http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93989122
[b][i]original cc questions sent to IR ..[/i] [/b] ==== Questions for the upcoming JBI CC ..
i spoke briefly with IR re: 11.12.13 CC to quote Chris .. this will be a *comprehensive* CC (update) across all levels .. (i took that as a comparison to the rather brief CC held by new mgmt back in mid August) anyone interested in having their ?s sent onto IR .. i'm compiling and will forward onto IR over the coming days ..
1) an update on 3 and where it stands in the month+ ending since 3rd Q (9.30.13)
2) RH's comments about sale of prox (8.15.13) and where that stands (initial contacts/how many/status of/time lines) and how mgmt sees that in relation to co.s existing business model ..
3) where do additional candidates for the BoD stand (time line)
4) RKT. Jacksonville? Which machines when? Status of site, building, etc. Status "partnership' agreement - is it history? Intentions of partners if any?
5) Supply agreements? Crayola cannot supply p3 at full capacity, let alone a m/c group. Above all seek regular, clear, production figures including costs. All supporters want facts, good or bad ..
6) side letter
7) CAN NOT BE ASKED >> that would be a triple snicker and double snort ..
8) The latest permit modification has been interpreted by some to mean that the new limitation on input materials is 4,000lbs. of plastic plus 3,000+lbs of heat transfer fluid per hour per processor. Is that correct?
9) It appears that the upcoming election of directors will not include any "Qualified Independent Directors" as defined by the letter agreement between the Investors Group and John Bordynuik. Has the Group communicated their intentions to you vis-a-vis the requirement that Bordynuik offer to sell them his preferred A shares? Do they intend to buy the Preferred A shares? If so, would that not put them in a position as holders of greater than 50% of the shares, in accordance with the by-laws, to call a special meeting to elect directors of their choosing?
10.1) What additional testing is needed to prove #3’s capabilities and how long will that likely take? 10.2) Is #1 being used to preheat plastic for #2 and #3 and if so, does that mean future processors/clusters will require an additional kiln for this purpose?
10.3) Is the use of HTF a production necessity and thus sourcing of it a part of all future production facility operational plans?
11.1) Will fabrication of future processors continue to be out sourced and if so, will Heddle Marine play any role in those fab/assembly activities?
11.2) If processors are sold will there be operation, maintenance or profit sharing agreements as part of those contracts?
11.3) What is JBII’s current business model? What entities are expressing the most interest in P2O and how does their interest manifest in or shape the business model?
12.1) If I was interested in purchasing a processor, what type of plastic is required and how much HTF would I need to source?
12.2) What is timeline for receiving one?
12.3) What would I be required to supply for square footage, power, load/unload equipment, manpower, etc.
13) Guidance for Q4 and how many chemists are on staff.
14) What were your reasons for withdrawing from the Investor Group?
15.1) What are your targeted throughput rates to be considered production ready?
l5.2) Are you identifying different throughput rates for different feedstocks?
15.3) When do you expect to resolve any remaining issues that are preventing reliable up times at desired throughput rates?
15.4) If throughput is reported as generating X barrels of fuel per hour, what is the ratio of HTF to plastic that was used to report X?
15.5) What points of failure for P3 were identified as the throughput testing was ramped up?
15.6) Were any points of failure identified below desired throughput rates and, if so, can the causes of those points of failure be remedied?
16) Why can't some of the less marketable fuel produced be used as HTF for the process? We use off gas generated by the system to feed back into the system. Why not some of the fuel? Is it because all generated fuel is worth more than the cost of HTF?
17) Any input/updates on the rail spur addition ..
=============================================
[b]transcript of the 11.12.13 CC (pdf) [/b] http://www.plastic2oil.com/files/JBI2013Q3ConferenceCall.pdf [i]as always folks will have to determine that which is important for themselves .. [/i]
=====================================================
[b]my 2 pennies .. having had a chance to digest the CC i would have liked this CC to be *longer* .. from memory the CC back in August ran 19 minutes (approx) .. today's ran 22 minutes (approx)
[i]there were pluses and there were minuses[/i] [/b] [color=red]dealing with the negatives first ..
[/color] the biggest minus for me was the lack of specifics re: discussions in regards to business model articulated >> with potential buyers of prox and the discussion re: the BoD imo co.s business model should have garnered more attn than one sentence at the end of a paragraph .. i would have liked to have this fleshed out a bit more by RH (of course it's possible it's still a work in progress if going forward prox will be turnkey specific to each individual client .. this is why i noted in 2010 that to me DOTs/Medical were a given (generic) as subs the co. could pursue) but a little more commentary would have been appreciated [i]i also would have articulated (potential sale of prox) .. this way[/i] (based on our CC on [color=blue]8.15.13[/color] .. JBI rec'd in 10 calls from across the globe from entities interested in buying a processor .. of these 10 calls we deemed 6 worth pursuing .. of those remaining 6 entities .. we are in early level negotiations with 4 and have advanced communiques with the other 2 .. based on 3's performance and manufacturing we are within a Q of having a price list in place i also found input on 4 and 5 somewhat vague .. (probably deliberate) clearly they will be 8k'd as the material event they are when online and clearly where located .. lastly regarding the side letter .. it's clear a deal has been agreed to it's also clear (to me anyway) that there are candidates waiting in the wings specific to JBI's BoD [b][i]the problem is *[i]the race is on[/i]* .. and this race isn't about the co.s (JBI) survival .. but the price of the stock [/i][/b] i have no doubts the [color=red]*PROs* will compress and reset[/color] yet again they have (in their minds) till AGM and then depending on if that is a *mere formality* .. they have till the annual is filed in March .. i'm not sure how many BoD candidates will sign on to be a director of a co. whose stock is sub 25c .. or imo the PROs' *true* goal of sub 10c of course the co. could do a r/s .. to uplist and then do a f/s (to keep it simple use the 150M AS as OS and have a 1:10 r/s takes the 150M to 15M >> so if i hold 250,000 JBII shares my new tally is now 25,000) [b]the problem with that is the [color=red]PROs' always re-short a r/s[/color] .. [i]so if utilized mgmt would have to have timing down to a T re: execution of that split[/i] [/b] again i'm just thinking out loud here .. [b][i]i've said all along the hooks are embedded deep in this stock[/i] [/b] and specific to this *round* ([color=blue]2012[/color]) they've only allowed one way to go (with 1 exception .. a handful of days post sec settlement in Jan) that is compress/reset/compress/reset .. snag some exhausted retail and cycle the process all over again [b][color=red]PROs' goal is an exhausted retail[/color] .. and clearly they have achieved that goal [/b] EOY presents its own issues for mgmt .. imo for obvious reasons one can also speculate if the stock is going to be broken yet again is selling @ X worth a re buy @ Y? [b]each will have to make their own determination .[/b]. i long ago recognized >> the risks and the PROs' *goals* re: JBII [b]i will not sell[/b] .. but i truly understand if others do based on today's *trading* i already know the *new* base for this leg
[b][color=green]now for the positives for me[/color] .. [/b] *elsewhere* i called for 80k gallons x2 (2 mos run time 3rd Q) for fuel produced .. so it was a positive to see that come in just above my expectations i appreciated the input on other sources of feed stock besides Crayola by JB i appreciate that the burn rate will be reduced going forward and i have nothing but admiration for a 42 day cycle .. [i]slow and steady wins this race ..[/i] from the CC >> (and why all investors should listen to that other CC held on 11.4.13) [b]and why i'm an investor in this emerging tech ..[/b] [quote]We anticipate that Processor 3’s role in total fuel production will increase as we continue to increase our feed rates slowly. Ideally, [b]we’re looking to consistently run at a total of roughly 3,000 lbs an hour on Processor 3 and each future machine[/b], [b][i]using a proprietary combination of plastic and heat transfer fluid that adheres strictly to our permitting.[/i] [/b] Another metric we’ve been able to curb is our cost of plastic going into the machine. Crayola’s corporate overruns have acted as a significant plastic source for us over the past couple of quarters, and we estimate that [b]Crayola plastic is costing the company about $0.03/lb to run[/b] – a very favorable price for us. In addition to that, the Company [b]has other significant plastic resources[/b] and does not foresee feedstock becoming a bottleneck moving through the end of 2013. So, as we covered in our quarterly filing, we’ve logged significant data and runtimes for Processor 3 throughout the third quarter and are very pleased with the performance of the machine. As we had already talked about, we made a very small adjustment to the machine’s flue gas piping during its first downtime to help achieve better heat profiling in the kilns. In addition, we made one small piping change on the machine’s second downtime that has worked in our favor as well. Since then, the kilns have demonstrated uniform heat profiling and heat transfer into waste plastic consistently. [b]During our recent maintenance shutdown, after two cycles during the third quarter (one a total of 30 days, and the other a total of approximately 42 days), the kilns were both found to be in excellent condition, without noticeable wear or damage. [/b] In addition to alerting the company at fault of the error, we put further quality control measures in place on site to make sure this problem does not occur again. With regard to feedstock issues, [b]we’ve yet to make the same mistake twice, and we pride ourselves on that[/b]. We do not anticipate this cleanout having a pronounced effect on fuel production from a quarterly standpoint, as we were able to turn our machines back around and continue to put Processor 3 to work. [b]In addition to that, we have recently completed a thorough heat and mass balance of our process, which serves to continue to validate our viability from a scientific standpoint. We’ll be making that available on our website within the coming days.[/b] [/quote] http://www.plastic2oil.com/files/JBI2013Q3ConferenceCall.pdf
=======================================================
[b]bottom line for me is i see progress of the process ..[/b] but i'm also fully cognizant of the [color=red]*goals*[/color] of those who have [i]hooks in deep[/i] .. i would like to see JBI *counter* those hooks .. it's doable imo via multiple sources .. the most obvious is a long hedge .. ===================
i'd like to see additional specifics (guidance) detailed at the co.s AGM and since i've been asked .. i will evaluate *progress* after the first Q of 2014 (May filing) as i noted b4 .. that gives RH 2 full Qs (4th/1st) as always .. best to all JBI investors === 4kids
[b][i]original cc questions sent to IR ..[/i] [/b] ==== Questions for the upcoming JBI CC ..
i spoke briefly with IR re: 11.12.13 CC to quote Chris .. this will be a *comprehensive* CC (update) across all levels .. (i took that as a comparison to the rather brief CC held by new mgmt back in mid August) anyone interested in having their ?s sent onto IR .. i'm compiling and will forward onto IR over the coming days ..
1) an update on 3 and where it stands in the month+ ending since 3rd Q (9.30.13)
2) RH's comments about sale of prox (8.15.13) and where that stands (initial contacts/how many/status of/time lines) and how mgmt sees that in relation to co.s existing business model ..
3) where do additional candidates for the BoD stand (time line)
4) RKT. Jacksonville? Which machines when? Status of site, building, etc. Status "partnership' agreement - is it history? Intentions of partners if any?
5) Supply agreements? Crayola cannot supply p3 at full capacity, let alone a m/c group. Above all seek regular, clear, production figures including costs. All supporters want facts, good or bad ..
6) side letter
7) CAN NOT BE ASKED >> that would be a triple snicker and double snort ..
8) The latest permit modification has been interpreted by some to mean that the new limitation on input materials is 4,000lbs. of plastic plus 3,000+lbs of heat transfer fluid per hour per processor. Is that correct?
9) It appears that the upcoming election of directors will not include any "Qualified Independent Directors" as defined by the letter agreement between the Investors Group and John Bordynuik. Has the Group communicated their intentions to you vis-a-vis the requirement that Bordynuik offer to sell them his preferred A shares? Do they intend to buy the Preferred A shares? If so, would that not put them in a position as holders of greater than 50% of the shares, in accordance with the by-laws, to call a special meeting to elect directors of their choosing?
10.1) What additional testing is needed to prove #3’s capabilities and how long will that likely take? 10.2) Is #1 being used to preheat plastic for #2 and #3 and if so, does that mean future processors/clusters will require an additional kiln for this purpose?
10.3) Is the use of HTF a production necessity and thus sourcing of it a part of all future production facility operational plans?
11.1) Will fabrication of future processors continue to be out sourced and if so, will Heddle Marine play any role in those fab/assembly activities?
11.2) If processors are sold will there be operation, maintenance or profit sharing agreements as part of those contracts?
11.3) What is JBII’s current business model? What entities are expressing the most interest in P2O and how does their interest manifest in or shape the business model?
12.1) If I was interested in purchasing a processor, what type of plastic is required and how much HTF would I need to source?
12.2) What is timeline for receiving one?
12.3) What would I be required to supply for square footage, power, load/unload equipment, manpower, etc.
13) Guidance for Q4 and how many chemists are on staff.
14) What were your reasons for withdrawing from the Investor Group?
15.1) What are your targeted throughput rates to be considered production ready?
l5.2) Are you identifying different throughput rates for different feedstocks?
15.3) When do you expect to resolve any remaining issues that are preventing reliable up times at desired throughput rates?
15.4) If throughput is reported as generating X barrels of fuel per hour, what is the ratio of HTF to plastic that was used to report X?
15.5) What points of failure for P3 were identified as the throughput testing was ramped up?
15.6) Were any points of failure identified below desired throughput rates and, if so, can the causes of those points of failure be remedied?
16) Why can't some of the less marketable fuel produced be used as HTF for the process? We use off gas generated by the system to feed back into the system. Why not some of the fuel? Is it because all generated fuel is worth more than the cost of HTF?
17) Any input/updates on the rail spur addition ..
=============================================
[b]transcript of the 11.12.13 CC (pdf) [/b] http://www.plastic2oil.com/files/JBI2013Q3ConferenceCall.pdf [i]as always folks will have to determine that which is important for themselves .. [/i]
=====================================================
[b]my 2 pennies .. having had a chance to digest the CC i would have liked this CC to be *longer* .. from memory the CC back in August ran 19 minutes (approx) .. today's ran 22 minutes (approx)
[i]there were pluses and there were minuses[/i] [/b] [color=red]dealing with the negatives first ..
[/color] the biggest minus for me was the lack of specifics re: discussions in regards to business model articulated >> with potential buyers of prox and the discussion re: the BoD imo co.s business model should have garnered more attn than one sentence at the end of a paragraph .. i would have liked to have this fleshed out a bit more by RH (of course it's possible it's still a work in progress if going forward prox will be turnkey specific to each individual client .. this is why i noted in 2010 that to me DOTs/Medical were a given (generic) as subs the co. could pursue) but a little more commentary would have been appreciated [i]i also would have articulated (potential sale of prox) .. this way[/i] (based on our CC on [color=blue]8.15.13[/color] .. JBI rec'd in 10 calls from across the globe from entities interested in buying a processor .. of these 10 calls we deemed 6 worth pursuing .. of those remaining 6 entities .. we are in early level negotiations with 4 and have advanced communiques with the other 2 .. based on 3's performance and manufacturing we are within a Q of having a price list in place i also found input on 4 and 5 somewhat vague .. (probably deliberate) clearly they will be 8k'd as the material event they are when online and clearly where located .. lastly regarding the side letter .. it's clear a deal has been agreed to it's also clear (to me anyway) that there are candidates waiting in the wings specific to JBI's BoD [b][i]the problem is *[i]the race is on[/i]* .. and this race isn't about the co.s (JBI) survival .. but the price of the stock [/i][/b] i have no doubts the [color=red]*PROs* will compress and reset[/color] yet again they have (in their minds) till AGM and then depending on if that is a *mere formality* .. they have till the annual is filed in March .. i'm not sure how many BoD candidates will sign on to be a director of a co. whose stock is sub 25c .. or imo the PROs' *true* goal of sub 10c of course the co. could do a r/s .. to uplist and then do a f/s (to keep it simple use the 150M AS as OS and have a 1:10 r/s takes the 150M to 15M >> so if i hold 250,000 JBII shares my new tally is now 25,000) [b]the problem with that is the [color=red]PROs' always re-short a r/s[/color] .. [i]so if utilized mgmt would have to have timing down to a T re: execution of that split[/i] [/b] again i'm just thinking out loud here .. [b][i]i've said all along the hooks are embedded deep in this stock[/i] [/b] and specific to this *round* ([color=blue]2012[/color]) they've only allowed one way to go (with 1 exception .. a handful of days post sec settlement in Jan) that is compress/reset/compress/reset .. snag some exhausted retail and cycle the process all over again [b][color=red]PROs' goal is an exhausted retail[/color] .. and clearly they have achieved that goal [/b] EOY presents its own issues for mgmt .. imo for obvious reasons one can also speculate if the stock is going to be broken yet again is selling @ X worth a re buy @ Y? [b]each will have to make their own determination .[/b]. i long ago recognized >> the risks and the PROs' *goals* re: JBII [b]i will not sell[/b] .. but i truly understand if others do based on today's *trading* i already know the *new* base for this leg
[b][color=green]now for the positives for me[/color] .. [/b] *elsewhere* i called for 80k gallons x2 (2 mos run time 3rd Q) for fuel produced .. so it was a positive to see that come in just above my expectations i appreciated the input on other sources of feed stock besides Crayola by JB i appreciate that the burn rate will be reduced going forward and i have nothing but admiration for a 42 day cycle .. [i]slow and steady wins this race ..[/i] from the CC >> (and why all investors should listen to that other CC held on 11.4.13) [b]and why i'm an investor in this emerging tech ..[/b] [quote]We anticipate that Processor 3’s role in total fuel production will increase as we continue to increase our feed rates slowly. Ideally, [b]we’re looking to consistently run at a total of roughly 3,000 lbs an hour on Processor 3 and each future machine[/b], [b][i]using a proprietary combination of plastic and heat transfer fluid that adheres strictly to our permitting.[/i] [/b] Another metric we’ve been able to curb is our cost of plastic going into the machine. Crayola’s corporate overruns have acted as a significant plastic source for us over the past couple of quarters, and we estimate that [b]Crayola plastic is costing the company about $0.03/lb to run[/b] – a very favorable price for us. In addition to that, the Company [b]has other significant plastic resources[/b] and does not foresee feedstock becoming a bottleneck moving through the end of 2013. So, as we covered in our quarterly filing, we’ve logged significant data and runtimes for Processor 3 throughout the third quarter and are very pleased with the performance of the machine. As we had already talked about, we made a very small adjustment to the machine’s flue gas piping during its first downtime to help achieve better heat profiling in the kilns. In addition, we made one small piping change on the machine’s second downtime that has worked in our favor as well. Since then, the kilns have demonstrated uniform heat profiling and heat transfer into waste plastic consistently. [b]During our recent maintenance shutdown, after two cycles during the third quarter (one a total of 30 days, and the other a total of approximately 42 days), the kilns were both found to be in excellent condition, without noticeable wear or damage. [/b] In addition to alerting the company at fault of the error, we put further quality control measures in place on site to make sure this problem does not occur again. With regard to feedstock issues, [b]we’ve yet to make the same mistake twice, and we pride ourselves on that[/b]. We do not anticipate this cleanout having a pronounced effect on fuel production from a quarterly standpoint, as we were able to turn our machines back around and continue to put Processor 3 to work. [b]In addition to that, we have recently completed a thorough heat and mass balance of our process, which serves to continue to validate our viability from a scientific standpoint. We’ll be making that available on our website within the coming days.[/b] [/quote] http://www.plastic2oil.com/files/JBI2013Q3ConferenceCall.pdf
=======================================================
[b]bottom line for me is i see progress of the process ..[/b] but i'm also fully cognizant of the [color=red]*goals*[/color] of those who have [i]hooks in deep[/i] .. i would like to see JBI *counter* those hooks .. it's doable imo via multiple sources .. the most obvious is a long hedge .. ===================
i'd like to see additional specifics (guidance) detailed at the co.s AGM and since i've been asked .. i will evaluate *progress* after the first Q of 2014 (May filing) as i noted b4 .. that gives RH 2 full Qs (4th/1st) as always .. best to all JBI investors === 4kids
