Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Some people here want everyone to believe that converting the current processor to convert PVC and getting the processor permitted anywhere is easy. It simply isn't true.
1. Agilyx says (see below) it can process all types of plastic (#s 1-7), explicitly mentions PVC (#3) and PET (#1), and is fully permitted in Oregon. The implication is that it is fully permitted in Oregon to process all types of plastic, including PVC. The REALITY is that DEQ prohibits Plas2Fuel (now Agilyx) from processing polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC, #3) beyond incidental contamination amounts in the pyrolysis unit.
The REALITY is quite different. More specifically, as a result of testimony presented and submitted on the air quality permit to Plas2Fuel Corporation (now Agilyx) in Tigard in February, 2010, DEQ modified the proposed permit to prohibit the processing of polyvinyl chloride (PVC, #3) plastic beyond incidental contamination amounts in the pyrolysis unit.
PVC is of particular concern because of the pollution and health problems it creates through its life cycle. Both the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice refer to PVC as "The Poison Plastic."
>> As a result of that hearing and the comments submitted, and as indicated in the March 9, 2010 "Hearing Officer's Report and Response to Comments," DEQ added two modifications to the permit to Plas2Fuel, one of which prohibited the processing of polyvinyl chloride (PVC, #3) in the pyrolysis unit. The exact modifications to the permit were as follows:
-- "Inclusion of permit condition prohibiting the processing of Type 3/PVC plastic except as received as an incidental contaminant (incidental to be defined as equal to or less than 10% by weight)
http://www.psr.org/chapters/oregon/assets/pdfs/miller-testimony-jtccomm-hb3597a-5-4-11.pdf
Wrong again, PVC will not be accepted with a red carpet rollout anywhere in the US. The Dec's will not allow it.
PVC will be accepted with a red carpet rollout elsewhere
That statement is just plain wrong, the current processor in it's current design can't be permitted to handle all types of plastic including PVC as you and honest John suggest.
Credibility is shrinking.
The processor can handle any plastic just as it can handle medical waste even of not allowed at a particular location
I can say it's currently not allowed anywhere in the continental United States or world for that matter.
I'll ask again why wasn't it tested and why did the DEC prohibit it from being used?
No need,I already know the answer - there is no link that says PVC can even be processed without substantial changes to the processor - or that it will even be allowed to be processed ever anywhere.
Why did NY not allow it to be tested/processed, hmmmm?
Further when someone says it can be done - it's up to that person to show the link/proof not myself.
Anyone can say it's simple, the fact is currently PVC is off limits in NY and the other 49 States, and at the current point in time it's anyone's guess as to the future costs/prohibitions involved in using PVC in the future anywhere.
You can't bank it - till the check clears.
Where's the link that says the processor can handle any plastic including PVC without any changes to the processor?
The question was "which kinds of plastics can be converted currently?"
With the key word being currently.
Currently, they only have one processor capable of processing plastic, and this processor has certain limits placed upon it.
It also remains to be seen if the current processor can handle "any plastic" without changes in the stack/adding filters or who knows what else to satisfy any DEC in any state.
The only plastic the DEC approved is the type of plastic that was run during the tests - which are plastic #'s 2,4 and 5.
The processor can handle any plastic just as it can handle medical waste even of not allowed at a particular location.
That video was prior to the permits. The permits strickly forbid any plastics other than # 2,4 and 5.
This is what the permit allows:
Currently, they are only allowed #'s 2,4,5. (See attached link item 6.2)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99ii_jbi.htm
No municipal solid waste is acceptable.
No hazardous waste.
No regulated medical waste.
No radioactive waste.
No source seperated recyclables from households ( unless specifically approved in writing by the RMME)
No plastics containing halogenated compounds.
(See attached link section 7)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99i_jbi.htm
Currently, they are only allowed #'s 2,4,5. (See attached link item 6.2)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99ii_jbi.htm
No municipal solid waste is acceptable.
No hazardous waste.
No regulated medical waste.
No radioactive waste.
No source seperated recyclables from households ( unless specifically approved in writing by the RMME)
No plastics containing halogenated compounds.
(See attached link section 7)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99i_jbi.htm
That would be correct, however I highly dought the DEC is going to raise the current limits prior to the new testing that needs to be completed in the next 60 days or no later than 180 from the date of permit. If those tests go well, and the building size can support more waste and or any other criteria the DEC may need to be met, is ultimately met - they will then raise the limits.
The permittee must submit a separate written application to the Department for permit renewal, modification or transfer of this permit. Such an application must include any forms or supplemental information the Department requires. Any renewal, modification or transfer granted by the Department must be in writing.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99i_jbi.htm
OR, with a letter to the DEC requesting new limits to match the capacity of the machines......
75 tons * 2000 *365 = 54,750,000 lbs per year.
54,750,000 = 24,886,363 kg * .69 per liter = $17,171,590 gross income.
Investors will choose whichever scenario they believe to be most likely in their evaluation of JBI's potential.
Also these calculations assume that there are no additional modifications to the processors to increase the throughput.
If such modifications are made, then these numbers will be low by however much the throughput is increased.
Correct, up to 75 tons per day or a maximum 19,500 tons per year is the cap/limit, also the machines are limited to 1 ton per hour each.
So they are not allowed to run 75 tons per day for 365 days a year - as this would be in violation of the permit.The estimates below are for earnings based entirely on the Niagara facility based on the current limits/approvals.
I'm interested in adding future growth to these estimates as annoucemnets are made regarding future growth. Currently, the gross earnings below haven't even been made yet, as only one processor is running.
According to JBi’s website – “Approximately one liter of oil is extracted from every kilogram of plastic and continuous feeding of plastic optimizes the production output”
http://www.plastic2oil.com/
With two processors that are currently capped at 2,000 pounds per hour each (per the air permit) , running 24/7 = 2,000x2x24x365 = 35,040,000 pounds per year
35,040,000 = 15,893,876kg x.69 per liter = $10,966,774 in gross revenue for two processors at the Niagara Falls plant.
With three processors, using the current annual waste receipt limit of 19,500 tons.
19,500 tons x 2000 lbs per = 39,000,000 pounds = 17,690,102.43kg according to John approximately one Kg of plastic = 1 liter of oil.
Recently received .69 per liter x 17,690,102kg = only $12,206,170 in gross revenue for 3 processors at the Niagara falls plant
I prefer to stick with the current limits set by DEC than blindly trust John who has made many mistakes in the past regarding how easy it is to get permits with the DEC. Iregardless of all the past mistakes and missed estimates he has a lot to be proud of.
He can submit all the one page letters he wants, the DEC owes him nothing, and there are requirements still to be met in the next 60 or 180 days regarding the testing of the machines at 2,000lbs per hour.
It's quite possible and one can reasonably expect that those tests will be passed with flying colors - but until then I'll run my numbers with the current numbers set by the DEC - beacuse right now that's the only facts we have.
Incorrect. The reason limits were set is DEC had no metric to go by on JBII....it's a brand new disruptive technology they have never seen,never dealt with and had no regulations to deal with it.....we're not talking an incinerator here....once again i state: I asked the CEO after the AGM about increased throughput and feed stock changes to their current permit with DEC. His reply: DEC has worked closely with us and any changes can be submitted to DEC with a one page letter. He foresaw NO problems being granted the changes......why this seems to be an issue i don't know.....how many times to do i have to post this information?.....perhaps one of the mods should put this info in a sticky note?...
I agree this isn't going to happen overnight.
It will be interesting to see what the net is. With regulatory fees, filing fees, legal fees, employee expenses, taxes, etc, etc. unless JBI gets more processors up and running quickly, it will be years before there are any major profits.
Even if they have JV's, there are still permitting issues. True, MRF will have some permits but not permits to run a processor.
The Niagara Falls facility is limited to 19,500 tons annualy.
See page 3.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99i_jbi.htm
Which limits the facility to gross revenue of 12,206,170.
19,500 tons x 2000 lbs per = 39,000,000 pounds = 17,690,102.43kg according to John approximately one Kg of plastic = 1 liter of oil.
Recently received .69 per liter x 17,690,102kg = only $12,206,170 in gross revenue for 3 processors at the Niagara falls plant.
I prefer to go by what the permit actually says rather than your over simplific version.
There are reasons why limits have been set for Annual waste receipts, could be based on square footage of the building, or a million other reasons.
The only fact we know is the current limit set by DEC itself. Let me quote them for you:
"Annual waste receipts shall not exceed 19,500 tons. Written approval and modification of this permmit is required before waste receipts may exceed the permitted (quarterly and annual)tonnage limits."
see page 3 link attached)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99i_jbi.htm
It's not as easy as writting a letter and just requesting a higher limit as you suggest. Limits are certainly based on certain DEC criteria and either the Niagara Falls facility meets the criteria or it doesn't.
You're still confused. Says right there in the permit a simple letter and the capacity in the solid waste permit is expanded.
Hi Lazy Susan,
Have you done any future price earnings analysis, if so I'd be interested in your math.
Thanks - Art
According to JBi’s website – “Approximately one liter of oil is extracted from every kilogram of plastic and continuous feeding of plastic optimizes the production output”
http://www.plastic2oil.com/
With two processors that are currently capped at 2,000 pounds per hour each (per the air permit) , running 24/7 = 2,000x2x24x365 = 35,040,000 pounds per year
35,040,000 = 15,893,876kg x.69 per liter = $10,966,774 in gross revenue for two processors at the Niagara Falls plant.
With three processors, using the current annual waste receipt limit of 19,500 tons.
19,500 tons x 2000 lbs per = 39,000,000 pounds = 17,690,102.43kg according to John approximately one Kg of plastic = 1 liter of oil.
Recently received .69 per liter x 17,690,102kg = only $12,206,170 in gross revenue for 3 processors at the Niagara falls plant.
I agree, I don't know the full capacity of said units. What I do know for fact is - the current limits set by the DEC permits. (Verify with attached link page 3)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99i_jbi.htm
In keeping it real, one should note that you nor anyone else that I have read here knows the true full capacity limit of the 30-toin units, so you do not know what the capacity of the full plant (1 20-ton and 2 30-ton) actually will be.
Correct we do not know, what we do know is the 30 ton has yet to be tested at the maximum capacity by the DEC and it may or may not even pass said test. This test according to the DEC will need to take place within 60 days of achieving maximum capacity - but no later than 180 days of the newly released permit. (Verify with attached link page 9)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99ii_jbi.htm
It has been assumed the 30-ton does 50% more than the 20-ton but we do not know this one way or the other, as of yet.
True, we don’t know the final destination - however if it stays at the Niagara Falls plant it will be bound by the current DEC limits, conversely if it’s moved elsewhere this will reduce the revenue projections for said facility.
Hell, we do not even know if the 3rd 30-ton processor in our possession is intended for the Niagara plant. Maybe the 3rd one we are aware of is headed somewhere else and the 4th or 5th unit will be the one placed in the NY plant??
I disagree, there’s no reason not to train them on a processor running at full capacity, the way it’s been reported here the processors basically run themselves.
Additionally, it has been noted by a few here that the company has indicated the Niagara Falls plant will be used for training for personnel to working at remote sights. Training inherently suggests that the plant will not run at its maximum capacity, day in day out, particularly if the rollout is done at a quick and consistent pace, requiring regular training of people every other week or something like that. So, while you may think the permits placed a less-than-capcity cap on the 3-processor plant, you are making several assumptions and your statement is not strictly based in fact.
The purpose of my post was to take what we did know “the current maximum limits” set by the DEC at the Niagara Falls plant and come up with meaningful earnings/revenue projections.
You bring up a great point of the possibility of the 3rd processor going elsewhere. With that said, we should probably project earnings based on one 20 ton and one 30 ton processor, and then separately project earnings for one 20 ton and two 30 ton processors at the same plant. I prefer to base the projections on the current maximum limits and with the most current sales price per barrel, while adjusting as we go to new approved limits/prices per.
No confusion here Raw. A cap is a cap and currently they have a annual cap that falls far short of thier annual capacity - just keeping things real.
For some unknown reason the DEC capped them, why cap them at less then capacity? I'm sure John asked for more as he certainly wouldn't ask to operate at less than full capacity for 3 processors - so if he asked and was denied/capped - getting future full capacity may not be as "easy" as you think.
I know they can apply for more prior to limits being met, but again they must have certainly already applied for more the first time and for some reason they were only approved at less then full capacity???
So when figuring earnings projections it should be at least based on the current approval/permit/facts which can then be raised in the future if the permit limits are increassed.
I'm not trying to bash anyone or the company as I've made a "TON" of loot with JBII, and I think John and his crew have a lot of accomplishments to be proud of - obtaining the permits was no small feat - again I'm just keeping it real.
If the annual waste receipt limit is used the daily is only 53.4 tons.
19,500 tons/year / 365 days = 53.4 tons/day.
With 3 processors that's 17.8 tons per day each, or only 3/4 of a ton per hour each - this is what the permit currently allows.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/f8k061411ex99i_jbi.htm
Raw your confused, there is a annual limit.
If the annual waste receipt limit is used the daily is only 53.4 tons.
19,500 tons/year / 365 days = 53.4 tons/day.
With 3 processors that's 17.8 tons per day each, or only 3/4 ton per hour each.
That's the cap as written in the Approval.
Never mind just noticed it's part of the 8k that was filed.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1381105/000121390011003255/0001213900-11-003255-index.htm
Good morning Roth, can we have the link to the complete document please?
1 million share day? I believe the Consent order limited them to 2tons per hour - hopefully having the permits will allow them to now operate at full capacity.
I think Skibumz has a hint to what full capacity might be. Post # 112740 "It has to do with increased output!"
What's up with the shares that sold for 3.92's, and just a second ago a 3.93, late reporting or a at the market sell order gone bad - anyone?
Right - but it now validates the process to the potential buyers just learning about JBI. I'd be pounding the table, coupled with some new PR's of deals that were probably contingent upon permit Approvals.
That's what I thought, JB should be pounding the table now with some PR's!!
Great news on the Air permit, any news on the waste permit?
low-temperature thermal process that uses a catalyst xyes xno.
Any ideas why they answered yes and no to this question?
Yes, I saw that 100k on the ask, it helped drive down the stock. Trying to make sense of placing such a huge ask, if this person wanted to sell 100k it would have been better to not show his/her hand and then slowly sell into the buying (since it's still thinly traded).
It could be that the wall was meant to lower the price, so they could keep building their position. JMO
Congrats to JB and his team on their first sale. This sale should serve as complete validation of the quality of fuel being produced.
Never asked for material information.
This is exactly what Investor Relations is for!
My original email was polite and kindly asked for answers - in fact I used the word please twice!
I have to disagree 11 days is unacceptable for waiting on any response.
He oculd have simply emailed me back all of two seconds and said I'm looking into it for you and I'll be in touch.
What he did was choose to ignore the questions!
This is not how you attract shareholders ot keep them - Art
If Vergas (Investor Relations)is useless as you say then I hope he's only a volunteer and not on the payroll!
Although - I'm sure he's being paid to answer questions from shareholders - the question is why isn't he?
Thanks for the phone number - who should I ask for?
That's great, however he should treat everyone with the same courtesy. It's been eleven days since my original email. They told me he was in the office today when I called - yet pushed to his voicemail again.
Unless there was a death in his family which I hope isn't the case - then this is completely unprofessional!
I can't believe I can't get a courtesy call or email after I've emailed John P. Zervas with investor relations 3 times now and left several voicemails looking for answers to two questions.
This is completely unprofessional and makes JBI look like a joke!
Nothing, and I mean nothing irritates me more than business professionals who don't answer emails or voicemails in a timely manner. The first email I sent was on April 26th - completely unacceptable!!
It's often said on this board call the company - good luck with that!
I think a more telling volume indicator in this instance would be the daily volume - which at the moment and for the current week shows the volume accelerating rather than declining as shown on your weekly chart.
I'm not saying we shouldn't look at weekly volume as well - but that everything needs to be taken into context and used as a whole.
With that said, your chart isn't exactly fair when it currently shows only one day for the weekly volume for the first week of May - when that very volume is half of the total volume for the previous week. So it's very possible that this week will have more volume than the previous - thus breaking your downtrend analysis.
As you also know, timing is certainly not an exact science, as you will always have the unknown in the mix - such as unexpected news releases.
Best wishes - Art
When the volume leaves, it is not from consolidation if the group leaves with it.
Looks like it broke the early morning sell off pattern, and it also looks like it's going to test the 2.40 mark.