Your ability to take a piece of information and then use it jump to an erroneous conclusion is mind boggling.
Case in point. "Yes. It is a tiny number and goes to show how difficult it is to source waste pastic(sic)."
The only valid conclusion that can be drawn from the Madison deal is that there are places that want to dispose of waste agricultural plastic that are willing to solicit JBI to take it. Madison is so interested in JBI taking the local waste plastic that it is willing to provide a collection site, man power to supervise the site, and to publicize that site at it's own expense.
That deal says nothing about other companies that have plastic waste, how much waste plastic they have, or what frequency they generate waste plastic. Furthermore that deal provides no information about what other waste plastic suppliers JBI already has established working relationships with. Nor does it it provide any indication as to how many other companies JBI has been soliciting waste plastic from.
You seem to have overlooked the fact that it was Madison that publicized the deal, not JBI. JBI may have concluded 10 such deals with other places that didn't choose to publicize the deal so we wouldn't know about it. JBI may have no additional deals. We don't have that information to draw conclusion from.
Absence of information is not information of absence.
