(Total Views: 247)
Posted On: 08/08/2018 10:28:28 AM
Post# of 43066
Re: Commando911 #40101
why do you do that .. you take one of my comments (i'm just one of 1000s of actual P2O investors) .. which is just my opinion .. and make it universal .. as if
what i'd noted is that *imo* if mgmt sold the blending site .. plant could be sold as well .. because *imo* any buyer could have an agreement written into contract that their site be utilized for potential P2O customers
it's also possible that if the blending site is sold .. an agreement could be reached with that buyer if *plant* was to be brought back on .. as i've always noted P2O (the company) has numerous options .. what would be nice is to have some of those options fleshed out in a little more detail by mgmt ..
that said .. baby steps .. (measurement and accountability) .. can lead to positives for all P2O investors .. we all have our own ideas of what we'd do differently .. but no one here .. is either mgmt or BoD .. which is why some of us noted to you .. that the most recent round of funds' infused .. was *interesting*
4kids
what i'd noted is that *imo* if mgmt sold the blending site .. plant could be sold as well .. because *imo* any buyer could have an agreement written into contract that their site be utilized for potential P2O customers
it's also possible that if the blending site is sold .. an agreement could be reached with that buyer if *plant* was to be brought back on .. as i've always noted P2O (the company) has numerous options .. what would be nice is to have some of those options fleshed out in a little more detail by mgmt ..
that said .. baby steps .. (measurement and accountability) .. can lead to positives for all P2O investors .. we all have our own ideas of what we'd do differently .. but no one here .. is either mgmt or BoD .. which is why some of us noted to you .. that the most recent round of funds' infused .. was *interesting*
4kids
Quote:
I remember distinctly, on this board, that selling everything was ok and that making fuel wasn’t needed to license the tech. I disagreed, but it was surely noted here.
(2)
(0)
