Perhaps this Q&A still has some currency for those
Post# of 43066
Posted On: 06/19/2014 3:08:58 PM
Perhaps this Q&A still has some currency for those doing DD on JBI.
1 - Islechem didn't report what type of plastic went in and they described the output as "diesel-like." The proof of concept would be the cost of what went in and the realized price of what was produced. Islechem was involved with catalyst validation and scalability, along with output validation. The cost to produce depends upon which industrial site is used.
2 - The NYDEC checks whether it's pollutive, not economic viability. Correct, the permitting indicates P2O is non-pollutive. Properly burned hydrocarbon plastics release carbon dioxide and water, just like a gasoline engine. False, see the CRA table for emissions.
3 - SAIC relied on undisclosed assumptions provided to them by JBI. Odd since there should be real data available by now with all this production and testing and there shouldn't be any more assumptions. False, SAI never relies on assumption they are "fed." Its part of the definition of "independent third party testing." The data was good enough to convince large investors in May, 2012.
4 - What are the 'peers' supposed to do? Spend money to debunk Mr. Bordynuik's paper? No, ASME would not have published Bordynuik's nawtec paper in the first place. Its part of the definition of "scientific peer review."
5 - Bottom line again, cost of feedstock, realized price of fuel. JBI referenced selling third party fuel in the past...is this third party fuel or value-added fuel from waste plastic?? Cost of feedstock is primarily transport and any pre-processing, if needed. This is why industrial sites with waste plastic streams are apparently interested. No transport and ultra-low sulphur diesel output, with overhead already in place.
6 - Processor #3 may well have undergone a 30- and 42-day run. What were the performance results (cost in, revenues out)?? Apparently good enough to be negotiating machine sales.
7 - Crayola is sleazy. Brilliant argument? They care about pretending to be green and could care less that FedEx burns an average of a gallon of fuel and even more in other resources to deliver markers which won't produce even a gallon of undetermined fuel. From JBI's side, what is the realized price from the fuel produced from used markers?? Nobody knows. Not knowing is quite difficult for some folks. Others have visited NF more than once and signed NDAs.
8 - Reports of what to US Steel?? Fuel Sales to US Steel.What was the cost of the feedstock which was converted to fuel and for how much was that fuel sold to US Steel?? Sales of processors might not even answer this oft repeated question, but sales of processors will surely validate the cost-effectiveness of JBI's technology.
9 - If the processors were running well...You could e-mail IR and ask if processor #3 has been profitably running at near capacity for most of the quarter. If you get an answer then ask what obstacles are currently standing in the way. Mr. Bordynuik has pulled that for nineteen quarters so far. Do you think he doesn't have the gall to pull that for a 20th quarter?? Ask. Its not about emailing IR anymore, sorry. Apparently, its about processor sales that are being negotiated.
10 - I'm sure Heddle is negotiating processor sales. Again, what are the costs of the feedstock and what are the revenues for what comes out?? You can see how difficult an actual sale would be without that data. Yes, difficult without data to those not purchasing a processor, I agree. And yet, JBI stated they have been (and perhaps still are) working with "large engineering firms," firms who would not give JBI the time of day if there was nothing viable in P2O technology.
good luck everyone.
1 - Islechem didn't report what type of plastic went in and they described the output as "diesel-like." The proof of concept would be the cost of what went in and the realized price of what was produced. Islechem was involved with catalyst validation and scalability, along with output validation. The cost to produce depends upon which industrial site is used.
2 - The NYDEC checks whether it's pollutive, not economic viability. Correct, the permitting indicates P2O is non-pollutive. Properly burned hydrocarbon plastics release carbon dioxide and water, just like a gasoline engine. False, see the CRA table for emissions.
3 - SAIC relied on undisclosed assumptions provided to them by JBI. Odd since there should be real data available by now with all this production and testing and there shouldn't be any more assumptions. False, SAI never relies on assumption they are "fed." Its part of the definition of "independent third party testing." The data was good enough to convince large investors in May, 2012.
4 - What are the 'peers' supposed to do? Spend money to debunk Mr. Bordynuik's paper? No, ASME would not have published Bordynuik's nawtec paper in the first place. Its part of the definition of "scientific peer review."
5 - Bottom line again, cost of feedstock, realized price of fuel. JBI referenced selling third party fuel in the past...is this third party fuel or value-added fuel from waste plastic?? Cost of feedstock is primarily transport and any pre-processing, if needed. This is why industrial sites with waste plastic streams are apparently interested. No transport and ultra-low sulphur diesel output, with overhead already in place.
6 - Processor #3 may well have undergone a 30- and 42-day run. What were the performance results (cost in, revenues out)?? Apparently good enough to be negotiating machine sales.
7 - Crayola is sleazy. Brilliant argument? They care about pretending to be green and could care less that FedEx burns an average of a gallon of fuel and even more in other resources to deliver markers which won't produce even a gallon of undetermined fuel. From JBI's side, what is the realized price from the fuel produced from used markers?? Nobody knows. Not knowing is quite difficult for some folks. Others have visited NF more than once and signed NDAs.
8 - Reports of what to US Steel?? Fuel Sales to US Steel.What was the cost of the feedstock which was converted to fuel and for how much was that fuel sold to US Steel?? Sales of processors might not even answer this oft repeated question, but sales of processors will surely validate the cost-effectiveness of JBI's technology.
9 - If the processors were running well...You could e-mail IR and ask if processor #3 has been profitably running at near capacity for most of the quarter. If you get an answer then ask what obstacles are currently standing in the way. Mr. Bordynuik has pulled that for nineteen quarters so far. Do you think he doesn't have the gall to pull that for a 20th quarter?? Ask. Its not about emailing IR anymore, sorry. Apparently, its about processor sales that are being negotiated.
10 - I'm sure Heddle is negotiating processor sales. Again, what are the costs of the feedstock and what are the revenues for what comes out?? You can see how difficult an actual sale would be without that data. Yes, difficult without data to those not purchasing a processor, I agree. And yet, JBI stated they have been (and perhaps still are) working with "large engineering firms," firms who would not give JBI the time of day if there was nothing viable in P2O technology.
good luck everyone.
(0)
(0)