RE:This Explains the Recent Upswing?I think the upswing is more a result of the recent refinancing, in which the owner sold shares to a third party, then used that money to buy newly "minted" shares, so that the proceeds became "working capital", at the price of dilution for other shareholders.
That said, EFL really does have a process that avoids NMP altogether. I know a lab that did a very thorough analysis of EFL cells and they confirmed that not even trace amounts of NMP could be found.
To my knowledge, that was in 2008, so that process has been around for some time. The infuriating thing about EFL is the fact that they have rather innovative chemistry (and very decent specific energy values!), but fail to capitalize on it. The obvious venue would be to license it to other manufacturers and to make a mint on licensing fees. But they chose to "keep it for themselves"... This is a bad move, given the fact that there are manufacturers out there, who have the benefit of large scale (Panasonic, Samsung, Sanyo, LG-Chem, NEC). Even with the added process of removing most of the NMP, these mass manufacturers produce cheaper than EFL.
I am the resident skeptic on this board, so you will likely find messages that violently disagree with what I write. Contrary to those people, I actually work in the field of batteries and I have a pretty good picture of the costs and marketing of some of the players, and I can tell you that EFL is making a mistake by not licensing the good stuff they have, and leave the volume manufacturing to others.