Yes I did. I was not going to respond, but since you are asking, I will.
These comments are generic and really do not answer the basic question of why that statement is included in the financial report other than to be optimistic when it does not make alot of sense in light of common procurement practises.
In fairness to JBI, they used the expression "longER-lead items", not Long Lead items. LL items have a fairly specific meaning, generally Custom-Engineered items with a Lead Time of 1 year or more requiring the exchange and review of vendor data including drawings, manuals, and the like. JBI would require this kind of process for larger items like the kiln (I don't even know what that is..) or the processor. They may have 5 or 10 such items. Everything else is off-the-shelf and would be ordered in time for when construction needs it.
On a Capital project we measure 3 things; Commitments, Expenditures, and Cash. Commitment is what we are Committed to, in other words what the project would Cost if it was halted tomorrow. Expenditure is Cost, Cash is commonly monitored because that is what Finance has to borrow from a bank to Finance the project. Cash has been real popular to monitor since the 2008 credit crisis. After LL items are ordered, Commitment can be sitting at about 50%, which includes all the Engineering done to-date (maybe 80%), and the Administration and equipment ordered. Expenditure might be 30%.
JBI does not really fit the mold because they do everything themselves as far as I know, JB is central to the design process, and they have their own machine shop. All of this is very odd. If they wanted to expand rapidly they would want some external design agency to maintain a design that is well-documented so that a construction contractor can build it. Now perhaps because they are small, they are doing everything in-house and that is fine. Maybe it is cheaper. But, the above costs are still there, and will appear somewhere on the Income Statement.
So they are ordering stuff. Well, any way you cut it, unless they have a specific site-specific schedule, that does not make sense. It costs them money and will cost them inventory expenses when it arrives, unless there is a project it is slated for. We have no announcement. SOmeone should ask wha site this equipment is intended for if it is "new".
With respect to the response about installments, as far as I know new processors are either on JBI property ot on RKT property. In either case property payments should not be necessary. Building on RKT property makes sense. The permitting process is much easier, because they can piggyback on RKT's permits. It is simply a modification to an existing permit. RKT has their own Solid Waste Permits, which JBI can benefit from.
Another thing about RKT, I would make any bet that it is a Union shop. In other words, no construction could take place on their property unless it was paid according to Union wages and under Union working conditions. Getting a bunch of guys with forklifts won't cut it. That means it will be more expensive than has been to-date, and will require proper construciton documentation and drawings.
Lines of credit? Purchasing with shares? I don't think so. In my roles in project management I have dealt with lots of suppliers. When it comes to payment, they don't generaly make those kind of concessions or deals unless they are in dire financial straits. I remember one time I received an earful from an A/R person in January. That company paid 90 days on the dot. The 90-day date was "02/12/xx". I thought we were cool until 12 Feb. Well, it turns out that the 90-day date was not 12 Feb, but 2nd Dec. It was at 4 months and counting! Anyway, there was no leeway given. We were expected to pay prompt.
Especially given JBI's financial situation, I would not expect any supplier to be happy being paid in shares, or giving any credit. Last time I looked at JBI's A/P, it was not impressive. I have not even looked at the last financial report. Would be curious to see if it has improved.
So, yes, I read it OK.
