I posted this on the How to Find Big Stocks Board
Potential BIG stock. I hope you'll take a deeper look into this company and what they are doing
EIPC .0089 – Enable IPC
Share Structure
Market Value1 $1,836,604
Shares Outstanding 223,976,139
Float 87,165,488
Authorized Shares 250,000,000
Par Value No Par Value
The “IPC” in Enable IPC Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Company” or “Enable IPC”) stands for “Intellectual Property Commercialization” – as such, our business model is to acquire, develop and sell technologies for commercial use.
The Company’s principal revenues are from licensing fees for its technologies and products.
In November 2008, we entered into an Exclusive License Agreement with the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (the licensing arm of the University of Wisconsin) which allowed us to eventually commercialize and sell a nanoparticle-based technology that improves the performance of certain ultracapacitor electrodes.
In October 2008 we acquired a controlling interest in SolRayo, a Wisconsin-based company that was founded and operated by one of the inventors of the nanoparticle technology.
Also in October 2008, SolRayo was awarded a $250,000 grant from the State of Wisconsin’s Energy Independence Fund for the purpose of developing and commercializing the Company’s nanoparticle technology for use in an ultracapacitor that could possibly be used for renewable energy storage. As part of this, the Company developed and built a potentiostat system, which measures the voltages and performance of energy devices (e.g., batteries, capacitors, fuel cells, solar cells, etc.).
During July 2010 we commenced work on a grant for $149,935 from the National Science Foundation to conduct a proof-of-concept on using certain nanoparticles deposited onto certain lithium-ion battery cathodes to prevent capacity fade in high heat (i.e., 85°F+) applications. The project, awarded under the NSF’s Phase I Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR program), was awarded after a competitive review. According to the NSF, only 10% of the proposers were granted awards.
In August 2010, the Company announced an agreement with a major manufacturer of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags and readers to provide ultracapacitor-based products to improve the range in which the tags can be read. This led to the development of a unique and novel RFID tag product line which was launched in June 2011. The tags, named the S/Cap RFID Tag® product line, are manufactured by another company utilizing our design, and sold under agreements by existing RFID distributors and integrators. As a result, the Company receives license fees, royalties on sales and shares in the profits.
During January 2012 we entered into an agreement with Chinese/American firm for the exclusive distribution and sale of our S/Cap RFID Tags® in China, Hong Kong and Macau. As a result, we began receiving revenues from work done under this agreement in the form of license fees and sales.
Our quarter ended March 31, 2012 was our first profitable quarter, although we recorded a net loss for the entire fiscal year.
Upon the completion of our Phase I STTR award from the NSF, we submitted a Phase II proposal to fully
commercialize the process for $499,998 over a two year period. During March 2012, we were notified that the NSF had awarded us the grant. According to the NSF, only 3% of the original Phase I proposers are awarded Phase II grants.
During April 2012 we began work on the Phase II STTR award from NSF. The work is being overseen by Dr. Walter Zeltner, our Director of Battery R&D and is being conducted at our SolRayo facility in Madison, WI. The work is scheduled to continue through March 2014.
In addition, the Company entered into an agreement with William Frick & Co., granting the RFID systems and sales company the exclusive rights to sell the Company’s S/Cap RFID Tag® product line in North, South and Central America.
During September 2012, we received a supplemental award from the NSF for $16,000, to allow the opportunity for community college students to gain experience by helping with the Phase II STTR program.
To date, we have commenced business operations and have realized some income. We have funded our operations through this income, private placements of equity and loans and contributions from our founders. We have incurred a net loss from operations from inception through March 31, 2013 of $4,472,444. The Company believes that greater revenues and net profits are ahead as it continues to receive license, royalty and other revenues from its commercialized products.
Enable IPC is currently a profitable company. As of now they have 2 revenue streams . RFID sales and grants from the NSF for their Lithium Ion nano particle coatings.
The RFID sales are generating a little under $1 million per year with 65% margins. Currently SG&A are about $400,000 annually.
BIG STOCK POTENTIAL
Here’s where things get interesting. Enable is currently working under a Phase 2 NSF grant for their nanoparticle coating for Lithium batteries. This was a $500K award that runs through March 2014.
The NSF program is for companies to commercialize technologies and generate revenues.
The details of this research from Enable website blog:
The most popular rechargeable batteries in the world today are lithium ion. In 2007, the independent market research company Frost & Sullivan predicted revenues from these batteries would amount to $10.4 billion worldwide by 2012. A new report released in 2013 from the same company stated that the actual number was even higher: $11.7 billion. In addition, this report predicts that sales of lithium ion batteries will double by 2016.
The primary cathode material used in lithium ion batteries is lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2 – to make this easier, we’ll call these “cobalt”), which is popular because of its high energy density (i.e., the amount of energy stored) by both weight and volume. However, this material has some safety concerns, and is expensive.
Other cathode materials are available, most notably lithium manganese oxide (LiMn2O4 – again, to make it easy, let’s call this “manganese”). Although cell voltages and energy performance is slightly less than the cobalt cathodes, the manganese version has a similarly low recharge time and favorably compares to cobalt in terms of specific energy and cost.
Comparing LiCoO2 with LiMn2O4 cathodes
without our nanoparticle coating; adding
our coating improves cycle life.
In fact, in terms of material costs, reports have stated that the cobalt based cathode material costs an average of about $30 to $35/kg, while the manganese version was significantly less, at anywhere between $2 to $15/kg, depending on what study one believes.[ii] And, major thermal stability studies have shown that the manganese cathode is much less prone to thermal runaway issues suffered by the cobalt cathode, which makes cobalt cathodes less safe.[iii]
So, manganese cathodes are a much safer and less expensive alternative to cobalt.
The main reason manganese cathodes are not more widely used has to do with more pronounced “capacity fade” (especially at higher temperatures) than cobalt. This is a decrease in the energy content of the battery, especially after repeated charging and discharging (capacity fade is seen by the consumer when a battery can no longer power a laptop on an entire cross country flight or when a cell phone battery drains more quickly than it used to).
Were it not for capacity fade, the manganese cathode might well be the chemistry of choice for lithium ion cells. Consider what others have stated about manganese (LiMn2O4):
• In a white paper, General Electronics Battery Co., Ltd., stated: “The chemistry of lithium manganese oxide LiMn2O4 is not a good option . . . because of its poor cycle life, especially at elevated temperature.”[iv]
• S.C. Park, et al, stated: “In order to use LiMn2O4 [i.e., what we called “manganese”] as a cathode material of lithium-secondary battery for an electric vehicle (EV), its rate capability should be improved.”[v]
• And, Schwartz summed up the main reason LiMn2O4 is not widely used as a cathode, despite greater safety and lower cost: “LiMn2O4that has been investigated extensively over the years has been plagued by severe capacity fade, particularly at elevated temperatures.”[vi]
Our subsidiary, SolRayo, has found a solution to the capacity fade issue. Using nanoparticles, deposited onto manganese cathodes in specific ways, we have seen a significant improvement in cycle life.
From their website section on the nano coating Lithium batteries
This Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Phase II project seeks to increase the cycle life of cathode materials used in lithium-ion batteries in high-temperature applications by applying protective nanoporous ceramic coatings. SolRayo will investigate the effects that changing several variables that control the nanoporous structure of ceramic coatings have on the cycle life of cathode materials. Such variables include the amount or thickness of the coating, the pH of the suspension of the coating material, the deposition of layers of different ceramic materials on the cathodes, and different methods for depositing the coatings on the cathodes.
The materials to be investigated will include TiO2, ZrO2 and others proposed by our industrial partner.
The broader impacts of this research are that, if successful, this project will improve the cycle life of lithium-ion batteries and allow inherently safer and less expensive materials to be employed. Although lithium-ion batteries have gained wide acceptance in consumer electronic products, their use in other markets has been limited by heir lifetimes and safety concerns, particularly in applications at higher temperatures. Improving the lifetime and safety of the materials used in these batteries will enhance their market penetration. Preliminary cost estimates indicate that licensing the coated materials to industry could provide approximately $100 million annually in royalties on sales. This work will also benefit the nation by improving our understanding of nanoparticle coating techniques suitable for a variety of energy storage applications.
Another major research area is ultracapacitors
Generation 4: EDL Ultracapacitor with Nanoparticle Coating
The UW/SolRayo/Enable IPC ultracapacitor is a fourth generation system, combining EDL and an insulating oxide on top of the carbon. We have some EDL capacity developed because of the porous carbon supports as well as the potential that is developed on the insulating oxide. The difference here is that most of our charge is stored by the insulating film of nanoparticulate insulating oxides. Here the charge on the oxide is developed by a potential determining ion, such as the proton.
The insulating oxide consists of nanoparticles suspended in a solution (see figure 3). We apply the solution to an uncoated carbon sheet (see figures 4 and 5). The results have been very impressive. When we have applied the solution, we have seen the capacitance of the carbon material increase by 60% to over 400%, depending on the material.
Ultracapacitor Products
There are three basic market areas where ultracapacitors are used: consumer electronics, industrial applications and transportation.
Consumer electronics. Applications in the consumer electronics area include:
o household appliances
o computers
o cellular phones with added features
o and many others.
Industrial. Applications in this area include:
o power supplies
o energy (including renewables)
o industrial automation equipment
o to name a few
Transportation. Applications in transportation include:
o hybrid automobiles
o aircraft door actuators
o rail systems
o and more
Will ultracapacitors replace batteries?
Batteries utilize a chemical reaction to create power. Ultracapacitors do not do this; they simply store electricity and have the ability to charge and discharge very quickly. In many applications, where charging can come from another source, they possibly could replace batteries. But, unless there are some leaps in technology, they would not replace batteries where higher energy densities are required.
The information on this page was supplied by Professor Marc Anderson of the University of Wisconsin - Madison and Kevin Leonard, CTO of Enable IPC's subsidiary, SolRayo. They are co-inventors of Enable IPC's ultracapacitor technology.
The CEO conducted an interview on July 25, 2013 and dropped hints that Enable would be acquiring a technology from a National Lab that could potentially solve many of the issues related to batteries and renewable energy storage. KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR NEWS.
This all ties back to Enable CEO’s blog entry from March 2013 where he states:
The advances we've (i.e., Enable IPC and our subsidiary, SolRayo) seen in our research have been both encouraging and tremendously exciting. The use of inexpensive nanoparticles, combined with some very innovative ways to access and combine the best features of ultracapacitors and advanced batteries are showing that they could very well be a large part of the answer we've all been looking for.
We've been at this for over 8 years, and things seem to be coming together in an exciting way.
Stay tuned -- we are very excited about what the next few months will bring.
Things are finally heating up for EIPC. RFID sales are steady and make the company slightly profitable. But the big plays are the Lithium battery nano coating and the ultracapacitor renewable energy storage technology that has the CEO very excited about the future.
If the nano coating proves out and industry adopts the technology (no reason not too if it works…it’ll be much cheaper and safer) and EIPC hits only $20 million in sales for this it should be a 20-bagger from a penny level. Use 65% margins and $1 million SG&A (both conservative numbers) and divide by 224 million OS. That’ll generate .05 EPS. So .20+ would be easily attained.
The CEO is shooting for MUCH bigger numbers. The annual meeting from 2012 he was tossing around several hundred million as a revenue number. IF they are anywhere near that then we could be looking at a 2-300+ bagger.
AI
