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.
Someone asked if it was possible that that something material happened in the last few months that MVTG couldn't disclose could delay the financials and they were told no. I was simply pointing out it was possible because it is. However unlikely it could be possible something happened in the last week or two that wouldn't have to be 8kd yet that the auditors could want disclosed as a subsequent event. I would doubt that was the case though. Just correcting misinformation on how the audited financials process works.
I'm saying if Mantra did something significant like sold to Alstom, sold off a portion of the business, raised capital through an offering, etc after the end of the fiscal year but before their auditors signed off on their financials that it's inclusion in the subsequent events section of the financials is not optional or a way to save money. It's how audits work.
I'm saying that if a material event happened after the close of the fiscal year but prior to the sign off of the audited financial statements it would be disclosed in the subsequent events section of the financial statements. The idea that this section is optional or the choice of the company is not accurate. Is it possible that something significant happens and a company hides it from their auditors or simply chooses not to disclose it? Yes. Is it possible that an auditing firm is aware of such a material event and doesn't include it in this section simply because it occurred after the end of the fiscal year? Not really.
Again not accurate. I'm literally an accountant professionally.
Again wrong...listed in subsequent events section is all material events that occurred between year end and sign off of financials. This section last year had events detailed through late August I believe.
This is not actually accurate. Anything substantial up until the actual date the auditing firm signs off that occurs at a company has to be disclosed in the subsequent events.
Not saying this is the case at all but if something significant at Mantra happened this week it could hold up the financials if it really can't be disclosed publicly.
The confusing part to me is they did file the NT 10-K and said it would be filed within 15 days. They didn't have to do that.
Can't be anywhere near this stage considering they haven't even done the pilot yet and the full scale reactor would need to be significantly larger than the pilot. No company is comitting $50 million to build a full scale CCU plant when there isn't even pilot data to work from.
Was much appreciated by many I am sure. Here's to hoping we hear something official from the company and get to see it in an industrial setting soon.
I think he's probably operating under the assumption that this was not the comprehensive ERC update Larry described in January given that it's about two lines and makes allusion to another update shortly. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
It's been asserted here the 4000 cm2 on the far right is the scaled up ERC. One of the board members took this at the Marcum conference last weekend. Nothing official from the company out there publicly on this though.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114295820
Also in response your earlier question there were two conferences in the past few weeks. The conference where the MRFC video was released was just a conference for micro cap companies.
No trust me I do understand all of this. I don't mean to downplay the significant steps forward from the last video where we were merely lighting a small light in a lab.
My point really is just that the fuel cell itself in it's current form doesn't seem like it's license ready where a company could merely produce it at MVTGs spec and implement it commercially. We still don't know how long it will be until we reach that point with either tech. It's for that reason I shy away from any valuation that says the company is currently worth 9 figures. I believe we have to reach that point before any companies going to plop down serious cash to license.
I agree, certainly lot of upside potential here or else I'd be selling into the run up here or into any of the others that have happened since I started buying around .025 in 2011. Just thought the board could benefit from the conversation. We are still a relatively revenue less company with negative book assets and an obvious need to raise capital or wait for other sources of funding. Potential can only push the valuation so far.
Certainly don't have buyers remorse, every lot I own is between +50% and +800%. Just curious what exactly I've said you so vehemently disagree with? That a $100-$200 million valuation is unrealistic at this point and shareholders should temper that expectation or that consistently putting out time lines and missing them is bad form? That's essentially all I've said.
Sorry meant to say ERC....
I don't necessarily agree with you but it's more of a philosophical difference (regarding losing $). No one ever lost money by selling, only missed out on potential gains.
My irritation is really with the fact that the apparent strategy with MVTG seems to be over promise and under deliver when it comes to time tables and shareholder updates. They have pretty consistently missed every time table they've laid out for ERC deployment and were well behind the original schedule on the MRFC. That's frustrating to me because the company created those expectations of their own free will and then consistently fails to meet them. It's not an unreasonable to thing for a shareholder to expect that if the company says they will do something by x date, then when that date comes and goes they expect an update. It is our money that the company is safe guarding after all.
The fact of the matter is no one is putting a sustainable $100 - $200 million valuation ($1 to $2/share because we have to assume we'll be diluted at least to the 100 million share range) on MVTG with no revenues, let alone with no marketable product and really no hard proof of a scaled up industrial process ready to go. As someone whose spent the last decade working for and around hedge funds I feel pretty confident in that statement. It was nice to see them finally complete one of the two pilots in the MRFC but if anyone thinks a 300 watt output and a few hundred meters of range is close to a competitive product they are fooling themself. Competing electric ebikes run in the 500-750 watt range and have ranges running into the tens of miles.
MVTG is at a critical point here where it needs to start showing it can take these great scientific processes and ideads and make something salable out of it. I'm still hopeful my 4 years of faith pays off.
Serious question for the other long term board people here, what exactly has happened with the ERC pilot? We've gone from construction completion EOY 2014 and commission 1st Qtr 2015 (as of last June) to exploring options for deployment but engineering complete (in February) to nary a peep on the project in the 3-4 months since? Didn't the company lay out something like several hundred thousand dollars to half a million dollars (going off memory here) at some point last year to pre-pay for a large portion of the work? It worries me a little that we've got nothing to show for it at this point other than a partially complete million dollar pilot or a complete pilot collecting dust.
Was two points really. It sounds like we're looking for points to nit pick here for lack of something better to complain about and listing the "omission" of company names from a PR as definitive proof of the lack of a relationship.
1. It's painfully clear based on quite an extended history now that for one reason or another Mantra is either unwilling or unable to list Alstom by name in press releases. Especially given they weren't even able to name them in the PR ABOUT the deal with Alstom. There's zero reason to believe suddenly the omission now is a smoking gun given that it's ALWAYS been omitted.
2. There's a 0% chance Mantra would be able to issue a PR referencing other companies without first passing the PR by the other firm and through legal. Any major firm, particularly those that fall under SEC purview, have strict guidelines for use of the firm name in the public domain. My firm is such a firm and as an example employees aren't even allowed to imply an affiliation with or mention by name the firm on any social media platform other thank LinkedIn. LinkedIn is only allowed because it's monitored by compliance. The idea that Mantra could just mention Alstom or Lafarge by name if they wanted to without their consent is insane. This is being talked about as if Mantra could simply done it if they want to but chose not to.
When has Mantra ever mentioned either Lafarge or Alstom in a PR by name? I could be wrong but I don't think they have ever named Alstom in one, not even the PR specifically about the deal with Alstom. I believe they were just referenced as a "global energy leader". It was only known that it was Alstom because they were listed in a highly redacted SEC filing of the contract. It's funny people think Mantra is free to name drop either company whenever they want in a PR.
What we do know is both companies are still listed on the corporate site as partners, Lafarge is still listed as the host of the ERC and the CEO said in a PR just 4 weeks ago that continued revenues from their relationships with several large multinational corporate partners will continue to fund R&D. I'm not sure how much clearer or more recent it needs to be.
There's a veiled ERC update right there in black and white in the 10-Q unless I'm grossly mistaken. You just have to look for it a bit.
"For the three months ended November 30, 2014, we generated $22,566 in revenue compared to revenue of $148,404 generated during the same period in 2013. This is a result of the ending of Phase 2 of the alternative products project, our sole source of revenue, which occurred in September 2014. We anticipate that Phase 3 will begin in January 2015."
Go re-read the agreement with Alstom on file with the SEC. Phase 3 is the evaluation and design of a scale up from pilot plant to full size commercial plant including CAPEX, OPEX and end unit costs. This phase inherently requires a completed pilot plant for it to begin from my understanding. So either the pilot plant is completed or the company just filed a report with the SEC that is flat out false as they couldn't possibly expect phase 3 to be starting any day now if there was no pilot plant. It's done and we'll be hearing about it any day. Anyone else read something different from this?
Interesting press release up on the app particularly the last section.
I'd have to dig it up but the official agreement filed with Alstom gives Alstom exclusive rights to licensing any technology that comes about as a result of their collaboration with MVTG. Don't believe it applies to the actual technology itself though.
Late October. 10/22, 10/24 and 10/21 the last 3 years.
Next filing will be the annual report....believe it was filed in early September last year (around the 7th).
Funny this question should be asked this morning....
Mantra Announces US Patent for Fuel Cell
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Jul 8, 2014) - Mantra Venture Group Ltd. (OTCQB:MVTG) and its subsidiary, Mantra Energy Alternatives, have announced the granting of the US patent for its Mixed-Reactant Fuel Cell (MRFC) technology. US Patent No. 8,709,680 B2, titled "Mixed Reactant Flow-By Fuel Cell", is the second issued for the MRFC, the first being the British patent GB 2474202 (2012). Mantra owns the exclusive worldwide license for this technology, which has been patented by its owner, Professor Emeritus Colin Oloman, a key member of the company's Scientific Advisory Board.
The MRFC is an unconventional fuel cell that promises to simplify and reduce the costs of fuel cell systems. Because it uses a mixture of fuel and oxidant, the expensive, failure-prone membrane can be eliminated and the balance of the system correspondingly simplified, offering the potential for a smaller, lighter, and cheaper fuel cell. The MRFC additionally uses liquid fuels, thereby avoiding the myriad difficulties associated with the storage and distribution of gaseous hydrogen.
The awarded patent covers several liquid fuels and various cell configurations such as the novel Swiss-roll architecture. The fuels covered include formic acid and its salts, products that can be derived through the conversion of the global warming agent carbon dioxide by Mantra's other process, ERC. The integration of these two technologies represents a unique opportunity in the field of energy storage, a rapidly growing market that is recognized as the key to renewable energy technologies.
"The granting of a US patent is a verification of the novelty and uniqueness of the MRFC," said Mantra's CEO Larry Kristof. "This news comes at the perfect time for Mantra, as we are currently accelerating our development work toward a demonstration of the technology."
Part of this acceleration includes the addition of Piotr Forysinski (Ph.D.) to the Mantra team as Product Development Engineer for the fuel cell. Dr. Forysinski, who obtained his Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from UBC and his MChem from Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland, brings to Mantra an impressive breadth of engineering experience. This includes the construction and commissioning of a custom molecular beam epitaxy system and a 30 mK scanning tunneling microscope, and the design, construction and operation of a novel mass spectrometer with a tune-able XUV laser light source and custom-built ion optics. For the latter project, Dr. Forysinski, then a graduate student, lead the team in the technical design and construction of the apparatus.
"We are extremely excited about the addition of Dr. Forysinski to the Mantra team," said VP of Corporate Development Patrick Dodd. "He has a truly unique set of skills and has already shown his ability by contributing to the reactor design."
About Mantra Venture Group
Mantra Venture Group Ltd. (OTCQB:MVTG) is a clean technology incubator that takes innovative emerging technologies and moves them towards commercialization. The Company, through its subsidiary Mantra Energy Alternatives, is currently developing two groundbreaking electrochemical technologies designed to make reducing greenhouse gas emissions profitable, ERC (Electro-Reduction of Carbon Dioxide) and MRFC (Mixed-Reactant Fuel Cell).
ERCis a form of "carbon capture and utilization" (CCU) that converts the polluting greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into useful, valuable products including formic acid and formate salts. By utilizing clean electricity, the process offers the potential for an industrial plant to reduce emissions while generating a salable product and a profit.
The MRFC is an unconventional fuel cell that uses a mixture of fuel and oxidant, thereby greatly reducing the complexity and cost of the fuel cell system. Ideal for portable applications, the MRFC is cheaper, lighter, and more compact than conventional fuel cell technologies.
Follow Mantra on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/mantraenergy
For more information go to: http://www.mantraventuregroup.com
Forward-looking statements: Except for the historical information contained herein, the matters discussed in this press release are forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements and are subject to risks and uncertainties. See Mantra Venture Group's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which identify specific factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements.
Mantra Venture Group Ltd.
John Williams
Investor Relations
(604) 495-1766 (Canada)
(502) 214-5932 (USA)
mantraenergy@aberdeencap.com
Mantra Venture Group Ltd.
Company Contact
(604) 560-1503
info@mantraenergy.com
www.mantraventuregroup.com
Like I said all the PP's through early April have been disclosed already. There may have been a couple since then but it stands to reason the bulk of the cash came from the potential warrant exercises someone just listed out.
No that's hardly the type of news that's going to push the stock price. But anyone whose been following this one closely knows that securing financing was a critical step in the company making significant progress in getting these technologies to market. The fact that the company could do it at current levels and not sub .10 levels was a big win for current share holders.
Couldn't agree more. If anything I view it as a rather positive sign that in relatively short order Mantra was able to secure that kind of private money. There's no doubt that the type of people investing that type of money are taking an up close and personal look at MVTG and they obviously liked what they saw.
I would probably guess in the .20-.25 range also. Most recent private offernig we know of (late March) was 685,000 shares @ $0.20 and 685,000 warrants exercisable @ $0.40 once the stock trades above $0.80 for so many days.
This amount of dilution is reasonable in my eyes and has been something the company has been more than upfront about in all of its quarterly filings.
Particulars for a chunk of it are already available if you want to actually do some looking.
News out!!!
Obviously this means some dilution but this is a big step, this means they have enough cash on hand to complete the pilot and fund the vehicle prototype. Given market prices the last two months $1.7 million shouldn't mean the dilution is that significant.
Mantra Announces Successful Capital Raise
BURNABY, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Apr 29, 2014) - Mantra Venture Group (OTCQB:MVTG) and its subsidiary, Mantra Energy Alternatives, have announced a successful round of raising capital. Through private placements and the exercising of warrants during a targeted campaign over the past two months, Mantra has raised approximately $1.7 million USD.
"We are very pleased with this round of capital raising, and are expecting to continue to be successful on this front in the coming months," said Mantra CEO Larry Kristof. "This funding will allow us to move forward with the activities that will propel Mantra to the next level."
The capital raised will be used to support Mantra's research and business development activities, broaden Mantra's patent portfolio, and settle outstanding debts. Activities that have already been initiated include the final design and construction of Mantra's ERC pilot plant, the development of a prototype MRFC fuel cell for transportation applications, and the filing of several patent applications based on novel research performed over the past year.
About Mantra Venture Group
Mantra Venture Group Ltd. (OTCQB:MVTG) is a clean technology incubator that takes innovative emerging technologies and moves them towards commercialization. The Company, through its subsidiary Mantra Energy Alternatives, is currently developing two groundbreaking electrochemical technologies designed to make reducing greenhouse gas emissions profitable, ERC (Electro-Reduction of Carbon Dioxide) and MRFC (Mixed-Reactant Fuel Cell).
ERCis a form of "carbon capture and utilization" (CCU) that converts the polluting greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into useful, valuable products including formic acid and formate salts. By utilizing clean electricity, the process offers the potential for an industrial plant to reduce emissions while generating a salable product and a profit.
The MRFC is an unconventional fuel cell that uses a mixture of fuel and oxidant, thereby greatly reducing the complexity and cost of the fuel cell system. Ideal for portable applications, the MRFC is cheaper, lighter, and more compact than conventional fuel cell technologies.
Follow Mantra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mantraenergy
For more information go to: http://www.mantraventuregroup.com
Forward-looking statements: Except for the historical information contained herein, the matters discussed in this press release are forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements and are subject to risks and uncertainties. See Mantra Venture Group's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which identify specific factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements.
Pretty standard for MVTG. They always file one of these and then file the quarterly about a week to 10 days late. It's been that way just about as long as I can remember and I've been here for years.
I'd say someone took a sledge to it instead of slapping it. Someone bought $10,000 worth in the last few minutes in two big buys.
Except none of those form 4's appear to be for actual buys of the stock, it's all stock dividends and quarterly share compensation to the directors. Don't think anyone of them are actual buys for cash.
Think you're a few weeks heavy actually, 6 months being 26 weeks not 24. Mid September it looks like! I'd certainly be ok with October 1st though.
Very positive, pilot officially under way, big chunk paid for and expected to be completed by mid September it sounds like.
"Further to recycling and processing CO2, Mantra NextGen Power owns the patent rights to a ground-breaking fuel cell that uses formic acid as its feedstock. ERC and fuel cells can be connected in closed loop system on industrial emissions sites to add even further efficiency to the base industrial processes, whether it be cement production, coal power production, steel production or petroleum refineries."
Noticed this blurb on the Mantra Linked In page. I would think Mantra would want to show this in the pilot plant if at all possible. Seems like this may not have been a typo by the author.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/mantra-venture-group?trk=prof-following-company-logo
"By utilizing clean electricity, the process offers the potential for an industrial plant to reduce emissions while generating a new product."
That's the preceding line to what you quoted. Perhaps they are going to use the MRFC as this clean electricity source? I would think that would be a huge deal though, essentially using the pilot to demonstrate the effectiveness of both techs. Anyone else know anything here?
As the deal is now official I'd expect it to be made public at some point here and perhaps we'll get some additional info.
Warrants exercised = cash directly to the company right? Just curious since cash has historically been a pain point for the company.
Seems it has some already, just popped from .60 to .65 on only about a 10k order.
Honda and Toyota already have fuel cell vehicles. There's a giant american car company that already has a working relationship with Google. It's the company whose name starts with "F" and has been ahead of the rest of the US auto makers on fuel efficiency. If that meeting with Google was legit and productive (sorry just hard to take random nibbles on an internet message board even from Mike) it very well could be driving this?