Axion Power Concentrator 237: May 16: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2013 [View instapost]
Amouna, especially when shares are being sold at around $.264 (plus warrant coverage) to pay that salary and those of his lieutenants. What we did get was the executive team including their recent bonuses in the investment. You and I might consider this to be a lesser alignment of interests than we would desire, but that is what we have. I'll be the first to admit that if the company makes money for us investors that I'll be much more forgiving. Nevertheless, I consider the company's poor performance in selling and inability to foresee that performance to be the reason for this recent financing. I'll always remember it as the "Granville Round".
Axion Power Concentrator 237: May 16: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2013 [View instapost]
I made some quick tweaks to my cost spreadsheet to reflect electrode production. I came up with $86 as the cost of the electrodes for a 30HT battery. Very rough.
First thing, I would expect that a 30HT might be too large for the application but it does add a degree of conservatism. The other and more important question relates to the cost of the corrosion barrier.
You may recall that I've been using $50 as a conservative assumption for the corrosion barrier ($4/square foot). $50 of a total cost of $86 vs. $50 of a PbC battery that sells for $400 are very different things. While the latter analysis may still provide info, I'm not sure the former provides any useful information for us.
Nevertheless, I'll try to work backwards. If we can say $36 + the separator + overhead (I'll assume 20% of the identified costs) and we are looking for a 40% margin which would be split 50/50 between the two parties and you want to price at $100 then the separator must cost $14. That is $36+$14+10overhead=$60 which yields $20 each for Axion and the partner.
If $14 doesn't seem like a practical number for the separator then I think it gets clear that $100 won't work for an electrode.
BTW, the other moving part is the margin. If 25% margin is about right for an AGM company, I think 40% margin is very reasonable for a unique electrode that is highly differentiated. Given the way Mr. Granville has proceeded so far, he might be expecting a higher number, particularly since he'll have to share it. Of course, it can be argued that BMW is a special case and subsequent customers would be priced for higher margins.
My guess is the electrodes would be priced closer to $150. That, plus $97 in other COGS for a large AGM maker plus a 25% margin would work out to a PbC price to BMW of $330. And, that price lets the partner add the 25% markup on top of its share of the markup of the electrodes. Disallow that and your close to $300.
I think either of those prices should be very, very attractive to BMW if they are really serious about getting the PbC in their cars. The AGM partner could live with it. I think after all the pain Axion has gone through, Mr. Granville probably can as well.
On a separate note, I've been a skeptic regarding whether BMW is really serious about the PbC since the regulators aren't stepping up to the plate. However, some factors that might be changing things are the ailing economy in Europe (even BMW owners care about gas mileage to some extent) and especially the change in Japan's economic competitiveness. With Toyota basically owning the fuel efficiency category and the yen plummeting like a rock, you've got to think that BMW should be very worried about Lexus. Maybe BMW is coming to the conclusion that it needs Axion. Stranger things have happened.
Axion Power Concentrator 236: May 15: Axion Power Releases Quarterly Report For The First Quarter 2013 [View instapost]
I agree. It would have been nice to see management, in their new deals, participate in some meaningful way.
While I am encouraged by the progress that is implied in the various statements, it’s clear that it’s all two birds in the bush stuff instead of one bird in hand type stuff. Looking at sales, there was only $268k of specialty/PbC sales in Q1, which is one of the worst quarterly performances of the past several years. Needless to say, we also had zero commercial sales again. BTW, where is the revenue from the Norfolk Southern sale? Weren't we expecting it in Q1?
The "encouraging" statement that the stop/start trucking partner may come to accept the test results for BMW and thus cutting 1/3 of the time out would seem to imply that we're, at the absolute minimum, a year away from completing that testing program. If you have been around Axion at all, you know that's an optimistic guess. Anyway, I found that statement downright depressing.
Going back to the 10x increase in RFP volume from the grid storage side seems to me more useful for those holding ZBB shares than Axion shareholders. I have little hope for sales in that segment but maybe I'm just being a curmudgeon.
I'm looking for more substance from the conference call. I'm past the day when I'll look at some vaguely worded gobbledygook and see a glass half-full. Instead, I read it as if it were written by a deceitful lawyer trying to mislead without actually telling a lie.
Axion Power Concentrator 235: May 12: Axion Power Completes Private Placement For $9 Million And $1 Million [View instapost]
A question about the $150k DOE study.
"In May of 2012, we were awarded a $150,000 Phase I grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to fund a commercialization plan for the use of its PbC batteries in a “low-cost, high-effic iency” dual battery architecture for micro- hybrid vehicles."
Who would use this report? Would it be made public? Would this study be an input for the decision-making of other government agencies like such as those setting fuel economy rules?
Axion Power Concentrator 235: May 12: Axion Power Completes Private Placement For $9 Million And $1 Million [View instapost]
Logically, it would seem that electrode production must be part of a multi-source program. The question is what form that second source of electrodes takes.
A. Axion owns and operates a separate facility that is co-located with the second provider. If Axion has any problem then the second provider gets access to the technology and control of the facility in order to guarantee production.
B. Axion must license the electrode production process and presumably the carbon sheeting process to the manufacturer who will build and own the facility.
We all know that Axion has said they would only agree to something that looks at least in part to a version of A. and would absolutely not agree to B. I think an automotive would ask for B.
One other thing that seems interesting is that the OEM hasn't started to do fleet testing. Doesn't that seem odd?
Axion Power Concentrator 235: May 12: Axion Power Completes Private Placement For $9 Million And $1 Million [View instapost]
By accident, maybe Axion will get a small piece of the energy storage business. However, that isn't Axion's thing. The PbC opportunity is where power has to be moved back and forth frequently and quickly. Bob Averill emphasized that at last summer's meeting. He didn't say it but my impression was that he felt Axion was getting distracted and wasn't sufficiently focused on the best of this type of application.
BTW, I found Mr. Averill to be very approachable and very helpful. He also directly encouraged me (and all of us by extension) to make our views known to management. You can bet I'm going to seek him out at the meeting this summer and ask him some direct questions about Axion's leadership. If he tells me everything is OK, that'll sure make me feel better.
Axion Power Concentrator 235: May 12: Axion Power Completes Private Placement For $9 Million And $1 Million [View instapost]
I won't be able to participate in the conference call due to a scheduling conflict but I would like to quote Tom Granville the apparent unit price from the Norfolk Southern sale and ask him if that reflects Axion's current pricing for a 30HT-sized battery.
Axion Power Concentrator 233: May 5: Axion Power On Panel At Energy Storage Economics 2.0 For New York City And Beyond [View instapost]
Ranma: For whatever it is worth, Mr. Granville said that last time. To be more specific, he said the next raise would not be for operating capital but for expansion capital (ie to increase production capacity to meet orders).
The reason I think Mr. Granville should step down is that he was the right guy to take the company through development, but the company needs a CEO who can lead it through commercialization and I see nothing in his background or his recent progress to indicate that he's that guy.
A rock star would be nice I suppose, but I trust Mr. Averill's track record and judgement to pick the right person, even, I suppose, if it turns out that that person is still Mr. Granville.
Also, for whatever it is worth, psychologically I'm in too deep to sell my shares. I can afford the loss and I hope everyone here is investing money s/he can afford to lose. Yes, I still believe in the technology but the margin of error is shrinking dramatically.
Axion Power Concentrator 233: May 5: Axion Power On Panel At Energy Storage Economics 2.0 For New York City And Beyond [View instapost]
Thanks for doing the math Shaggy. In the end, taking into account the conversion and the low strike price warrants, we're talking $.26-$.27 per share for what I believe will be enough money to last through year-end 2014.
I consider that to be grudgingly acceptable. It clearly shows that Axion was not in a position of strength when conducting this negotiation. Now, I think it's time for Mr. Granville to step down. That'll give his successor the rest of the year to get up to speed for 2014, which I think will be a pivotal year for investors.
Axion Power Concentrator 233: May 5: Axion Power On Panel At Energy Storage Economics 2.0 For New York City And Beyond [View instapost]
I also am having a hard time trying to come up with plausible potential sales for the balance of 2013. Mr. I, I have little hope for powercubes because it seems to me that all the deployments to date have been experiments financed to some extent by the government. I think we're a long way from utilities getting public utility commissions to bundle storage into their cost structures. However, I am surprised that Axion hasn't sold one or two powercubes given that it seems every battery supplier except Axion has made such sales. That would seem to be a sign that the pricing is way off or that Axion isn't plugged into that market at all. It sure seems that Viridity is either ineffective or that relationship has gone south in some way.
I'm still expecting NS to buy the batteries for the over-the-road locomotive some time in 2013. If that sale doesn't take place it would indicate that something is wrong on that front.
As far as I can tell, ePower is our great hope and we're looking at $250,000 in 2013 sales from there. I'm not being facetious in saying that. The application is the only one so far that makes strong economic sense for the buyer of the batteries (no intermediaries, minimal incremental outlay, quick payback, good total return all with little hassle or downside). Now, ePower is a pipsqueak of a company that is a long, long way from making a dent in the market. Still, ePower is showing the way, and I believe it is extremely likely some variant of its solution will be deployed by someone on a large scale and that Axion's batteries will get an important share of that market.
BMW is a completely regulatory-driven opportunity and the needed regulations aren't yet in place and won't be until the technology path is well established. Therefore it is clear that BMW will not be an early adopter of the PbC. Once the PbC has generated about $100m in revenue from other sources, BMW may move forward. In other words, consider it a lottery ticket or a long-term call option on Axion's stock with a strike price of $5.
So, if you squint, potential PbC revenue in 2013 may triple or quadruple over the ~$1m in 2012 revenue but that will make only a minimal dent in the company's $2m/quarter burn rate. It would seem that the financing is a done deal (imagine the lawsuits if it isn't) but it is clear we need more than a year's worth of operating capital.
Many of us are frustrated by Axion's management. To me, what I don't understand is the early investors. If they are in at $2/share say in 2005 and we're at 170m shares outstanding (I'd be thrilled if Axion could raise $20m for 50m shares right now), Axion will still need at least a $500m valuation in two years for them to break-even relative to the opportunity cost of an investment in government bonds (4%).
For Axion to get that valuation, I think the company would need to grow PbC revenue to $25m in 2014 from $3-4m this year with clear visibility to $75m in 2015.
So, to repeat myself, if you are one of the early investors, from your perspective we need a bunch of success from here on out for you to break-even vs. t-bills on your investment. To get 12% annual return with 170m shares outstanding we need a $1b 2015 valuation.
Axion Power International PbC Cost Estimating Spreadsheet [View instapost]
I agree that setting up a simple model for the economics of the various applications would be feasible and helpful. I'll do that as my time and the available information permits.
Axion Power International PbC Cost Estimating Spreadsheet [View instapost]
NJB: Yes, I could add the percentages and breakdowns that you suggest but I'll admit that it's been twenty years since I took cost accounting in B-school and I probably wouldn't get the breakdowns right.
I have made a few minor changes and anticipate making more as we learn more and will on occasion post an updated spreadsheet. I can also add additional tabs with other folks' versions since a big part of my purpose in building the spreadsheet and sharing it was so that others would pick it apart and build upon it.
However, I believe the level of detail I used was the right amount given the information that I have at my disposal. I just don't have that more detailed information you mention. I would also argue that a greater breakdown on AGM battery production and the elements common with PbC is unnecessary since we know that they are common. Sort of like an algebra equation, we can cancel out like terms. That commonality is what enabled me to even attempt this analysis.
I also agree that absolutely, Axion should use cost plus, competitive, and market based methods to identify potential price points and I do agree that maybe I should look at these other methods as well.
I actually think Tom Granville is using competitive pricing. After Vani Dantam was hired, the company seemed to go on the offensive against lithium-ion, pointing out the problems with LI and how the PbC was better. Previously, I think Axion had focused more on comparing the PbC to standard lead-acid and AGM.
Subsequent to the start of that offensive it would seem that coincidentally, Lithium Ion technology has taken a lot of hits, particularly in terms of its safety for use in cars and airplanes. If I'm right about TG's strategy, you'd think these recent events would only serve to increase his confidence that the PbC is superior to Lithium ion and thus should be priced at a premium to LI.
I can understand that approach. I don't agree with it because I think market-based pricing is more appropriate because: A. The applications for which PbC is superior to LI are not yet economically meaningful while the shares TG has to issue to stay alive waiting for these applications to become meaningful are very economically important. B. High price points that suck too much of the economic gain from a given application will greatly slow the evolution of that application. C. Lithium Ion is still the technology that the government has designated as the winning technology. It's going to take a lot more bad publicity related to safety and failed government grants and loans to turn that battleship.
In summary, I think the carbon sheeting break-though should cause TG to change his thinking about pricing. Instead of competitive pricing, he should set low prices for early adopters to create extremely favorable economics in key applications because this will most rapidly create markets for the PbC.
Axion Power Concentrator 232: May 1: Axion Power On Panel At Energy Storage Economics 2.0 For New York City And Beyond [View instapost]
I recently traded in our oldest car to get a second camry hybrid making mine a three hybrid family.
The decision reflected a combination of gas mileage improvement (the Camry Hyrbid has double the mileage of the Hyundai Azera it replaced), much better resale value, (the seven and eighth years on the Hyundai would cost about the same in resale value as the first two years on the brand new Camry Hybrid), and repair cost. Net/net it became clear that the new car made economic sense....and it also made my wife happy.
Axion Power International PbC Cost Estimating Spreadsheet [View instapost]
Matt: Let's discuss at the annual meeting this summer. As far as the direct labor cost, I think the spreadsheet shows the impact of the 95% reduction enabled by the automated carbon sheeting process. If we go with $25/hour as the direct labor hourly cost that lowers the total cost of a battery by $.50.
Now, the biggest cost factor appears to be that corrosion barrier although it is also arguably the cost factor that we have the least capability of estimating. I'm hoping that my wag is an over-estimate. Maybe there's a conference call question that could be formulated that would elicit a sufficient morsel of information from Tom Granville to narrow down that number a bit.
Axion Power Concentrator 237: May 16: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2013 [View instapost]
Axion Power Concentrator 237: May 16: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2013 [View instapost]
First thing, I would expect that a 30HT might be too large for the application but it does add a degree of conservatism. The other and more important question relates to the cost of the corrosion barrier.
You may recall that I've been using $50 as a conservative assumption for the corrosion barrier ($4/square foot). $50 of a total cost of $86 vs. $50 of a PbC battery that sells for $400 are very different things. While the latter analysis may still provide info, I'm not sure the former provides any useful information for us.
Nevertheless, I'll try to work backwards. If we can say $36 + the separator + overhead (I'll assume 20% of the identified costs) and we are looking for a 40% margin which would be split 50/50 between the two parties and you want to price at $100 then the separator must cost $14. That is $36+$14+10overhead=$60 which yields $20 each for Axion and the partner.
If $14 doesn't seem like a practical number for the separator then I think it gets clear that $100 won't work for an electrode.
BTW, the other moving part is the margin. If 25% margin is about right for an AGM company, I think 40% margin is very reasonable for a unique electrode that is highly differentiated. Given the way Mr. Granville has proceeded so far, he might be expecting a higher number, particularly since he'll have to share it. Of course, it can be argued that BMW is a special case and subsequent customers would be priced for higher margins.
My guess is the electrodes would be priced closer to $150. That, plus $97 in other COGS for a large AGM maker plus a 25% margin would work out to a PbC price to BMW of $330. And, that price lets the partner add the 25% markup on top of its share of the markup of the electrodes. Disallow that and your close to $300.
I think either of those prices should be very, very attractive to BMW if they are really serious about getting the PbC in their cars. The AGM partner could live with it. I think after all the pain Axion has gone through, Mr. Granville probably can as well.
On a separate note, I've been a skeptic regarding whether BMW is really serious about the PbC since the regulators aren't stepping up to the plate. However, some factors that might be changing things are the ailing economy in Europe (even BMW owners care about gas mileage to some extent) and especially the change in Japan's economic competitiveness. With Toyota basically owning the fuel efficiency category and the yen plummeting like a rock, you've got to think that BMW should be very worried about Lexus. Maybe BMW is coming to the conclusion that it needs Axion. Stranger things have happened.
Axion Power Concentrator 236: May 15: Axion Power Releases Quarterly Report For The First Quarter 2013 [View instapost]
While I am encouraged by the progress that is implied in the various statements, it’s clear that it’s all two birds in the bush stuff instead of one bird in hand type stuff. Looking at sales, there was only $268k of specialty/PbC sales in Q1, which is one of the worst quarterly performances of the past several years. Needless to say, we also had zero commercial sales again. BTW, where is the revenue from the Norfolk Southern sale? Weren't we expecting it in Q1?
The "encouraging" statement that the stop/start trucking partner may come to accept the test results for BMW and thus cutting 1/3 of the time out would seem to imply that we're, at the absolute minimum, a year away from completing that testing program. If you have been around Axion at all, you know that's an optimistic guess. Anyway, I found that statement downright depressing.
Going back to the 10x increase in RFP volume from the grid storage side seems to me more useful for those holding ZBB shares than Axion shareholders. I have little hope for sales in that segment but maybe I'm just being a curmudgeon.
I'm looking for more substance from the conference call. I'm past the day when I'll look at some vaguely worded gobbledygook and see a glass half-full. Instead, I read it as if it were written by a deceitful lawyer trying to mislead without actually telling a lie.
Axion Power Concentrator 236: May 15: Axion Power Releases Quarterly Report For The First Quarter 2013 [View instapost]
Axion Power Concentrator 235: May 12: Axion Power Completes Private Placement For $9 Million And $1 Million [View instapost]
"In May of 2012, we were awarded a $150,000 Phase I
grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to fund a
commercialization plan for the
use of its PbC batteries in a “low-cost, high-effic
iency” dual battery architecture for micro-
hybrid vehicles."
Who would use this report? Would it be made public? Would this study be an input for the decision-making of other government agencies like such as those setting fuel economy rules?
Axion Power Concentrator 235: May 12: Axion Power Completes Private Placement For $9 Million And $1 Million [View instapost]
A. Axion owns and operates a separate facility that is co-located with the second provider. If Axion has any problem then the second provider gets access to the technology and control of the facility in order to guarantee production.
B. Axion must license the electrode production process and presumably the carbon sheeting process to the manufacturer who will build and own the facility.
We all know that Axion has said they would only agree to something that looks at least in part to a version of A. and would absolutely not agree to B. I think an automotive would ask for B.
One other thing that seems interesting is that the OEM hasn't started to do fleet testing. Doesn't that seem odd?
Axion Power Concentrator 235: May 12: Axion Power Completes Private Placement For $9 Million And $1 Million [View instapost]
BTW, I found Mr. Averill to be very approachable and very helpful. He also directly encouraged me (and all of us by extension) to make our views known to management. You can bet I'm going to seek him out at the meeting this summer and ask him some direct questions about Axion's leadership. If he tells me everything is OK, that'll sure make me feel better.
Axion Power Concentrator 235: May 12: Axion Power Completes Private Placement For $9 Million And $1 Million [View instapost]
Axion Power Concentrator 233: May 5: Axion Power On Panel At Energy Storage Economics 2.0 For New York City And Beyond [View instapost]
The reason I think Mr. Granville should step down is that he was the right guy to take the company through development, but the company needs a CEO who can lead it through commercialization and I see nothing in his background or his recent progress to indicate that he's that guy.
A rock star would be nice I suppose, but I trust Mr. Averill's track record and judgement to pick the right person, even, I suppose, if it turns out that that person is still Mr. Granville.
Also, for whatever it is worth, psychologically I'm in too deep to sell my shares. I can afford the loss and I hope everyone here is investing money s/he can afford to lose. Yes, I still believe in the technology but the margin of error is shrinking dramatically.
Axion Power Concentrator 233: May 5: Axion Power On Panel At Energy Storage Economics 2.0 For New York City And Beyond [View instapost]
I consider that to be grudgingly acceptable. It clearly shows that Axion was not in a position of strength when conducting this negotiation. Now, I think it's time for Mr. Granville to step down. That'll give his successor the rest of the year to get up to speed for 2014, which I think will be a pivotal year for investors.
Axion Power Concentrator 233: May 5: Axion Power On Panel At Energy Storage Economics 2.0 For New York City And Beyond [View instapost]
I'm still expecting NS to buy the batteries for the over-the-road locomotive some time in 2013. If that sale doesn't take place it would indicate that something is wrong on that front.
As far as I can tell, ePower is our great hope and we're looking at $250,000 in 2013 sales from there. I'm not being facetious in saying that. The application is the only one so far that makes strong economic sense for the buyer of the batteries (no intermediaries, minimal incremental outlay, quick payback, good total return all with little hassle or downside). Now, ePower is a pipsqueak of a company that is a long, long way from making a dent in the market. Still, ePower is showing the way, and I believe it is extremely likely some variant of its solution will be deployed by someone on a large scale and that Axion's batteries will get an important share of that market.
BMW is a completely regulatory-driven opportunity and the needed regulations aren't yet in place and won't be until the technology path is well established. Therefore it is clear that BMW will not be an early adopter of the PbC. Once the PbC has generated about $100m in revenue from other sources, BMW may move forward. In other words, consider it a lottery ticket or a long-term call option on Axion's stock with a strike price of $5.
So, if you squint, potential PbC revenue in 2013 may triple or quadruple over the ~$1m in 2012 revenue but that will make only a minimal dent in the company's $2m/quarter burn rate. It would seem that the financing is a done deal (imagine the lawsuits if it isn't) but it is clear we need more than a year's worth of operating capital.
Many of us are frustrated by Axion's management. To me, what I don't understand is the early investors. If they are in at $2/share say in 2005 and we're at 170m shares outstanding (I'd be thrilled if Axion could raise $20m for 50m shares right now), Axion will still need at least a $500m valuation in two years for them to break-even relative to the opportunity cost of an investment in government bonds (4%).
For Axion to get that valuation, I think the company would need to grow PbC revenue to $25m in 2014 from $3-4m this year with clear visibility to $75m in 2015.
So, to repeat myself, if you are one of the early investors, from your perspective we need a bunch of success from here on out for you to break-even vs. t-bills on your investment. To get 12% annual return with 170m shares outstanding we need a $1b 2015 valuation.
Axion Power International PbC Cost Estimating Spreadsheet [View instapost]
Axion Power International PbC Cost Estimating Spreadsheet [View instapost]
I have made a few minor changes and anticipate making more as we learn more and will on occasion post an updated spreadsheet. I can also add additional tabs with other folks' versions since a big part of my purpose in building the spreadsheet and sharing it was so that others would pick it apart and build upon it.
However, I believe the level of detail I used was the right amount given the information that I have at my disposal. I just don't have that more detailed information you mention. I would also argue that a greater breakdown on AGM battery production and the elements common with PbC is unnecessary since we know that they are common. Sort of like an algebra equation, we can cancel out like terms. That commonality is what enabled me to even attempt this analysis.
I also agree that absolutely, Axion should use cost plus, competitive, and market based methods to identify potential price points and I do agree that maybe I should look at these other methods as well.
I actually think Tom Granville is using competitive pricing. After Vani Dantam was hired, the company seemed to go on the offensive against lithium-ion, pointing out the problems with LI and how the PbC was better. Previously, I think Axion had focused more on comparing the PbC to standard lead-acid and AGM.
Subsequent to the start of that offensive it would seem that coincidentally, Lithium Ion technology has taken a lot of hits, particularly in terms of its safety for use in cars and airplanes. If I'm right about TG's strategy, you'd think these recent events would only serve to increase his confidence that the PbC is superior to Lithium ion and thus should be priced at a premium to LI.
I can understand that approach. I don't agree with it because I think market-based pricing is more appropriate because:
A. The applications for which PbC is superior to LI are not yet economically meaningful while the shares TG has to issue to stay alive waiting for these applications to become meaningful are very economically important.
B. High price points that suck too much of the economic gain from a given application will greatly slow the evolution of that application.
C. Lithium Ion is still the technology that the government has designated as the winning technology. It's going to take a lot more bad publicity related to safety and failed government grants and loans to turn that battleship.
In summary, I think the carbon sheeting break-though should cause TG to change his thinking about pricing. Instead of competitive pricing, he should set low prices for early adopters to create extremely favorable economics in key applications because this will most rapidly create markets for the PbC.
Axion Power Concentrator 232: May 1: Axion Power On Panel At Energy Storage Economics 2.0 For New York City And Beyond [View instapost]
The decision reflected a combination of gas mileage improvement (the Camry Hyrbid has double the mileage of the Hyundai Azera it replaced), much better resale value, (the seven and eighth years on the Hyundai would cost about the same in resale value as the first two years on the brand new Camry Hybrid), and repair cost. Net/net it became clear that the new car made economic sense....and it also made my wife happy.
Axion Power International PbC Cost Estimating Spreadsheet [View instapost]
Now, the biggest cost factor appears to be that corrosion barrier although it is also arguably the cost factor that we have the least capability of estimating. I'm hoping that my wag is an over-estimate. Maybe there's a conference call question that could be formulated that would elicit a sufficient morsel of information from Tom Granville to narrow down that number a bit.