watching
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I spoke with Randy Gue 10 days ago. Very knowledgeable.
He worked for Lafarge up until he joined MVTG. IMHO Lafarge would be quite satisfied to have someone who knows their operation to be coordinating this pilot plant installation and testings. Lafarge has and is spending resources to accommodate this installation. Every step counts towards a win for pollution control. :)
Those numbers were part of an MVTG business analysis on ERC serveral years ago. I have asked EcoMike, who has been sick, to repost that to me, here on Ihub or a sticky link. Your request is certainly reasonable. I will try to remind him.
Thanks...
Revealing improvement of explanation over mine. Thanks !
Considering the price of formic acid, the cost of carbon credits and societal/health cost of CO2 pollution, I find ERC a productive and great ROI investment.
Per my conversation with MVTG lab, the maintenance effort and costs are expected to be minimal. After six years, I sure am pleased to see the Lafarge pilot plant nearing completion.
Others may reply. I have no interest in becoming a tech engineer analyst. That is what MVTG tech and chemical professionals are for. It is too easy for our assumptions to be mistaken.I like the potential of the whole package as well as its individual products.
I believe EcoMike is attempting to post an MVTG business analysis of this subject. :)
The management of MVTG has proven themselves to me several times over. :)
Continuous co-current electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide
1. I found the reference you gave and wondered why the link nor title of the PATENT APPLICATION by MVTG & Professor Oloman was not clearly labeled. Hmmm... Obviously Professor Oloman has not moved on elsewhere to some other company.
2. The original patents for ERC were referenced in the Patent Application. There is no statement of invalidation nor problems with the original patent application(s) of ERC in this document that I could find. Nor could I find that this Patent Application was claimed to be superior to any previous related patents for superceding purposes. Section [0012] on adobe page 12 of 20 on this same topic said "may be....". I am glad MVT is careful.
3. This one appears to be a protective adjunct patent. That is, one that covers other closely related processes, mechanics, etc. I will let MVTG address this in their own time for those who need to know for personal reasons. No issue for me.
Given the complexity of this document and the many documents available on MVTG R&D, programs, etc. how did you just happen to find this exact little quote?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Glad you did. Phone calls often work faster.
I look at each product as a "whole". Yes, each must meet purity, quality, volume, duration, etc. requirements. The client must approve. Whether I know or not as "no enginner neo-phyte" in this area does not worry me. It is MVTG that must make it work as a whole and they have the best people working on it.
Given earth's pollution, we MUST make products like this come ASAP. Right?
Each opportunity stands on its own. We are about to finish the ERC unit and connect to Lafarge. That is a long way from a MOU, right?
The Korean MOU could have been a big feather in Korea's international commercial cap, but typical foreign hard-nosed greed asked for everything but the kitchen sink. I was here then and heard it all from MVTG and the NR's. In the real world, not all people are nice, honest or play fair. This was much worse.
Evidently, Lafarge is a much better opportunity.
Again, as for duration of efficiency, MVTG knows the score and the clients have backed them with ERC or MRFC as it is... so they must be very interested. MVTG is the one to implement it, not us.
I communicate with HQ when I have questions and do not play armchair district attorney.
Great future... that too many do not appreciate !
Thanks for reading...
I wish I had purchased MU during the most recent recession at $6, now back at $33.
Likewise, so few see the commercial vision of what ERC/MRFC/etc. can do. Like you and I, someday they will. I like the progress.
I think someone will point out the documented plan. :)
"this company is most likely several years away from true success,the company knows this,or why would they need a constant infusion of grant money?"
Huh?
1. That improvements will continue, I hope so. Nobody starts out with a Tesla. The Model T came first, but to say that at this stage of the game the Model T was not s success would have Henry Ford turning over in his grave. I worked for Burrough;s Corporation (Unisys now) for 5 years at the Wayne Mfg. Plant. We rolled out several versions of working computer bank products that were successful. At the same time, it was the plan to constantly improve the products via engineering and cost reduction until obsolete. That too was done and viable. Has HQ said that ERC will take years more of testing before a client can use the first one? I have not found that in any documentation.
2. The pilot plant working at generates client approved levels of purity, volume, quality, etc. makes it commercially viable in their eyes, and that is why Lafarge, Alstom are interested. There are several industry applications for ERC/MRF. Some further along than others. Lafarge is the first one, and upon the pilot plant's trial run proof, they have indicated interest in licensing this process, etc promptly for many of their over 100 facilities.
3. ERC/MRFC, due to many applications no doubt will require much research to adapt to many other needed situations. That is what continued the R&D is for. Is it not better for clients and governments to pay for this than shareholders when R&D is expensive and MVTG is judiciously using its funds to prove the first one? Grants funding and product roll out here do not have a direct correlation. Is there a printed source from HQ that says MVTG will not get revenue for years? Perhaps with a little DD some will find HQ has already addressed this in their working plan.
The goal here is shareholder wealth, and MVTG has that clearly in their sights.
Mantra Energy Receives Further Federal Funding
1 days 7 hours 24 minutes ago - DJNF
Mantra Energy Receives Further Federal Funding
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Nov 12, 2014) - Mantra Energy Alternatives Ltd., a subsidiary of Mantra Venture Group Ltd. (OCTQB:MVTG), has announced that it has received further funding from Canadian government organizations. Both the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Mitacs, a national funding organization, have awarded funding to support two Ph.D. engineers on post-doctoral fellowships with the company.
The NSERC IRDF award will provide $60,000 over two years to support Dr. Tirdad Nickchi, an electrochemical corrosion expert who received his Ph.D. from UBC in Materials Engineering. Dr. Nickchi obtained his bachelor's and Master's degree from institutions in Iran, and in addition to his education has performed research at Iran's Metallurgical Research Centre and as a post-doctoral fellow at UBC. His extensive experience includes designing electrochemical cells, performing pulsed electrodeposition, chemical bath stabilization, the design and construction of physical vapor deposition systems, the study of electrochemical corrosion, and the assembly, calibration, operation, and development of novel techniques for a scanning electrochemical microscope. With Mantra, Dr. Nickchi will be focusing on catalyst development and characterization.
The Mitacs Elevate award will provide $75,000 over two years to support Dr. Piotr Forysinski in collaboration with Professor Elod Gyenge of UBC. Dr. Forysinski, who has been working with Mantra since July, is a Ph.D. Physical Chemist who will be developing to demonstration Mantra's innovative fuel cell, the MRFC.
"We are very appreciative of the support of NSERC and Mitacs, which has allowed us to bring incredibly talented individuals like Drs. Nickchi and Forysinski to the team in critical capacities," said Patrick Dodd, Mantra's VP of Corporate Development.
These most recent awards round out a highly successful year of such grants for Mantra. Earlier this year, the company announced two NSERC Engage grants for its work with the Institute national de la recherche scientifique (INRS) and UBC, totaling $50,000. Shortly thereafter, the company received one Mitacs and two NSERC grants to support its personnel.
Recently, the company announced the receipt of a $450,000 grant for a three-year project with INRS, building on the earlier funded work between the two.
In total, Mantra has been approved for $792,500 in funding from NSERC and Mitacs to support projects and personnel over the next three years.
"The continued support of these institutions provides both capital and validation for the company and its technologies," said Mantra CEO Larry Kristof.
Nope. LBSR is much higher than 1-2 weeks ago. All stocks have some up and down or one would not invest in a flat stock except for dividends IMHO.
Portent this week of better things to come...
Yes, a progressing opportunity in Pollution collaboration by countries.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-12/china-s-move-with-u-s-on-pollution-spurs-work-on-climate-deal.html
Nice reminder of the inventor showing ERC and MRFC in action, not just on paper as some wrongly assumed.
Thanks. Cousin to Mr. Fusion, I presume? :)
WHEN they say... it will more smiles time.
Lack of our finding it does not mean lack of progress. And yes, progress is happening until we otherwise.
Experience here over its history shows this to be true. Otherwise I would cash in.
How about everyone else?
If you can be me some that cheap, I will put up the $. :)
Why should Mantra respond? Their goal as stated in PR's. NR's, Web Page, etc. is the building and presenting of successful ERC and MRFC. THAT is what counts.
Why should they worry about market games? They KNOW what is happening and communicate with collaborators on a "Need to Know" basis.
We here will know when it is legal to know. It has worked just fine for me in the past, present and future.
:)
Just to chime in. Maybe, DM. But red tape, bureaucracy and turf wars often get in the way. Alstom may just want to monopolize this idea, like others, as long as they can.
Let's keep thinking... :)
Not very wise on GE's part, then. MRFC much better... and I hope they will WISE up soon. :)
Just a thought. It seems to me by experience that GE had its SOFC project in planning for years before now. It is hard to turn a battleship around on a dime. If Alstom, etc. is already making progress with MRFC, it would be wise to just let them continue.
As GE does not own Alstom outright, collaboration on all Alstom's projects make time to be evaluated and coordinated. Those billions may yet be steered toward MRFC of MVTG.
I thank you for raising the question. Perhaps MVTG or Alstom can answer it better. :) I for one welcome alternative research.
SPS50
While the NP Super Project paperwork is preliminary, at this point it is a good move to reduce debt while still getting royalties.
The Hay Mtn LLC is a wise parallel move while finalizing funding negotiations. Perhaps the potential funders may have suggested this move and type now. I like it.
As a CMA, public accountant who set up over 40 corporations and LLC's, this is a good option in my opinion.
Thank you JB & Co.
Impressive with nice detail in the linked articles. Alstom as well ais pro-green CCU with good ideas and the resources/expertise to make a difference.
I have long been encouraged by this association.
Thank you.
Nice to know improvements are being made and that we do not have the membrane issue in the MRFC! That is what MVTG R&D indicates they are doing and will accomplish, stage by stage. A good entrepreneur continues to improve its overall product... not stuck with a Model T.
One important point is know how long it takes for a product to be non-functional. If it is years, then a client can decide it is not a problem but merely a periodic supply maintenance item. For instance, Preventive Maintenance on process flow equipment at the chemical plants I worked at were at least annually. The same for my car. The oil filter gets changed about ever six months, but the cost and effort to do so is nominal compared to the cost, durability and convenience of the overall car. In the future I look for this to be explain, especially as it may differ from product to product.
After six years of DD and the professional staff we have assembled thus far, I hope you share my confidence that a quality product will be developed, presented and improved on over time.
Thank you.
Your previous posts have the pps at -.55.5%. GLTU :)
Perhaps some need reminding of the value of the patents in hand and yet coming. Reprinting public published information is hardly obfuscation... it shows a desire to help educate.
I seemed to read in there that the future use of fuel cells in general, in vehicles for instance, was quite expected in a commercial sense.
The ongoing progress of R&D and the pilot plant project(s) were meant to answer valid questions. Obviously some corporations expect productive results to invest here.
Thanks !
Lot of advanced and interesting work on different fuel cells. I liked the MVTG section and its MRFC mention. Not news to us, but good exposure to others.
PEM-based fuel cells (not MRFC) have been especially susceptible to CO and CO2 fouling per Google articles I easily found.
Not at all... the article wording was quite clear and positive.
I encourage all posters to read it carefully. Perhaps we can then begin to avoid the back and forth.
And... you still have tried to locate such work or publication from the best source.
Arm chair quarterback?
Re-read the article about him and you will see the optimism for just that resolution. CO2 feed stocks were the topic there. While speaking on non-CO2 input, the tone of the article in its last half is mostly about progress in the CO2 are from other angles. It was very encouraging according to the article.
Both Mr & Mrs. Gyenge are contracting or hired by MVTG to work on such improvements. Who else better to do this, along with other professionals.
Ballard has a real problem here according to Dr. Gryenge's article.
The prototype and pilot plant operations are to confirm many things to MVTG's clients. Four years have elapsed since 2010. Is it not about time such questions were asked from the people who know best?
I did, yesterday.
Some armchair quarterbacks are confused that ERC and MRFC are two separate project systems. They can stand alone OR can be combined for great synergy.
MRFC gets NO anode fouling from non-CO2 feed stocks. And that situation is being developed using Hydrazine, etc. as you pointed out frequently here.
CO2 related feed stocks have a little anode fouling which is being greatly improved upon by MVTG/consultants/Dr. Gyenge R&D.
The type of process used is also relevant. Manufacturing related processes usually run 24/7 and thus generate more potential for pollution than intermittent processes. The current design of MRFC is functional for MVTG's clients who are working to collaborate with $. Improvements will make it just that much more profitable for all.
Our armchair quarterbacks seem to create a mountain our of a molehill. ERC and MRFC both work. Seems some want guarantees of a Tesla level version from day one.
Do you think it is logical, like here, for me to call the local police chief and ask him to put all the traffic lights on green before I start out to drive?
Hmmm...
I appreciate the follow-up. I hope reviewers of my attempt at an answer will not make the mistake of comparing apples and oranges in duty cycles, tests, etc.
Elod Gyenge, in the article, seemed to indicate that all fuel cells to date had anode poisoning issues. I guess that includes Ballards and Plug ?
I am not sure I would favor an inefficient costly fuel cell no matter how long it is purported to run. Would you or vendors with a profit motive ?
That 2010 experiment was just a test, not a statement of equipment time durability. Perhaps we can find a more recent figure for duty cycle results. :)
Thank you for reposting the MRFC article link. Much has happened in R&D since 2010.
Since ERC is not mentioned specifically in this article, it is understood that Dr. Elod Gyenge’s remarks apply only to the Mixed Reactant Fuel Cell (MRFC)
[Swiss Roll Design/Dr. Oloman design] unless there are bona-fide articles elsewhere. This has been a little confusing in IHUB posts and hope it will be clearer here. DBFC is the general category of this new fuel cell type of which MRFC is one subset.
1. Dr. Gyenge confirmed that the MRFC of MVTG had significant cost improvements and efficiencies over other fuel cell types. This included the expensive membranes, bipolar plates and platinum anode catalysts.
2. Dr. Gyenge stated that there was a problem (challenge) with carbon monoxide poisoning of the anode catalyst which was “NOT ENTIRELY resolved” by others over 40 years. This also means that this situation was partly or mostly resolved. Nothing said it could not be resolved now.
3. Dr. Gyenge also stated that he and others are continuing to work on a much improved design that uses much less expensive/more efficient anodes. This area in conjunction with others as a total package “looks very promising” according to the article.
4. Previous PR’s, NR’s etc. have indicated that intensive R&D is continuing to be done by the professional MVTG research staff to improve, among other areas, this anode catalyst challenge of longevity, efficiency, cost, etc. In other words, move from a model T of several years ago to a Tesla. With Dr. Cyenge and others, this seems possible.
5. The MRFC is built modular, not as molded plastic single unit. Therefore, as a part may become unusable or be super-ceded by an improved version, it is fairly simple and inexpensive to replace it. The anode catalyst is one of these modular parts. A parallel example is a hot water heater with its replaceable anode. Non-platinum anodes for MRFC are much less expensive, thus becoming an operational supply item like other production machines have. I worked at the KC Bayer Agricultural Chemical Plant (Financial Analysis/Auditing/Costing some years ago and know that some of its operations had the same type of replaceable parts which were insignificant to the total cost of the equipment plant built or installed.
6. I recall that MVTG did an ROI study based on the current design of MRFC (no further anode improvements) with about a 20% annual return. If someone can supply the text or link, that would be appreciated. More improvements would increase the ROI.
7. The current non-plantinum anodes are projected to last about six months. R&D is working to significantly extend or resolve that time. (My own DD)
8. Thus EcoMike was correct. The anode situation is not a problem, durability or otherwise, just one of many items being improved upon as tests, engineering, R&D, etc. will shed light on. Whatever the current version of MRFC does in terms of efficiency or cost, one must compare that to the cost of no solution, very inefficient/expensive fuel cells (non-MRFC) or CCS. The alternatives are not pretty. Having seen the design, efficiencies, cost, etc.,… LaFarge, Alstom, Kemira, Noram and Government grants have voted with $ that this project worthy of ongoing investment as a part of their future. I trust their “hands-on” viewpoint vs others ideas.
There is little one can conclude from the tight buys and sells that have occurred here over the past months. Behind the scenes detail and purpose is not visible to us non-MM's. That shorts exist and have been more active lately as we get closer to planned announcements is an obvious fact from OTC reports. Therefore, a non-issue.
As proprietary information developed in past labs, research, collaboration with Kemira, Lafarge, Alstom, our contractors, contract researchers and Governments through grant applications, etc., I would never expect MVTG to make public every detail of their progress and mechanics. Substantive delays to operational benchmarks due to known serious challenges are required disclosures (in general terms) for 10-Q's, etc. I find none to date so far. Has anyone else so found?
By the rules of logic and philosophy, absence of an answer to a question posed by a person neither creates a problem nor proves a
point. Only substantive information or valid in full context facts can be acceptable in determining the correctness.
Like so many questions asked and subsequently answered favorably here in the past, we non-experts do not have the full understanding of the context of statements made by others, such as on poisoning of the anode. HQ knows I am sure. As a non-expert, if I give an response to this question, who would accept it without full authoritative references? The answer will come in its own time like all the others. Certainly MVTG's clients and collaborators want operational efficiency and durability more than anyone else... and thus would have addressed such known issues long ago. To say otherwise is like saying we know more than they do will all their professional staff.
No thanks.
Instead of speculation, guessing, etc. most of us here seem to prefer intelligent DD, observation, calling key people, researching, past track records analysis, communication with direct links of decision makers, etc.
I talked with HQ several days ago, as a matter of courtesy, to try and get and answer to one of your questions. Someone else here called first and answered it better than I could have.
I like the long term investor/posters we have here... they try to help.
PS: I have posted and read on other boards for other stocks in the past decade and never experienced the same integrity or openness.
Best to You...
So no comment favorable from Mr Down x% ? :)
Could you tell us what top management people you spoke too, when, and what questions were asked along with a complete dialogue of the conversation?
Your posts sure expect MVTG to tell every move they make in Encyclopedic detail. Their PR fulfilled SEC regulations for a proprietary operation.
If there is that much skepticism on every step, then perhaps Google is a better investment for some...
Just saying...