No it doesn't, unless they were being devious, whi

No it doesn't, unless they were being devious, which is my point. One issue with what you are saying:

"JBI provided the assumptions to SAIC.  SAIC reported based on those assumptions.  JBI knew those assumptions were completely bogus. "

I don't believe that that would be the way it would have played out. SAIC looks like a mid-tier EPCM consulting firm. EPCM = Engineering Procurement Construction Management. They are paid to make predictions about the future of capital investments, working with the client, and to provide engineering expertise. But, they would have to stand on their own as professionals and would not simply accept the client's assumptions if they did not believe in them. In fact, the reason why they are hired is usually because they can be an objective third party. If they did not believe in the investment, they would be forthright about it. It is their work, and they end  up with egg on their face of they are wrong. It is basic professionalism.

These documents are by nature forward looking. To say that the underlying assumptions have changed, therefore the document cannot be relied upon is to ignore the basic purpose of the study. EPCMs are paid to be able to predict the future profitability of a capital investment years into the future.

When I worked in Mining a few years back, I was involved in very future-looking stuff. At the time I was told that it was even a SEC requirement that studies be done to back up investments by an objective third party.

Let's talk about assumptions. One problem with the SAIC Summary, is that there are no assumptions listed on the cover page. Assumptions are unavoidable and critical. For instance, metals prices. What happened to mining stocks last year and the price of gold? Any commodities. Oil prices and the oil & gas industry.

I bet that a few EPCMs were in fact wrong about the direction of the price of Gold last summer. And mining companies stock are in the toilet. So, yes EPCMs can be wrong in their assumptions. No one could have predicted what would have happened with Gold.

One basic assumption here is feedstock costs. Waste plastic costs are totally missing.

Assumptions are more prevalent in the early stages of analysis. In fact, an OOM estimate is primarily based on assumptions. They make reference to having done one, although JBI was not in early stages of development when that was done. Another problem... With JBI at the stage they were at, the EPCM would provide detailed plans, drawings, and a supporting estimate primarily based on hard data.

So, the EPCM firm must agree with the findings, and are relied upon to provide much of the design data. They have large databases full of estimating and other data.

So, no I disagree with you that SAIC was given a bunch of false assumptions and simply did a bunch of calculations. For one thing, these guys are busy... they do not need the billings to do that crap.