Rank Speculation
So, why is the "battery deal" taking so long?
Here's my rankly speculative surmise.
Q: Which world wide automotive company was in a position to know more about ECD's advanced electrode and NiMH science than any other?
A: GM
+++++++++
Q: What is the presumed heart and soul of the ORFC?
A: Advanced metal hydride technology in electrodes and an electrochemistry in many ways common to NiMH batteries.
+++++++++
Q: Do you recall a mention about 6 - 8 months ago by GM that had a fuel cell operating at 60% efficiency? (I have searched all of my resources and can't find the link. If you have it, please send to me) Also recall the 60% efficiency figure given for the ORFC in slide #32 of the JMS slideshow (downloadable at www.enerinfo.homestead.com). And, recall that that slide has "disappeared" from the slideshow on the JMS site proper. In other words, there is no chance that a casual search on the web would turn up both ECD and GM with any numbers approaching 60% for a non SOFC.
+++++++++
Q: Assuming that a somewhat parallel developmental path was undertaken by GM, which company is most apt to have the controlling IP for a high efficiency, non-PEM, non-SOFC suitable for automotive FC?
A: ECD
+++++++++
So, my conjecture is that the "battery deal" took (and I use the past tense here rather presumptively)this long because it involves much more than a simple buyout of GM's interest in Ovonic battery.
And, my answers to follow-up questions from DW with typos corrected.
messages.yahoo.com
DW,
RE: Your notes, as below "DW".
DW "Also, the #32 slide of the ORFC compared to the GM fuel cell was removed soon after your CC question to Bob Stempel. The reason for its removable was obviously due to the threat from the new FD rules."
JR: I'm not sure that I'd agree that was the obvious reason. It was publically available to a global audience well after the passage of Rule FD and remains so.
DW "Are you implying that GM might be using patented technology from ECD and would need a licensing agreement to use it in their fuel cell development or possibly something even more complicated than this."
JR: I would only posit that the best technology will prevail as to FC's as I've earlier said. Those characteristics would logically entail what has been publically claimed for the ORFC in documentation subject to SEC scrutiny. To the extent that no other cell embodies those stated characteristics, and given ECD's expertise in advanced electrodes, and my belief that a "cross pollenation" between NiMH electrochemistry that of the ORFC exists, I'd wager that ECD has the controlling IP.
DW "I remember reading in "The Car That Could" Bob Stempel saying that all new technologies developed from the GM/Ovonic JV will belong to Ovonic and not GM".
JR: That matches my recollection as well but I don't have the specific cite and rely more on my surmise in my preceeding paragraph.
DW: "Could GM be claiming that it belongs to them as well?"
JR: I'd wager another 6 pack of Root Beer that isn't the case. (With that wager I'm tapped out on wagering.)
DW: "Often when a company sells a business that would make it a customer of that business it puts in the sales agreement a special arrangement for its purchase of these products in the future. Might this be a sticking point, because Ovonic can't be seen to put other automakers at any disavantage to GM."
JR: In this case I think it would be entirely logical to presume that GM would receive "Most Favored Nations" treatment, basically an agreement that their access to the technology is never more costly than the lowest price made available to a third party within the same scope of license.
DW: "Also, some parts of the outcome of the recent Ovonic lawsuit, would be very important in determining whether GM does business with the new JV."
JR: To the extent that one believes that the Defendants might prevail and be able to offer a battery with more favorable performance and economics that may be true. However, I think there's a much Bigger Apple to be bitten at here than batteries alone.
DW: "Also, the automakers have stated in the past that they won't even consider doing business with a single source OEM supplier."
JR: My surmise is that the result would be more analogous to the BLDP JV's and better in the end, as there would be at least two OEM's, one licensed (GM) and one an owner Texaco Ovonic FC.
DW "Might buying batteries from Ovonic for HEVs fall into this category?"
JR: I don't think so. I think that HEV batteries will be manufactured using ECD's evolving technology by Sanyo, Texaco Ovonic Battery and other reputable licensees as well.
JR |
