted that was simply out of frustration that the IMO didn't act fast enough. There's a desire amongst most ship owners regardless of where they are in this issue to have a level playing field, the same rules globally. We don't have that now. There's an agreement to wait for a year and then try again and see if you can parties can make a better compromise.

18:34 I've been in touch with some of my old friends in China and in Asia to understand why they voted the way they did And those of you who spend a lot of time in Asia will know that often the truth is fairly explicit, but implied between the lines. My clear impression is that China is in a position where they didn't feel that they wanted to take a conflict with the Americans over this. There are plenty of other things where they could take conflicts, but also that they want to go ahead. They do want a level playing field. And if they don't feel there is sufficient progress on this in a year and a suitable compromise, well, the fuel EU rules have been translated into Chinese and it's very likely that the principles of fuel EU will be adopted by the Chinese. We hear that from other flag states who voted to temporize this year too, including The UK flag.

19:29 So where does that leave? That leave? Where does that leave? Because this is actually one of the reasons why we should be in a strong position. The rules here. I think it leaves us where the dream fuels, the ammonium or the methanol or nuclear, as some also would like, they're not on the table. They weren't really on the table before because distribution is an issue or nuclear is also an issue that much of the intellectual property is held by American interests and a lot of that is subject to American national security legislation. So, you were to put it on a commercial ship, you could probably very well sail it between New York and Liverpool, but if you wanted to go to Pakistan or Southern Africa or to China or to Indonesia, you would be prevented from doing that. So the application of nuclear technology, there are a lot of question marks over that. I'm a proponent in so many ways, I just don't see it happening anytime soon. And the same really goes for the two other dream fuels.

20:28 So I think and I'll speak to that in a little bit, there are a lot of technologies like ours where can say that they don't go all the way, none of them, but combined they do take us pretty close to the requirements or if not exceed the requirements of the IMO and our fuel EU. If we then look at some of our potential clients in shipping and this is not just for the shipping nerds, but in order to sort of suggest the different business models. And shipping is not just shipping. And those of you who spend time there will know that, that container shipping is really an industry. It's about marginal cost. It's about utilization. Whereas if you're running a dry cargo ships or a tanker, it's very much about looking for opportunities and optionality. So you live in very volatile markets, and what you really want to do is that you end up in a place where you have more options. Right? So if you end up in China, you can do nothing. There's no cargo out of China, only cargo in.

21:21 So you want to be paid better for that. But if you end up in Nigeria, apart from the local pirates, you have plenty of options. You can go to South America and pick up grain cargoes. You can go to The US Gulf to pick up grain cargoes. Or you can go up to the continent of Europe and pick up other cargoes that are going in again to China. So it's about looking for optionality. That also means that the business model is different. And if you look at dry cargo, the problem for us is that where do we deliver the fuel? Because they don't know thirty days ahead where the next port is. That's a problem when you're delivering specialized fuels as we do, whereas the cruise ships and the ferries and the liner companies, they're defined by exactly that, that their business models are predictable. It's like buses running on a fixed schedule, often on time, but not always, but it's always, almost always the same ports, so you can set up your infrastructure to deliver to them. What is also true is that the higher you are up on this slide, you're brand conscious, because you're closer to the end consumer. It's really business to consumer if you're running a cruise ship. You cannot live with having an incident of legionnaires disease on board your ship or that you've been caught out not handling the coronavirus really well. That hurts you badly.

22:28 Whereas if you're on a dry cargo ship or a product carrier, your clients are also businesses. They are also industries. So for us, you can say the great thing is that we have something for everybody. Let me just give a couple of examples. I think right now the way we are setting up for the trials, I'll come back to it, I'll give you more detail later, is basically starting with one port, in this case Antwerp, and trying to set up initially MSC, but hopefully one or two other trials that are based in Antwerp, but knowing full well that's not going to be enough for a company like MSG, we need at least four or five other ports. But we have something else that plays into the business model of, for example, the dry cargo companies or the tanker companies. And that is that if you are in that business, you are not really industrial in thinking. So you might own your ships or you may charter them. Most of the more savvy ones, they own some ships, maybe 20%, and they charter the rest. So if they think that the economy is coming up, they will take a lot of ships now for three to five months or for one year, hoping that they guess it right and that nobody in the White House gets in the way, because then they will pay today's rates in tomorrow's hopefully higher market because the economy has come up. So these people are used to taking positions. They use trading models. So if they succeed at that, sometimes they go back out, they charter the ship out, or they take more cargo, or they play in the derivatives markets, the paper markets. Sometimes you double up. If you're really certain and your bet is the right one, sometimes you hedge.

23:56 But now with emissions trading scheme in the EU, you have a third market in which to take advantage of volatility, that you can actually sell the credits you have generated from using QUADRISE or some of the other alternatives out there. And and my former employer in Norton, which is fairly trading minded, have recently sold a ton of CO2 saved for €340 per ton. Right? That's that's nice. Now the official list price in The EU is 80, so they took IBM to pay that. So the market is not really liquid yet and it's not deep, but it's out there and that will be an attraction to that kind of business model. So we have to be mindful where we start. I'm not picky, but I think when we are considering who to go to, we look at potential volume, we look at technical expertise, so they're standing in the industry. It's a lot easier that our first few clients are well regarded and respected to sell it afterwards, if they're the ones vouching for it.

24:57 So what it means for QUADRISE, we don't have the perfect maritime fuel yet. China will provide its own regulation and as I said it's going to probably be very similar to fuel EU. There are a number of solutions out there and what we see in the main owners is that the first thing now is to ensure compliance. Now that's not worldwide because the IMO is not enforced, but it's certainly for anyone who brings ships into the EU. There's a lot of value in ensuring compliance, so if you were to be playing in the tanker trades, if you had an Aframax tanker, a medium sized crude oil tanker and you spent all year in EU waters, which is, I admit, not a realistic scenario, but just for the making the calculation easy, it will cost you $7,000,000 not to be in compliance, if you don't do anything. So if you're only there half the time or a third of the time, it's still real money, right, that you could spend on your Christmas luncheon or on investing in new ships or whatever you want. It's real money and you will take it.

26:01 So the big companies and that probably also goes for the big liner companies, this is sort of a supporting explanation for why perhaps the situation for a liner company like MEC has changed as well, is that it has been really, really important to ensure compliance already now. And there are ways of doing that so you can pull your ships and get benefits of some of the other fuels out there without doing too much. Compliance is absolutely key to avoid spending more. I would add then that a number of the transition technologies out there including bio EMSAR, but also rotor cells or silicone paint. Silicone paint is famous for not including biocides, but also for providing an 8% saving in fuels. If you add all this together, you will be in compliance.

26:48 So there are other ways of achieving this and investing $20,000,000 in the dual fuel use or dual use fuel engine, where you can get the fuel anyway, and that's where we come in. So I'm actually fairly optimistic about the role of bio IMSAAR and of IMSAAR in this market, because there's a role to be played. And the benefit of IMSAAR and the family of IMSAAR products is that the CapEx spending in order to do this is limited. So Linda, that you will not hear from today unless you have a specific question for her, is actually preparing our annual sustainability report now and we're going to split it into three. But part of it is a technology map where we look the toolbox of the typical ship owner and what can you do if you want to save fuel. They all want to do that because it's real money, right? It's money on their bottom lines.

27:39 But also for each $100,000 invested, what are your greenhouse gas emissions savings? Some of the technologies we're competing with, are significant savings sorry, significant investments upfront and we're probably cheaper on that. So the important thing is it's going to be data driven, it's going to be honest. I don't have an ambition to be best in class, but I think we're going to be looking pretty good on this. But I want it for comparison also for us to know how to sell and who to focus on. So sort of in summary, the next three to six months, the next three months in particular, our must win battles, that's always a useful focus to use, is to get these trials up and running.

28:27 We have to get the trial up and running with MSC and we need to explore. I mean, if it cannot be done, it cannot be done, then we also have to stop it, right? I actually think it can be done. I'm not saying it's easy, but I think it can be done. I'll come back to some of the scary details in a little bit. I would like us to have one more trial, preferably with an owner that is in the less complex part of shipping. As we were in Hamburg recently, Jason, Linda and I, there was one the owners we met with who said that there are a lot of people in shipping who are very keen to be first followers on new technologies, but very, very few are willing to be the first movers, right? So it's also about identifying who are potentially the first movers. I think we have a handful, and we're talking to most of them now, and we will continue with the other ones.

29:21 Then we have to be serious about seeking out the refineries, because while we have been exploring our trials, many of the refineries in Europe have been addressing their high sulfur issues already, right? So we can see there's still a lot of high sulfur marine fuel out there. It's more than two thirds of what is being utilized by ship owners. So it's there. But we we need to find a way of getting to it. And it's time now that we invest in in resources and hands that can start having these meetings with our refineries, also with the, you know, the bio waste or biofuel suppliers. And so we are ready. Because the number one question we meet now when we're talking about trials is that can you deliver? So if we do this and it's successful, we say, apparently all seem to think it will be, can you deliver the fuel afterwards?

30:09 Finally, and that's less prudent, but it's still important, we're engaging with flag states. The UK flag will be in Singapore in the beginning of the new year. The classification societies who have to vouch for our trials and for our technology. And then a number of research centers, both in Singapore and in Copenhagen, but also leading academics in The UK who actually have a very good and have big significant standing with the IMO and with the EU. So they're sort of a tertiary, if you will, must win battle, but we have to be mindful of feeding them and engaging them, so we have credible academic slogan of what we do. Alright, this is our world and I could make it more complex if I'd had time and a bigger slide, but I don't.

30:57 As you can see, we have QUADRISE up there. So we deal with the fuel traders, we deal with the refineries, we have to address the engine producers and mind you, are only two main engine producers for the big ships: Everlens German Danish Wartsila, Finnish, Swiss, I guess. They have different engines. So man probably ahead technologically with electronic fuel injection. Wartsila, a significant force. Versal do issue letters of no objection to a fuel technology like ours. Evolenz have only approved FAME, a biofuel product, and they're saying quite outright that they're not going to do this, because they're busy enough providing methanol and ammonium engines for the likes of AP Molla and MSC.

31:44 So they don't have the time, don't have the bandwidth to really do the testing on ours anyway, but they've been helpful. And we have class and we have the ship owner of course and the operator and for those of you who have not been in shipping, an operator is somebody who doesn't own the ship but has chartered it. But they're also important because they're also getting the fuel savings, so we're also addressing them. So in this landscape, my first question as CEO is of course, where do we have agency? Is there any way here where we have leverage? Is there anyone here who is beholden to us? And the answer is no. We can't force any one of these to do anything, and I know that as a shareholder, many of you I can see from your comments, understand the technology and the industries we're in very well actually.

32:29 But the thing is that you might see savings, for some of these people, the savings come with rather big CapEx investments and they are looking at compliance. So it tends to be a little bit more muddied than just looking at the savings, because there's a time issue as well. Okay, final slide before we go into the projects. This is what we navigate from. I could show you another slide as well where how this matches up to the requirements of fuel EU and the potential EU regulations. We basically have products for each of the timelines in the IMO and the fuel EU, but these are the different stuffs or sorry inputs that we can put into our BioIMTAAR platform. I think what appeals to me as an old trader is that it's a flexible platform.

33:17 So for now, base it very much on putting glycerine in, but there are very few limits to what we can mix into the platform. One of the more promising now seems to be the cashew nut oils, I think it's called. But it's about creating stability, finding the right blend, looking for unexpected side effects. So it has to be tested carefully. This is our research pipeline, so I just wanted you to see that as well. Also a number of very credible names in there from the industries. Okay, our projects. So last year we told you that we had a binding three way agreement with MSC and Cargill, still the case.

34:05 It's also an agreement that specifically states what other agreements need to be sorted out. One of the challenges we met this year is that QAGL doesn't have a bunker license in Belgium, where we are going to be producing everything at the Port Of Antwerp. So we need to involve a fourth party, which is a bunker supplier called BTB, which are close to MSC already. So translating that into a four way street or four part time agreement is part of the challenge. Obviously, have to be careful here, because I can't really speak for MSC, right? So what I can do here is try to project some of the challenges I faced in my own life as a ship owner, as CEO of a shipping company. One of the main challenges both with this legislation, but also the legislation that came in in 2016 on low sulfur areas in The EU was that compliance is everything. So you want to do the right thing, but you have to make sure that your fleet is in compliance whichever way you do it, particularly if you're listed or particularly if you're close to clients.

35:12 I would guess that's the case for most of the big liner companies as well. What we're also seeing that in our conversations with our partner here is that there is two overriding objectives for MSC. Number one, a successful trial. They seem to think that's just going to happen, right? They're happy to go ahead with that, also separated from the fuel supply contract. But there is a strong interest in a significant contract where we supply, I think it's confidential, but a lot of fuel in a number of different places starting in North Europe, but also in Southeast Asia and expanding that over a period of time to more ports. So their focus has shifted to the fuel supply actually and that's something that we need to get ahead of and we're working quite hard on right now and hopefully we have something to inform within too long.

36:13 In terms of the actual status on the agreements, some of this is actually not very sexy and quite boring, but some of it is that we have a number of bilateral agreements and not all of them include us. So we've just realized now that we probably have to get involved for real and being pushy and being that annoying kid on the block that always keeps everybody else up and pushing these agreements. So we've had very good and I think very constructive meetings with Cargill last month. We've had also very constructive feedback from from MSC on one of these agreements that we are now turning into a four part time to overcome one of the problems. I I know you want me to give you a timeline or a deadline. My deadline is that I want it up and running by end of January if I can and all I can promise you is that we're gonna we have two or three people on this to push and drive it and we tend to go down and meet people. I was in Cyprus last week.

37:18 We were in Antwerp two weeks ago to see Cargill. Cargill is meeting with BTB on behalf of them and us already this week. So part of this is also just to keep pushing until finally it's going to be easier to get it done rather than, you know, leave it out. What I'm also mindful of, and again, I apologize, it's not very sexy, for myself I know that if you enter into a complex agreement, when you finally sit down and read it and give your feedback, you can remember it maybe for a month. So if you don't get a reply within a month, you start all over again and then procrastination sets in. So it's really, really important that we keep the pace up here. And now we at least have a dialogue.

38:03 We are getting something back, right? So I take that as a positive, but I'm not overdoing where we're because it still has to be done. But I'm cautiously optimistic also because Cargill is pushing pretty hard too. I'm happy to take more questions afterwards. So the way I see it for Cargill and MSC, it's a track two approach. Number one, we need to get these agreements finalized and the moment we can see they're finalized, we'll start mobilizing in Antwerp. And the reason why we're not doing that yet is it comes at a rather significant cost and I'm very mindful that we need to make sure that we have the firepower to stay in the game once there is another delay. That's, I'm sorry, that's the name of the game. Track two: Direct discussions with refineries and start warming up to supply agreements. Mind you, we can only do that when we can see that the trials have started, number one, but also that we're getting a little bit into them and we're beginning to see some of the results.

39:03 And that's probably also the only time that the refineries will start taking that serious and start planning for next year. OCP. One of the questions that I prepared for answering after the presentation today is why don't we just give up on it? That's been my thinking for a little while. In fairness to the potential value of this and the time invested in it, I would really like to meet OCP and have a feel for what are they actually thinking. And the feedback we're getting from our middlemen in Morocco is that it's still their intention, once they have the OAM approval, it's still their intention to go ahead with this. So I think instead of ditching it now before we actually have that completely exhausted, we need to run it down. We've offered Jason and I have been on standby for some time, including some rather long trips to Dwarf Las V and flights that have not materialized yet, but we want to go and see them. That's the only way to push this.

40:06 So we exhaust all opportunities given what has been invested in already, but there is nothing to report. I have had no reply from OCP, but we've had from our middlemen in the two months I've been here. If we look at Valcor, you'll recall that we have renegotiated payment terms with them. This is a startup, right? In the middle of nowhere with fantastic opportunities, they've been very good at buying up the licenses to utilize and to drill and I see there's a foothold in North America. Jason was there last week meeting with them and with their financiers, their investors and they have a lot of challenges still to meet, but they are financed now until next phase which is in September.

40:57 They will have to pay for the MMU the first the next installment I think in June and again in September and their plan is still to be able to supply 600 barrels per day via IMMU in Q2. I suspect being a startup with lots of challenges and being a small organization that there can be delays there again, but they're completely focused and I actually think that there's I'm quite positive. I'm sure I'm saying too much now, I think there's a real upside in this project. Sparkle Power concluded a successful trial this summer on an Evolence four torque diesel engine.

41:44 This is of course a project in Panama that feeds into also our desire to support the maritime industry, having the Panama Canal just next to it. It's a potential of starting demand of 1,000 barrels per day, but potentially rising to 12,000 barrels from other regional power plants. There is a fair bit of politics. Also for these refineries, it's also about wind. I mean, it's a really big decision for them to go with this technology instead of something else, but for now it looks fairly positive. We have a number of others and many of them are relating to the pipeline I showed you just before and including that we have a C Star CEU Horizon project with a number of other partners that might lead to other projects supported by the EU and partners that we can learn from.

42:41 But this all plays into the BioEmstar platform and the flexibility it offers, where we're investing in alternative fuels now. One the truths that I've only learned since I started is that none of the biofuels out there can supply all the biofuel needed to meet the IMO targets. So I think one of the benefits or one of the realizations here is that it's got to be a mosaic of different fuels that are going to be meeting the demand from shipping in the future And we need to stay ahead of that. We need to already now start looking into how do we make these fuel blends stable, incredible and safe to use in the engines. So in summary, our focus is going to be marine. We're not completely getting out of the industrial because very often it offer apart from offering turnover and profits, it supports our efforts in marine by providing fuels in important locations around the world.

43:41 This is our financing, a predicted loss of £3,100,000 after tax, that's up from 2,900,000 last year. Cumulative losses of 68,000,000 in the company's history. We have enough funds to take us through to revenue. I'm mindful also that a lot of our cash flow forecast depends on projects that we are going to be starting. So we have some control over if we don't these are certain projects that we decide to accelerate, it's going to cost more upfront. We'd also choose to delay some of them if we have to, if we have a lot of promise in certain trial, for example, and that's within our control. Of course, that's going to delay the profit and loss, but still being a startup, this is really about cash burn.

44:33 People rarely, I mean I've seen a lot of companies who are profitable die from cash flow problems, right? So that's got to be our number one focus. We've announced a leadership team. We've certainly added to it. Linda joined earlier in the year, Tony Foster came in on the board with a wealth of experience from shipping and from the capital markets. I think my experience in shipping is very much from Scandi hooligans and from Asia. Tony is very, very closely knit into The UK shipping networks, so I think we complement each other quite well. Obviously, Jason and Philip are now taking up new positions. So I hope we have set the team for where we get the best out of our individual skills.

45:25 And the board is very involved and very helpful on this. In conclusion, the regulatory and the commercial environment continues to support the adoption of our technology. It's up to us to now make sure that we get the trials up and running so we can start selling. Focus, my focus is completely on getting M C up and running and having one more trial operating before the end of January. We have, I think, and that's throughout just before I joined, even now sometimes we're sitting here, there are things we would like to do that we can't do, because we don't have the right resources. But that's the nature of being a startup and being a tech development company.

46:15 One of the things I'm very mindful about is also that were we to be so unlucky that we're actually successful with the trials and we're beginning to sell, There are other skills we need to get inside. We don't have the skills to manufacture right now. That's going to come later, but we're not going to invest in that until we're quite sure that that is required. So that could be within the next one, two years. Some of it can be done upfront, but what I'm just saying is that as we succeed, the requirement on the company and on its organization will change too and we will have to be ready for that, but we'll come back on that next year, maybe before. Thank you very much for listening. Sorry for taking so long.

47:00 There are a number of questions that have been handed in beforehand. I think we'll take we'll start with them now. Maybe I can ask Vicky to help ask questions of primarily the executive team, and we'll try to answer as good as we can, and then we'll take questions from the floor after that. Yeah? Thank you, Peter. Happy to do that, and thank you for those who did submit the questions. We've selected about half of them to be tackled now, and we selected them on the basis that they're most representative of what we believe this group would like to hear about. So the first set of questions relates to MSC and the marine projects. I'm gonna summarise it because it's a long question. Why didn't the MSC trial start in the first half of twenty twenty five?

47:48 Please list the exact blockers. When were these blockers identified? What's been done about each blocker? And what's your internal gono go threshold for MSC? Peter, I think this is one for you. I have a helpful slide for that, I think. Essentially, one of the issues is that the conditions, the regulatory alignment of MSC has changed. Changed more than once, actually, forcing them to go already one or two steps ahead. I haven't been here all the time, I don't have all the potential internal reasons.

48:34 What I can say, what is extremely helpful now, is that we are enough hands on deck to apply pressure on each link in this, right? So we can push Cargill to the extent they need it, they actually don't, but it's helpful that they are they have also been very eager to get this done. It's helpful that we have more people who can contact the key people at MSC. One of the questions we have gotten a few times from MSC is why haven't Cahill or somebody else approached the Apache family who owns MSC and a number of other ship owners, because this is a personal PLC, business. Again, I can't answer on behalf of QUADRISE but I suspect that who's involved in the bio MSC business, which is a smaller part, that's just a trial now, sees this as a smaller project than MSC does, who potentially sees this as their entire supply of biofuel at some point, or certainly of MSAR.

49:31 So it's a much bigger deal for MSCs. Their fuel supply in a number of very important ports, maybe in two or three years' time. But of course, it's also something that we can step into, right? But it requires people to have that kind of access. We're beginning to have that. We might have. I don't know yet. I think I can't get access. It's also about, again, the regulatory environment. So the IMO and the EU, that has changed, forcing the compliance. Was the third question? Blockers. When did you The find blockers, think the blockers is, number one, the compliance requirements have changed. It has been a shortage of hands. We haven't had the bandwidth, which we've done something about, but there's a lead in to being able to address that.

50:27 I think we've probably been assuming that everybody has such an interest in getting this done quickly that we would push as much as we had time for, but that hasn't been the case, right, because everybody has been busy and there are a lot of people involved, right, also on their side. Even on MEC, readily to people that we are talking to or trying to get to talk to and where we have, I think we have very good dialogues actually, very constructive dialogues and now we have the hands, so we'll utilize that and that's, as you can see from my must win battles earlier, that's really maybe the only agenda item the next one or two months. Thanks. The next question is one for Jason.

51:13 It says, It is notable that Jason is now instilling an element of doubt around the chances of the MSC trial ever going ahead. What's changed by the pessimism? I guess that relates to, I guess, the last IMC call as opposed to the position today. I think since that call, when we had that call, were pushing obviously all sides for feedback. We didn't really get much by way of an understanding where they were. I think since then we've obviously got a better appreciation of some of the blockers that Peter mentioned, some of hurdles legally that we need to overcome to get this across the line. So we're in a much more positive mood than probably I was when we had the IMC call last.

52:07 Questions back to Peter. Why have we not signed up any other marine trial partners? It seems this tactic has only recently become prevalent since Peter joined QED. I haven't been here that long, so I'm not sure why we haven't done before, but certainly I can share my motivation for doing it now. I want us to have more shots at succeeding with this, and right now, or right now, but a month ago at least, I think we were very vulnerable relying on a very, very large partner with a complex organization, with complex motivations as well. A super partner. I mean, it's a dream partner, but it's also one where we hold very little leverage and very little agency. So I would like us to have, you know, this comes at a cost too, let's not forget that, having more trials, I'd like us to have one or two other trial partners.

52:58 And the balance area is to have people who are large enough that they have the technical expertise. There are not too many of those, but they are. They have the interest, so they're willing to be first movers and not just first followers, right? That also reduces it a little bit, but also being willing to take a ship out of regular trading and put it into a trading pattern around Antwerp preferably, so we sort of keep our cost exposure somewhat limited and reasonable. And I think that's going to give us more chances and I think I was mentioning to one of you and we were talking before the meeting that in the business I come from, if you have 100 business meetings, you get 15 or 20 businesses out of it, that's not a bad score. We have four or five projects here, so I would like I mean, this is a balance between focus and then having enough projects running where it's not our lives that depend on it. It is simply a matter of fact that we start things and some of them will not materialize, and then we become much better at when do we invest resources and equipment in them. So there's got to be some timing in that too, right?

54:10 So that's as precise as I can I think I can answer the question? Yeah, I guess it's worth adding that obviously Linda joined at the beginning of the year as well, right? So it's certainly been a feature of the company during the year to find other partners. I mean, it took the best part of three years to get MSC to the point of an agreement, right? So it can take some time to get a partner across the line to sign to a trial agreement too. It's not an overnight exercise sadly. But there's another upside if I may just add. I love this question. It is that the more you've done these contracts and the more you've been through these processes, you become better at it. You don't have to call the lawyers. I mean, you may have to call the lawyers again to change the names and make sure there's nothing new in a new case law, but essentially, some of the same framework, and it may not always be acceptable, but an executed contract goes a long way with most of the shipping folks.

55:05 Hopefully, it's going to become a little bit easier. Next one is also with you, Peter. Is there any progression with Cargill outside of the Antwerp project with MSC? I mean, Cargill has been one of the, by far the better meetings I've been involved in, they, of course, have different interests than we have. It's a different company, they supply and we buy, but I feel that far down the road we are aligned in terms of the outcomes we desire. They have invested in factories that supply the glycerine that we need. They're very positive around this. So I think that there's a separate objective for us in making sure that we protect their relationship with Cargill.

55:53 So we have a fairly open dialogue with them also about some of the other projects and potential partners we're looking at, because we want to make sure that they stay with us, because what they can supply is relevant well beyond the MSG trial. The next question. Is it time to bite the bullet and just install the MMU facility into the MAC2 dock? Tens of millions of pounds have been raised over the years and there is still no supply location. We seem to be walking the line between the chicken and egg scenario. Isn't it about time we just put the egg down and see if it hatches? There are quite a few questions in that. So the first one about shouldn't we just install it now?

56:40 We're pretty convinced that we can let's say three months. We think we might even be able to mobilize in two and a half months. Any shipping company that has to mobilize a ship talks about three months to get it in, you know, for a container ship to be in the right trade, takes some time, because you probably on most of the trades you have typically a string of eight container ships, so you need to make sure you get one in that fits on the string in terms of speed, size, the number of reefer points, all the things that you're selling to your clients. So you have to change it so it matches not one ship, but eight ships typically or seven ships. It takes time. If you're putting in, let's say, a trample ship, you need to start thinking about what are the cargoes that we can take in and out of this port? Because you don't want to I mean, there's very few owners that are so green that they're going to run a ship for nine months without making any money, right? So they need to start thinking about that and that can be done.

57:34 So it takes three months. I think for us, as long as there's no imminent risk of us losing our space in Antwerp, I think by far the prudent thing to do is not to invest in the mobilization until these deals have been signed. There's no need for it. Then there is a second question that is not I think specific, but one is are we taking enough risk or maybe rather are we taking the right risks, right? Because there is, I think, an understandable challenge if you are a research or development organization. That's what you do, right? So there is a risk that you're very successful at, you're rewarded every time you do that well, but how do you then make sure you also have the skills to execute?

58:20 And that's the same thing if you took an old shipping guy, they can probably execute and they can read a contract. They're hated by all real estate brokers by the way, because they want to negotiate their tenancy agreements. If you take that in and you are running a development process, they don't have the patience to do that well. So what I think is my job is to make sure that we bring we have some of these skills now, right? We have a mix of those skills. So my job is to make sure we bring the right mix of those skills to play in the right circumstances. And I do think that we can probably be a little bit more gutsy occasionally and push the envelope. And sometimes that means that there are things where we just have to admit doesn't happen, let's move it. But in order for that to make sense, in order for it to make sense to take one of our MMUs and move somewhere else, is that we have somewhere else to move it, right? Otherwise it makes no sense, otherwise we could just chase it down and see if there's a miracle waiting somewhere and then it happens anyway.

59:14 So I want to have alternatives and that's why I want more trials and we have to explore more relationships with refineries as well. It takes time, but we are starting now. We have started actually some time ago, but we're really pushing it now. The next set of questions relates to Sparkle. For Jason, how is the supply side of the Sparkle project progressing? Has the potential supply to Panama bunker hubs and Honduras also been considered in the discussions? Yeah, mean, Sparkle, I think it's indicated in Peter's slide as well. I mean Sparkle is a foothold into the Panamanian market. We see other power stations which are larger both in Panama and they operate more frequently as in some of the surrounding areas such as Honduras and Nicaragua. So from our perspective, Panama is a good first step and Sparkle have been very useful in promoting the fuel within Panama as well.

1:00:12 So the government authorities and anyone who basically listened to them, they've been very extremely supportive. So yeah, I mean, the reality is if we're going to commence a refinery in the region to supply, then it needs to be more than the sparkle volumes themselves anyway. So certainly that would be very active and say Phil has been as well be very active in that activity. Perhaps you can take the next two questions together. How long is it estimated to receive the fuel permitting for Panama? And the second bid is, are Panama clients looking to use MSAR or go straight to bio MSAR? Fuel permitting is underway. It's hard to say how long it will take to actually conclude.

1:00:58 We were led to believe it would take us a few months. So we were expecting to get it concluded by the end of the year, but it may take a little bit longer than that. But the process seems to be proceeding according to plan. I don't see any hiccups there. And I guess the main reason or the main incentive there is to Panama as a country are looking at alternative fuels going forward. They're looking to phase out the use of heavy fuel oil in that region. So we want to make sure that MSAR and Bio MSAR are on the alternative fuels list, if at all possible, especially Bio MSAR. But yeah, I mean, our Panama clients looking to use their MSAR? I think today they will be. There aren't many power stations in Panama running on biofuels today. But in the future, they'll be looking to be able to swap or at least progress from EMSAL to bio EMSAL. We can do that obviously by blending a little less biofuel into our mixture.

1:01:53 But that region is primarily cost. In the future, it's going to be environmental. But we offer obviously a platform that gives them a pathway all the way through to green solution. The next one is about OCP. Short question. Isn't it time QED pulls the plug on OCP? I think I just answered it. All right, on financials. What's the likelihood of any substantial income flows in the next twelve to twenty four months? Peter, or do you want to share it with David? I think that we have an agreement with Velcor that they have to pay in is it March? Is it in Q2?

1:02:40 And again, in the beginning of Q3? I think I described they are a startup and I'm sure that with very few resources well that could delay, but contractually they should pay there. So that's where I see the first income is coming from. I see us doing hopefully doing trials at least for the first half of the year and maybe well into Q3. But what we're trying to do is also that when we do the trials that we latch a commercial supply agreement onto it. That goes for MSC, but it also goes for potential other partners. So we don't have to negotiate at nauseam now on getting a trial up and running, but we already now start looking at what would the supply contract look like and on given conditions and benchmarks having been met in the trial.

1:03:36 If we succeeded that and we're up and running with the trials in Q1, then it will be within the end of twenty twenty six. Next set of questions are really for you, Peter. Okay. First one, why is Peter talking about other potential projects when the company doesn't have the manpower or financial resources to do anymore? Why am I talking about new projects when we don't have the manpower? Returning to some of my comments just now, think we have to. I think we need to increase our chances of succeeding by adding the right partners so we can afford to fail. And that goes throughout. Need I actually spent a little bit of time in a startup before joining QUADRISE that did AI and a few other things. I got out of that, fortunately.

1:04:31 But a lot of it also for us is about failing quickly, making sure that we try it out, find out what we can learn from it, move on, become better. And that goes for now on the technologies, we're doing the trials, but at some point it will also come into how do we package this, because if I've had no questions on it, it probably has been at previous AGMs, but what about our pricing strategy? Is that the right one? Right now it's the one we have, and I don't think we can probably change it too much, but at some point we have to assess that as the technological landscape changes, right? So that will also be a question of iteration and failing perhaps, but that's a bit of a luxury problem if we have to pick between clients, right? So I think it's absolutely crucial that we start more, so we can also finish more, but land some successes.

1:05:21 And if I could just add to that question, or that answer as well, from a nomination committee perspective, that's the basic reason why we increased the management bandwidth with bringing on board Linda, Peter, and also bringing Tony on board with his forty years of shipping sector experience. It was to enable us to do just this, to parallel process. Next question still for you, Peter, how do you intend to reverse the trend of over promising and under delivering? And what measures will you put in place to ensure greater accountability? I have read minutes from board meetings and AGMs a few years back. I read most of our press releases. I'm a bit old fashioned. I've worked for some very, very conservative companies, including Maersk for some time. I reported to the old man for three years, which is by far the most stressful, but also most meaningful years I've had. He was a bit of a tough taskmaster.

1:06:23 I mean, there is a balance. Right? We need to be transparent and we need to inform the market and you, our shareholders, on the progress we are making. The risk is, of course, that if we inform too soon, where it's still I don't think we've ever informed on a letter of intent basis, but what we have on occasion, for example, on MSC informed when we had done something meaningful, but where there was a lot more to be done, right? I'm probably going to be a little bit more conservative than what we've been so far, because I think we're going to end up looking at feedback that is absolutely justified, but that also, you know, distracts us, right? People aren't happy because they felt it I mean, it's a contract, why didn't you sign it yet, right? Which is absolutely I mean, that's how I would react, if that's all I had been informed.

1:07:17 So that, you know, the balancing is that if we do that to a meaningful extent, there'll be maybe a period over Christmas where there are not so many announcements from us, but where we're little bit more quiet, but hopefully in coming out with something that is more final. So that's one concern, but the other one is the one that management always have when you're meeting your shareholders or your board for that matter, you got to learn to under promise and over deliver. So management of expectations is by far the most important feature in any career or in any company, right? And that doesn't mean that you should under promise, of course, you've got to be realistic, but you just have to be mindful that telling people what they would like to hear comes at a cost. So my job is to be honest and sometimes you may not like what I have to say, but that is my job. And there will be some of you who will send me Christmas cards over finalizing the OCP project if I can, and there'll be others who will need to get rid of me of it.

1:08:18 I think my job, my most important task, is to be brutally honest on some of these things. And I think on that point, it's probably a good time to stop that bit of questions and open the floor to any questions that you have since you're here. Hi, Peter. I think I do on behalf of others, but I'd like to thank you for your honesty in what you've been telling us about the difficulties that you're facing really in the marine industry. There is a but to that, of course, because for most of this year, we've been expecting it to be literally just a contract that is sitting on somebody's desk to be signed. That's how it's been put to us, and that has been pushed on quarter to quarter.

1:09:19 So I certainly appreciate your honesty in how you're now talking to us. However, going back to when you first joined us, almost your first interaction with shareholders, you were talking about getting two trial agreements arranged within eight weeks. Obviously, that's that's basically expired. Question I would ask to you is is why why on earth did you jump straight in there and start telling us that, especially against the backdrop of the bad news of time scales that continually get pushed on and on?

1:10:05 But there you were, really putting your neck on the block. I'm pretty sure I didn't put a timeline on, though. Yeah. I I think you did talk about eight weeks. No, no, I'm pretty sure I didn't because that was the one thing I didn't want to do because that wouldn't be within my control. I want a second trial, at least one. I think there's a good chance we can get that but I can only sign on the left side of the contract, Somebody else has to do it. We have meaningful and constructive dialogues with an owner that I like. We have others lined up that we could pursue as well. We're trying to finish this one now. So I hope we will have some good news but it's not going to be within eight weeks and that was pretty clear already then.

1:10:59 I think if we can do that within the next if we can have it in hand by Q1 next year and inform about it by late Q1, because I really want small print to have been done before I start sending out press releases, right, then I think we've done well. Okay, sorry, maybe it was lost in what you were saying at the time, but the inference was there. But I think going on what we need is that honesty. You know, we need your integrity to be there, to somebody that we can trust what you're saying is so.

1:11:47 I would also say, I mean, I may add that I think it's a lot easier to communicate precisely when we're in the same room, right? Because you got the tone of voice and you got sort of the feeling of the people, also for me, right? Whereas if you're the recipient of a press release or a statement on LinkedIn or whatever, it's a lot harder to not react with what, you know, the biases of what you expected, or for us to communicate very clearly. Some of the discussions we're having are also commercially sensible, right, or sensitive. So and that's why I'm holding back on I really don't want to say too much more about who we're talking to, because that could jeopardize those talks.

1:12:32 They're not even really negotiations. They're talks, because both parties seem to want to collaborate. So the exact shape or form, I don't know yet, But there will be a trial in it, because that's what we want. One of the things that we may have to revisit is whether we need to but that's from my own account, not from the board, whether there are other ways of engaging with our shareholders, and if there's even an interest in it. That's something we'll first, let's get embassy up and running. Let's get the other trial that nothing else really compares, and then it's the fuels, then sometimes we can breathe and then we can talk about how we perhaps engage differently.

1:13:24 You. Good morning or good afternoon Peter. Ian James long term shareholder. When my wife waved me off this morning to the railway station she said for god's sake you're not still wasting your time and money on that bloody quadrise are you? What I'd like to be able to tell her when I get back is exactly with regard to the MSC contract which I think we all agree is absolutely key. What are the key things that we need to do or need to happen before MSC will sign? Because I've listened to what you said, but I haven't really got a feeling as we had in the previous question exactly what the blockers are. There are a number of underlying bilateral contracts.

1:14:16 We are not party to all of them. We need, number one, to handhold all these contracts to make sure they happen. I think from just being a cynical old shipping man, I probably want to start with the easier ones, the ones that have nothing conflict, nothing about prices in, to get a little bit of momentum. And then once we've done them, we need the contract that also defines how we're to get paid afterwards, right, when there is a supply contract. That's likely to be also affected by some of the regulatory changes that have taken place around MSC and us since we did the first contract. My sense is that the technical department at MSC are quite keen. The people who have to buy the fuel are, of course, more hard nosed, so I expect that to be tougher negotiations.

1:15:13 I think what we have to do, number one, is to keep the momentum up. Put the First, we put the four part time agreement before them. That's revised, it's the same agreement, but there's one more party. We get that fourth party completely aligned and support, because I think they have standing with MSC. Then we look at the next contract, which I hope is simple, and push that through, and then the next, and then I guess we're up to the fourth, right? Which is going be the difficult one, but make sure that the time in between is limited, so everybody can remember why they said what they did on the last counter, right? So it's very, very practical. It's not very flashy. But I think that's the way how you manage complex contracts, and in this case, a contract complex.

1:16:02 And that's what we have to do. MEC has told us also that they would like us to be able not to provide a complete contract setup for the fuel supply afterwards, but they like to have a feel for where we want to start and what is the time frame. So I actually had a meeting with MSC in Cyprus last week, where we spoke about some of the places where we believe we can secure the highest sulfur residuals and whether they fit into their liner schedule. So we already know that Northern Europe, so Antwerp, and Southeast Asia, in this case probably Singapore, are the two most important hubs for them.

1:16:51 Some of the rescues we think we can get, but we have to start negotiating, would be in the Persian Gulf. So for Abu Dhabi, where they have a very significant presence as well. It's also in the Eastern Med, which to my surprise, they're bringing in their bigger ships to Turkey, the 24,000 TEU ships. So for them, that would also be a good location. It's a place where Phil and Jason are already in close contact with some refiners who have an interest in this, too. So I think where we are now is that, you know, where we probably previously had been led to believe that we had time to do the trial first, and then when that was up and running, we would start looking at procurement. It's becoming clear now that we have to take the initial steps on the procurement even before we are looking at starting the trial. Think that's as specific as I can make it right now.

1:17:40 If you have a follow-up question, I'm happy to take that. Well, not really. I I guess being a long term shareholder, memory goes a little bit. And I remember MSC wanting to buy the Leandra what three, four, five years ago and as somebody has said previously you know every time we hear it's going to be the next quarter or the next quarter or the next quarter and it gets to the stage where you just wonder whether it's ever going to come. Mike Fey, retail shareholder.

1:18:28 Question for Peter. In a recent interview, you mentioned how shipping companies can save money by using rotary cells and silicon, antifoul, and you mentioned MSAR and bio MSAR only once. Why are you telling ship holders how to save money by using silicon and not getting MSAR and bio MSAR mentioned multiple times in the article? Well, I don't write the article, the journalist who. I actually thought that the gist of it was placing BioEmSAR and EmSAR in that context, that none of these technologies on their own will meet the full requirements of the IMO regulations.

1:19:16 I do think that the fact that this is a cumulative set of technologies, if you will, for lack of a better term for them, I think it has a lot of bearing for most shipping companies. And if you start looking at the CapEx required and investing in them, and all shipping companies do that. So if you are a newly appointed CEO of Norton or Jay Lauritsen or the big liner companies, the first thing you're going look at is what kind of anti filing do you have on the hull. When I became CEO of Lauritsen in 2013, the first project before me was voter sales, which I said no to, because it was an eight year payment profile before you start perhaps making money on it. I think silicon is the one that all knows.

1:20:01 It's 8%. I think we can probably do better than that, right? So, and we have this huge toolbox of many, many others out there. So, in mentioning others, it's an attempt to build credibility around us, that we're not just selling our own, but our own technology is in there. It gets us in the trade press. And I think it forces ship owners to consider what I mean many of them have invested a lot of money in dual use fuel technology. So Maersk, a number of others have done it too. Lot of invested in LNG fuel as well and the ability to burn that. The CapEx investment in what we provide are very, very limited. So I actually think that when you start looking into it Can I please interrupt you, please, sir?

1:20:48 Why is MSAR and bio MSAR not mentioned more in the articles? I I think they were mentioned as much as the other ones, quite frankly. I mentioned them as much. Okay. Can I ask a second question? Yes. Okay, in the interview in ship and bunker on 10/31/2025, you mentioned that there's a total of 15% savings to be made by using QUADRISE's fuels, But you don't mention the savings that can be made from the emissions from the EU ETS and the fuel EU. To my FAG packet calculations, we can double the savings by using our fuels from these emission taxes.

1:21:34 Why aren't we pushing that? I mean, may be thinking as a ship owner too much, but I think the main problem now is not that ship owners are not aware of the benefits of many of the technologies out there. The ship owners are looking at how do they reach compliance? Can they do that with any technology alone? Or do they need to mix them up? They don't have methanol. They don't have ammonium. They don't have nuclear. I want us to be in the mix. Surely That's the thinking behind that. Surely, we should be telling them you can save loads of money on your emissions by using quadrilateral fuels. And it really doesn't come across in these articles. I don't think these articles are going to get us clients. What I hope they do is that they get us in the door.

1:22:24 So we need to get in the door with the ship owners. They need to feel that there's momentum also behind what QUADRISE is offering. And then we can take it through. Also, sound like you know the area very well, when you do make calculations and compare, there are a lot of assumptions on the speed, on the main engine, on everything else, before you know how much you're actually saving. So you need to be before them and then go through the calculations and Linde sustainable ships platform that we have also published recently is one way of allowing the ship owners to compare our technologies with others on test case that they find most appropriate for them. And well done for publishing the fuel comparison module.

1:23:11 This is the sort of thing we really need to get across to owners. So on one of your previous slides, you mentioned that a large number of vessels are not actually owned by the companies that are operating them. They're chartered. So the complication there is that you're wanting to make an engine modification to a vessel that you don't own. How do we go about that? What's the like from a business perspective and a technical perspective, how do we solve that problem? I'll take the question. But I think, Jason, will you do you want to talk to the modification required to the engine? Because it's fairly modest. Yeah, I mean, the cost of modification is obviously around €500,000 if they need to put a new fuel booster unit in, right? But there is a cost associated with the owner.

1:24:07 It's a good question. It's a benefit, right? So it's who gets the benefit then. That discussion is the same whether you're looking at road to sale or anything else, right? If you can invest in the vessel, then potentially you can charter it out at a higher price as well, which is why people have put scrubbers on as well. A So scrubber fitted vessel can get a higher rate than a non scrubber fitted vessel because they get a fuel saving rate. Mean, it's it's it depends also very much on which part of the industry you're in. Right? So cruise ships, they tend to be owned or controlled by the operator, right? Dry cargo ships, they tend to be owned by Greek interests, Singaporean, Hong Kong registered, Liberian, etcetera. Japanese are big, but they're typically operated by Danish operators.

1:24:56 So the ones who really have the benefit will be the operator who are paying for the fuel. So it's not a completely unheard of situation. So I think, as I was trying to illustrate also with my slide over the brain conscious and the cost conscious, there are different drivers of why you would want to use QUADRISE's products. And I think we have a good case, particularly also for the operators. Also because they're thinking in terms of trading platforms. So being able to trade on the EU ETS is something that will appeal to them. Did that answer your question? The benefit mostly accrues Sorry. The benefit mostly accrues to the the company that's moving the cargo. Right? Because they're the ones paying To the operator. Yes. Who who pay pays for the So I guess there's always gonna be an element of, you convince the charterer this is something safe to do to my vessel?

1:25:48 I'm happy to make those for you to make those changes, etcetera, etcetera. I I I used to work for a rather large and stockist, a Danish shipping company called Norton, with about 400 ships and and spent some time with the CEO not too long ago when he had just announced that they had sold CO2 offsets to IBM and I think Meta, I'm not sure, at €340 per ton that I think I mentioned. And I asked him, you know, what did he have to do to change his contract? Because all shipping contracts, charter parties, are very, very precise in terms of what fuel you can burn and what kind of compliance do they need. He said it had been surprisingly easy, actually, because the differences are so small and they are very I mean, so he's basically gotten away with at least 10 different Japanese owners accepting small changes, right? So and and I know that some of the trade organizations, BIMCO, which is a shipwrecking organization, have pre prepared clauses that you can insert.

1:26:46 So once you're convinced that this is something you can do, it seems that it doesn't engender too much concern amongst the operators. And that's been quite a new thing, it's in the last twelve months. Nigel Allen, shareholder. Twelve months ago I was very encouraged when Aura Marine announced their collaboration with QUADRISE, particularly the blend on board. So can we have an update on our relationship with that collaboration with Aura Marine? Specifically do we have any plan to prove that concept of Blend Onboard? Jason, you want to take that? Yeah, thanks, Nigel. We certainly do. I mean the collaboration was I guess not just around the blend on board system, it's around any ship retrofit going forward as well.

1:27:37 And one of the attractions of working with Aura Marine is obviously they have their own network of clients as well. So we've been myself and Linda have been involved with meeting some of their particular clients with regards to vessel trials going forward. So we haven't got yet a client that's signed up to do a vessel trial yet on the Blend On Board system. So that's still work in progress. Quite a few of the clients we're speaking with at the moment are really looking at a pre prepared, bunkered solution like we're gonna be doing in Antwerp. But having said that, there's some smaller owners who have expressed an interest. And indeed, one of Aura Marine's clients has a blender board system, albeit for conventional oil based products. So conceptually, it works. Technology wise, we're already there. We haven't got to do a lot of development work because the E and H system that we're using has already been used on the vessel as well.

1:28:31 So we've got type approval from CLAS for certain applications. So from our perspective, it's something we're pushing. But at the moment, because we're obviously trying to get MSC and others across the line, they're requiring the bunkered solution. So would I say, taken a back burner, but it's not the top of the highest priority at this moment in time. Hi Peter. Welcome to the team. Just not wanting to sound like a broken record on this, but following up on the previous gentleman's question around the MSC project, you talk about MSC wanting to understand more about the potential supply arrangements from different parts of the globe, Eastern Med, Persian Gulf you mentioned.

1:29:17 What level of procurement framework maturity or whatever you want to call it do you see being required before we can actually get these contracts reissued? And just for the avoidance of doubt, are we saying that the tripartite agreement that was previously issued now needs to be completely reissued as a four way agreement, and then the bilaterals are going to come from that? Because I didn't quite understand the point there. The original tripartite is still in force, and it stipulates that there are certain parts of the collaboration that has to be set up in separate contracts. So the relationship between QAGL and us, between QAGL and now B2B and MSC.

1:30:03 So these are the different contracts. So we still have the trial pilot target, but it's also a general contract, right? It's not an LOI, it is a legally binding contract, but it is an agreement to set up other agreements, right? And that's what we're doing now. And then you asked about the supply contracts, the level of The level of maturity is around The information we've gotten from the two people we speak to at MSC is that we need to make sure that we can see a path forward with this.

1:30:49 Is it going to be predominantly in Southeast Asia, or would we be able to supply a large share of the volume that they're loaned for in Northern Europe? And where would we go next? I think it's fairly early days, right? I just have in mind also that there is a point where we have to meet their owners if they are so serious about this, and I really like that we are better prepared than they are in terms of where can we find it. Also, having now been engaged with refineries for almost two and a half months, I'm mindful that it's a completely different way of using the English language, and I have a lot to learn on the intricacies of this. Unfortunately, we have a lot of people who understand it. But we are also realizing that it's a business that's so complex that even if you spend thirty years in the old business, there are just things about refinery strategies and planning that requires a very specialized skill set. We are trying to acquire that now by working with consultants, etcetera. So I think what I believe we need to provide is a feel for what are the I don't think we're to find one refinery that can deliver everything that MSC needs in Singapore up north. But we need to then make it plausible that there are a certain number, whether it's five or 10, that together can provide a certain volume, so they can start looking at it. I also, I would think, but I don't know, I would think that some of these refineries would find it particularly attractive with a large volume and a big player as MEC coming in.

1:32:18 But that's something that we have to test. And we have to move from believing because it's plausible to actually testing by setting up meetings with the refineries. And we may get news and probably many of them will not talk to us because it's too early. We don't even have demand yet, right? But we need to make sure we get our name properly out there and they know exactly what we're looking for. Normal practice, I guess, for bunker contracts is to sign up for a year, right? That's the convention practice where you're looking to bid again for every year. But obviously, we're in a slightly different framework because there's investment needed both in terms of the supply and the ship itself. Right? The ship's basically investing in to actually be able take the fuel. So the expectation is it's gonna be far more far longer than a year.

1:33:08 Ideally, three to five years would be what we'd be pushing for, but that's still a negotiation to be had. Bob Sharp, Retail Investor. I took on board what you just said, and it's been touched on by others, about, getting a source of supply instead of chasing the contract first, get the supply. But we've been there before. You were probably in short pants at this time. But the, I was led to believe that we wanted to supply Pau Soraya, KSA. At that time, the Saudis were building a huge refinery in around Singapore somewhere. And I was led to believe that the oil people, refinery people, wanted things like 200,000 ton contracts before they'd even look at the makings of Emsa Forest, which would have been great if PLC decided to build it by the ton burn it by the ton, but it was financially beyond our ability. Now you've since I planned this question, have said you might have several small refineries. Great.

1:34:16 But it's still the same mathematics. How are we going to fund, say, 100,000 tons on an annual contract in advance of the contract with our customer? We can't. We need the contract with our clients. There's no doubt about that. There's no way around it. You've got This is also part of the explanation why we haven't come any further, right? Because we need to finalize the trial and then have that lead into a supply agreement to MSC or whoever it is before we can formalize a contract with a supplier. And I also think, but again, I'm new to the refinery game, so this is my impression from now that we are now chasing down. But once we get the trial up and running, and now we have MSC that are being fairly clear to us about how much they would need, We have to be open about that too.

1:35:12 We need to have the conversations, understand when they need to know and when they're willing to make a decision as a refiner in promising something on subjects. Shipping, we do that all the time, right? We enter into agreements that are subject to a given thing happening, and you want to narrow down your subjects. You also do that on fuel contracts with the big traders, etcetera. So but timing, of course, is everything. But I just, you know, it's pretty clear to me that we need to start doing our homework where we get in front of some of these refineries and some of the traders as well. PLC: Go ahead. QUADRISE This also comes, in my mind, back to the same blockers. Now if you land a huge contract in Morocco or MSC, there are existing fuel suppliers who may be losing a lot of money, unless they happen to be the people who agree to make MSAR.

1:36:10 Are we sure that we're not looking at vested interests or lethargy because of it's the way we've already always done it that's holding back some of this? No. You sure? No, we're not sure. We're not sure. I'm trying to get a meeting. That may not even clear it up. But so so the reaction from our side to that, you know, we can guess, we can try to get access to people who are senior enough to get a better reply or to push it, but the only other reaction we really control is to make sure that we have alternatives. And in the MET, they're probably the only ones in the Western MET, might be Spanish players as well, in the other side of the bathtub, you have Turkish and Greek suppliers.

1:37:03 If you are in the middle already, you're likely to both be in the East and the West, and very few just stop in Turkey and then return back to Asia. So we just need to make sure that we have alternatives. But that goes also for the trial, right? So being sequential in this, I think, adds to our vulnerability. Whereas having parallel trials and parallel talks with suppliers, etcetera, is the only way we gain a little bit of agency. You Peter. Do you have time for one more question at the back here? Thank you. Hello, Mike Fagan. When we are producing fuel to commercial contract volumes, what will be our estimated net profit in dollars per tonne? Jason, you want to take that?

1:37:49 If you can. Yeah, I guess unfortunately, it's one of those depends answers because invariably we look at what is available by way of what from a refinery perspective, how much money is unlocked by installing the technology. And that determines a little bit, to some extent, the license fee that we get. In terms of what we look for, we're looking to sell obviously the additives and we're aiming for a margin somewhere in the orders of $10 a tonne is the net profit, That's still but there may be aspects there may be areas where in the biofuel space, we may be able to get a little bit more. In the MSAR space, if the volumes are really high, then we might get squeezed down in terms of margin, but because the volumes are so high anyway then But we're sort of in that space.

1:38:40 If we can get more than that, we're in, obviously, we're in a much better place. And the more presence we have, the more we take on, obviously, the more we can do. The tolling, that's on a licensed basis, I stress to add. Obviously tolling, we look to add a little bit more to cover the cost of capital as well. That's great. Thank you very much indeed, Jason. Thank you very much for everybody for your engagement in the room and definitely for those online, considerable number of attendees online as well today. Peter, know investor feedback will be particularly important to you and I'll shortly redirect those on the call to give you their feedback. Perhaps I could just ask you for a couple of closing comments. Yeah. First and foremost, thank you so much for the questions, for turning up again. I appreciate that. I think it's the first time I met most of you.

1:39:28 I hope not the last. I hope you're going to keep coming back, but I also hope that we can come back with some more tangible outcomes in the coming year. A lot of complexities, I have spent a lot of time talking about that already, but at the same time also straightforward, right, because there's only one thing now that's getting the trial with MNC up and running, getting a second trial as well, then start pushing on the feedstock supply. With that, thank you so much. Looking forward to seeing you again. I'll be around, so I'm happy to talk to those of you in the room. Thank you.