Upload
gwen-jordaan
View
26
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 20151
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 20152
• Early stage, privately held biotechnology company
• Incorporated as a California LLC
• Mission - Develop innovative products, methodologies, and intellectual property relative to detection, removal, and recovery of toxic or precious/rare metal.
• Core technology - Based on a protein known as metallothionein (MT) that selectively binds toxic and precious/rare metal.
MGP Biotechnologies
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 20153
Hydraulic Fracturing Market
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 20154
Since 2010, capital expenditure into upstream production for oil and gas decreased. Despite the setback in exploratory drilling to tap into new reserves, demand for natural gas and extraction of shale gas is still growing.
Decrease in Investment Dollars
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 20155
In 2007 -2014, U.S. demand for natural gas has steadily increased, thus requiring increased production and withdrawal of shale gas. Even though drilling in shale gas declined In 2015, a 13.9% growth of shale gas production is observed.
Demand for Natural Gas
Natural Gas Consumption US Shale Gas Production
•Source: •U.S. Energy Information Administration
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Trill
ion
Cu
bic
Fee
t
Year
U.S. Natural Gas Total Consumption
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Tri
llio
n C
ub
ic F
eet
Year
U.S. Shale Gas Production
U.S. Production ofShale Gas
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 20156
Gas rig counts declined, as E&P companies reduced exploratory drilling budgets. However, production volume increased showing a higher efficiency for established wells.
Rig counts decreased as production volume increased
•Source: •U.S. Energy Information Administration
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 20157
In 2014, North America constituted 85% of the $41 billion global fracking market.
Hydraulic Fracturing Market
Market overview
• Global market estimated to be $41 billion in 2014.
• North America constitutes 85% of total market revenue.
Main players
• Source: • Sider, Alison. “Fracking firms face new crop of competitors.” Wall Street Journal, 9 July 2013. • “Hydraulic Fracturing Market by Geography & by Well Type and Shale Play in the U.S. & Geography - Global Trends and Forecasts to
2019.” Report by MarketsandMarkets, Nov 2014.
Halliburton28%
Schlumberger22%
Baker Hughes13%
FTS4%
Weatherford5%
Trican4%
Calfrac4%
Nabors3%
Cudd Pumping2%
Petterson-UTI2%
C&G2%
Others11%
North America Fracking Market Share
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 20158
Shale gas development is key to meeting future energy demand but produces toxic waste water.
The Future of Shale Gas in the US and waste production
Waste water from shale in US annually ~116 billion Liters
10x more waste water per wellfor fractured (shale) gas vs.
traditional gas wells 12
“Shale gas can be expected to play an important future role in supplying about a third of U.S. energy demand, possibly even more, over the next several decades.”
US Department of Energy, “Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: An Update”, 2013
Shale gas production • Increases the waste water volumes • Changes the geographic distribution of where waste water is generated and disposed. 13
• Source; • Clark, C., and J. Veil (2009), Produced water volumes and management practices in the United States,, Argonne Natl. Lab., Argonne, Ill• Department of Energy (US DOE) (2013), Modern shale gas development in the United States: An Update
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 20159
In 2014, 116 billion liters of fresh water was used and estimates show an annual waste water production of 77 billion liters.
Waste Water Market Size
*waste water includes
• flowback of the fracking fluid
• produced water, i.e. water previously
locked in the rock formation
*Definition of flowback includes water
that surfaces up to several weeks or
months after drilling, depending on the
source.
• Sources:
• Water Footprint of Hydraulic Fracturing , Andrew Kondash and Avner Vengosh, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University
• The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking ,Robert B. Jackson et al., School of Earth Sciences, Stanford University
• Shale Gas Production: Potential versus Actual GHG, Emissions, O’Sullivan and Paltsev (2012): MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change Report
• Bluefield Research
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Annual Water Use Per Year Wastewater Generated Per Year
Bill
ion
Lit
ers
Water Usage Breakdown
Adivo Estimate
Bluefield Research Estimate
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 201510
Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas not only produces more waste water, but also increases fresh water utilization.
Growth of Annual Water Use for Shale Gas
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2005-2011 2012-2014
Bill
ion
Lit
ers
Average annual water use for shale gas per year
Average annual water use for shale gas per year
Annual water use for shale gas
• 2005 – 2011: 51 billion liters• 2012 – 2014: 116 billion liters
• Source:
• Water Footprint of Hydraulic Fracturing (2015) , A. Kondash and A. Vengosh, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 201511
The concentration of many chemicals in the fracturing waste water exceeds EPA standards even for irrigational use by more than 10x.
Fracturing water composition
ChemicalWaste Water (mg/L) EPA Standard (mg/L)
Range Median Irrigation Drinking Water
Arsenic 0.004 - 0.5 0.057 0.10 0.010
Barium 0 - 16,000 19 - 2
Boron 0.018 - 150 14 0.75 -
Cadmium 0 - 1.2 0.0086 0.01 0.005
Chromium 0.0066 - 260 0.3 0.1 0.1
Cobalt 0.0045 - 25 0.5 0.05 -
Iron 0.95 - 810 39 5 0.3
Lead 0 - 5 0.03 - 0.015
Lithium 0.5 - 430 52 2.5 -
Manganese 0.12 - 43 1.7 0.2 0.05
Molybdenum 0.003 - 13 0.038 0.01 -
Radium 10-5830 pCi/L - - 5 pCi/L
Selenium 0.0043 - 0.5 0.05 0.02 0.05
Thallium 0 - 8 0.19 - 0.002
Vanadium 0.063 - 40 0.63 0.1 -
•Source: 1) Geochemical evaluation of flowback brine from Marcellus gas wells in Pennsylvania, USA Lara O. Haluszczak, Arthur W. Rose ⇑ , Lee R. Kump. 2) U.S. EPA
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 201512
Federal regulations, disposal costs and public awareness have become the key market drivers.
Market drivers for treatment of waste water
Market for waste water treatment
Government mandates
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Arsenic Rule
• Copper and Lead Rule
Regulatory compliance costs
• EPA fines for non-compliance $25,000/day
Upgrading municipal treatment plants
• Estimated $150 billion investment over next 20 yrs
Disposal costs
Environmental and public awareness
Issues that arise due to toxic waste water:• Deterioration of infrastructure (e.g. roads, municipal water treatment facilities)• Increased public awareness e.g. due to lawsuits against waste water violations• Contamination of environment and risk to human health (e.g. heavy metals)
Alleviation of these issues drives demand for innovative water treatment systems.
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 201513
Finding a sustainable – and cost effective – solution for fracking waste water has so far remained elusive.
Challenges of Waste Water Disposal in the Fracturing Market
Current Solutions Expenses
Short-term options do not address critical long-term issues
• Diminished water sources• Increasing regulations
limiting waste water disposal
• Growing safety and environmental concerns from government and the public
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 201514
Current technologies are not applicable due to technical deficiencies preventing an application in the fracking industry
Current deficiencies in tech solutions
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 201515
MGP Technology
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 201516
MT’s unique properties allows for the selective capture of toxic/precious metals.
MGP’s Technology - Principle
Toxic/precious metal retained by MT
MT MT MT
Sodium
Calcium
Metal contaminated solution
MT can be loaded on any solid phase:
- membranes- beads- silicon particles- nanoparticles- polystyrene particles- magnetic beads
Toxic / precious heavy metal
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 201517
MT’s unique properties allows for the selective capture of toxic/precious metals.
MGP’s Technology - Principle
Toxic/precious metal retained by MT
MT MT MT
Sodium
Calcium
Metal - free solution
Metal contaminated solution
MT can be loaded on any solid phase:
- membranes- beads- silicon particles- nanoparticles- polystyrene particles- magnetic beads
Toxic / precious heavy metal
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 201518
Metal can be recovered by rinsing the MT with weak acid.
MGP’s Technology - Principle
Metal Recovery
MT MT MT
Toxic / precious heavy metal
Sodium
Calcium
Metal Collection -Recycle
Solid phase
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 201519
MT is linked to resin using proprietary technology. A colorless solution of copper is slowly passed through the resin over one hour. The change in color reflects the binding of metal to the resin. The resin is regenerated by flushing with weak acid.
MGP’s working prototype
1 2 3 4 5
One Hour Real Time Acid Wash-60 Sec
1 - MT Bound to Resin (Proprietary) 2 - Pumping 10-4 M CuSO4 through column for 15’3 - Pumping 10-4 M CuSO4 through column for 60’4 - Acid wash for 30 seconds5 - Acid wash for 1 minute
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 201520
MT’s unique properties come from its metal selectivity and recovery. MGP technology reduces cost, increases flexibility and efficiency.
Unique Properties of MT
Binds a wide variety of metal
• Toxic heavy metals: aluminum, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, europium, gallium, indium, lanthanum, lead, mercury, nickel, thimerosal, titanium, tributyl tin, uranium, and zinc.
• Precious & rare metals: gold, palladium, palladium nanoparticles, platinum, rhodium, ruthenium, and silver.
Unique Properties
Binding occurs instantaneously
Efficient at low metal concentration – able to meet current EPA standards
Selectivity
• MT does not bind biologically essential metals such as sodium or calcium.
• Efficient in situations where concentration of metal is low
MT binds metal under extreme conditions:
• Wide range of pH (4 to 10)
• Extreme temperature (4ºC - 100ºC)
Metal is easily recoverable
Reusable, cost effective production of columns
Diminishes overall cost of metal remediation
• Specificity
• Decreased volume of recovered metal waste
• Low cost production
High capacity and small footprint
• 100x smaller than ion exchange
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 201521
MGP has both domestic and international patents.
Intellectual Property Portfolio
• Patent Number 6,750,056 - Issued 6/15/04
• Patent Number 7,135,605 - Issued 11/14/06
• Patent Number 7,273,962 - Issued 9/25/07
• Patent Number 7,767,872 - Issued 8/3/10
• Patent Number 8,440,791 - Issued 5/1/13
Five US patents issued to MGP
• Australia Patent Number 2002316183 – Issued 7/18/08
• Japan Patent Number 2003-526941 – Issued 6/18/10
• Canada Patent Number 2,471,838 – Issued 7/10/12
• Canada Patent Number 2,637,564 – Issued 10/26/12
• China Patent Number 02822019.6 – Issued 8/22/12
• Germany Patent Number 1976610 – Issued 5/1/13
• Switzerland Patent Number 1976610 – Issued 5/1/13
• UK Patent Number 1976610 – Issued 5/1/13
Eight international patents issued to MGP
Patent Attorney, Louis Cullman, K & L Gates
CONFIDENTIAL – ADIVO ASSOCIATES 201522
Contact Information
Maik Klasen, PhD Roger Acey, PhD
Board Member – VP of Business Development, MGP Founder, MGP
Managing Director, Adivo Associates President and CEO
Phone: +1 (415) 992-449 Phone: +1 (562) 805-0192
[email protected] [email protected]
Gwen Jordaan, MS
Board Member – Chief Scientific Officer, MGP
Phone: +1 (213) 316-6447