i look at it this way .. imo (JB/RH) their strengt

i look at it this way .. imo (JB/RH) their strengths and weaknesses complement each other

as i've previously noted .. multi dimensional vs methodical and conservative

there is no denying communication isn't a strong suit of P2O's current mgmt ..
it will be interesting to see if that aspect changes while P2O *outlasts*
that which they don't control

re: MC .. last round of minutes is intriguing in that blurb about *tires*

personally i'd much rather focus be on those potential sites not tied to any funds
out of state or feds

been there done that .. it usually sux up time/effort and tosses in lots of unknowns

imo too much baggage to wade thru and time lines for disruptive techs are longer than most realize

as committees of committees try to ascertain *facts* .. on few bucks ..

rather i'd focus *efforts* re: P2O prox sales on those co.s who have
sustainability protocols in their corporate governance pdfs .. so aptly noted by the EPA (feds do some good upon occasion) ..

but that is me .. P2O (and yep co. founder was part of it imo) got into close proximity with OBG et al when decision was made to *sell* prox (Fall 2013)

zero doubts those choices (Fall 2013) set current wheels in motion .. time lines (realistic)
are clearly unknown and out of P2O's control ..

it is what it is ~

P2O's prox work .. and this tech is an emerging sector that will run out well over a decade +

btw if per chance MC winds up being P2O's *first sale* vs say their 3rd or 4th
there are worse things than having the first footprint established in NYS
which is 2nd only to CA for *stringent* environmental controls .. leaving lots
of other states to *target* .. far more easily (faster) ..


4kids