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.
OK... but thats too brief for me to fully put the jigsaw pieces together in completeness, so could you broaden that out a bit please? Thanx
For example, what are 2.25 shares? Shares valued at 2.25 per share or 2.25 million shares owned?
Need broader elaboration.
IW
I'm too new to this board to understand how the referenced meeting effects EPGL, directly or indirectly. Would some of you more knowledgable people please explain the meaningfulness of this meeting to the rest of us?
Thanx
ImperialWhazoo
I figured there had to be something, so thnx. Couldn't find evidence of it on the news section here so I guess we now have to find out by looking elsewhere for real-time news.
IW
At open, there was a good show of interest. Anyone got a clue as to what is underlying today's open? No KNOWN news, but is there a rumor of some sort?
IW
I read it just now and it looks to me to be better than you contend it is because it is not creating new shares (dilution) at the outset & it only creates new shares at a future date when warrants get exercised (if they do)
Right now.... TODAY.... it opens EXISTING shares up to sale in the open market.
Here's what I think.
The company has to gear up for more business due to the opportunities the 2010 law afford the company. IMHO, this is a pretty cheap way to do this. As a matter of pragmatic reality, they gotta raise money in preperation to expand & take advantage of opportunities, so there is always a tradeoff on raising moneyu. There is a natural give and take existing due to necessity, so, given all the many terrible ways deals can get slapped together that hurt shareholders, IMHO this is a pretty even handed deal.
As to dilution, in reality, dilution is not a factorat this moment, when the deal is getting out there today. This is because the shares that are freed up for sale through this filing are already existing. Hard to honestly call a deal that, at least initially frees up existing shares, dilutive. At some future date, if and when the warrants come to market, the act exercising them will necessarily generate dilution, but the dilution will be offeset by the fact that the exercise of the warrants will involve putting $$$$$ into the company's coffers. Oh sure, the trade off is dilutivew shares from the warrants, but its shares showing up in exchange for money coming in.
So, I'm coming away from being forced to numb my brain by reading the filing by concluding that its a trade-off (naturally), but that its a fairly reasonable way to raise the needed money.
Thats my take on it.
Imperial Whazoo
I knew it yesterday when I did the work on the stock but I'm too busy to look it up right now. Something like 893 to 1 or 839 to 1 or 843 to 1, rounded up. Something in that range, if I recall.
Imperial Whazoo
So, since you have traded it, can you tell the board if it is true that there are abnormally high costs to trade right now due to its status with DTC?
Thnx
ImperialWhazoo
Yeah, pretty much. It would be imprecise to treat the likes of a 2 to 3 mill share range as troubling when there re skads of similarly low cost not-well-established companies that are in pinkyland with 1 billion and more outstanding. In fact, IMHO, 50 mill would be tiny, so why would I care if its a mere 3 mill plus? Just be glad this is not 1 billion, LOL.
3.6 mill a biggie? NOT.
Imperial Whazoo
Has anybody found a document out there that can be put up (via a link) verifying that the 15th is a noteworthy date,? I'd love to have that be the case, so can anyone post a link for me?
Second, is $100 mil real just because its in a PR? It just seems to be massively large, IMHO. Does anyone else feel its wayy too large a number to be real, and that as such, it is evidence of this being more fiction than fact?
Imperial Whazoo
2 million, plus some little bit more,it appears. Not exactly a huge share issuance IMO
IW
Plenty.
:o)
A little while ago today, I discovered I owned this stock. After a good 3/4 of an hour digging into it, it looks like I got it as a distribution from HEMP due to my having shares in HEMP. I'd planned to start hand sanding an antique table in preparation for refinishing it (stress relief after a day-trading day, LOL), but instead I spent 3/4 of an hour researching what caused these shares to simply show up in the trading account.
Looks like HEMP has been acquiring a lot of companies and that they are intent on spinning out or selling any asset that was a part of their various acquisions that was not truly a hemp-related product. BDPT had both hemp ralated & non-hemp related products. So HEMP spun out the non-hemp related part of the assets they had acquired and kept the hemp related parts of the acquired company.
So, thats what BDPT is: the residue, as it were, that HEMP held that was not hemp related.
We'll see what comes of this event, I suppose.
Imperial Whazoo
It just filled the gap. Thats all.
And if buy side volume is the "tell" then the thing to consider is that the volume of buys yesterday afternoon, when there was anticipation of the open today.... well, yesterday late in the day the volume was much more robust than the volme today as the professionals walked it back down to slowly fill the gap.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that it approached the close yesterday (1.74) in a bit of a rush to get in, but it did not approach the same basic price zone at the close today in any kind of similar rush.
I basically think it is a good thing that the gap got filled today & that the volume of doing so was unimpressive and unexcited. If there had been an evident rush to get out today, as it got down to the same level as the close yesterday, then I'd be looking at it differenrtly. We'll see. Time will tell.
JMHO
Imperial Whazoo
Hey Z -
Never mind the date question... I got it. Its the 12th (expected)
Imperial Whazoo
R/S? I think everybody wants to make that kind of return. So, would a person get in before the R/S or wait for it to happen, in your opinion? And will this be in both this company AND the mothership or in this one only?
TIA for your opinion.
Oh and... what date do you afix to an upcoming R/S?
TIA
Imperial Whazoo
Thanx pickel. I'm looking forward to the pics.
Also, anyone else get told that the price of the mothership would rise precipitously by EOY? Any buttressing details given for that statement by PQ?
Imperial Whazoo
Hey ther Pickle. You too, MC. Hey pickle.... been a long tine since we got one of your up front & personal reports. You been down to nose around any time recently? Anything brewing that you can see? Any photos? Any activity?
Imoerial Whazoo
Something to PR will show up when these DEC filings are completed.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=819985
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=822054
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=822174
Note the dates on them, in particular the third of the three I'm showing, which shows this:
Complete status: Complete as of 05/28/2013
The machines obviously work and the DEC is going to re-re-re-re-re-reCONFIRM this fact when these approvals show up (which should be very soon, IMHO).
When the modifications & so forth to #3 get formal approval, there is good reason to look for a PR summarizing these three filings this spring.
Thats when I think we see the next PR, and not before then.
And I happen to also think that it is logical to conclude that, to put any machines in Florida (which is still going to be the next MAJOR event, IMHO), it is absolutely 100% necessary to get the approvals these three spring filings are seeking.
So things are still going successfully forward.
Remember people.... this niche industry is very highly regulated and getting DEC approval of just about anything is absolutely key.
To be the best informed of what is actually progressing, IMHO, I think folks should be in the habit of regularly checking the DEC pages because thats where evidence of real progress is always going to show up first.
Imperial Whazoo
Hey 4kids, would you elaborate on the details of this Ontario court thing? Or anybody with the details. I missed who & when & need a refresher. Thanx.
Imperial Whazoo..... back to lurking :o)
Good to know I'm not alone. I just hate telling private info.
Another thought. I gave name etcetera, then supplied my questions. I've been around a while and I'm experienced in attending CCs. Sometimes, when they read a question that has been supplied in a fashion similar to what I just filled out, the CC moderator says something like:
"And we have a question supplied from Mr. XYZ on the web", whereupon they read the question.
Since I'm not bashful about my delving into the details of how the approvals given by the DEC are actually going to get applied in Florida, and given that I asked this as one of my questions, if seems that it just might happen that the relationship between my screen name here on iHub and my question might be "outed" publicly.
What about this kind of imprudent event happening? I dislike being potentially outed as to who the name is behind my posting name and my actual identity simply due to having the persistence to raise the questions I'm interested in via the format of the pre-registration process.
Anyone else have this thought?
Imperial Whazoo
When I registered, the surveymonkey page came up after I'd entered my info and supplied some questions for the CC.
I assumed that what the surveymonkey page was trying to get me to do was to take a further survey, so I declined.
Does anyone know whether failure to supply info via the page I declined will invalidate my having suppiled info purportedly registering in the page that asked for my contact info and that gave me an opportunity to ask 5 questions?
I'd hate to discover that, although I registered, I am considered to not have registered in that I declined to take what I assumed was a further survey.
Anyone know?
TIA
Imperial Whazoo
fourkids & everyone else re pre-registering-
Never mind. I found it. It was in plain site, LOL
TIA
Imperial Whazoo
Free feedstock at an RKT plant?
At an RKT plant, cost of feedstock is built into the equation.
Free because it is already there? Depends on how it is calculated, but no matter how it is looked at, it favors JBII, it seems to me.
To price feedstock in a RKT site, it seems to me that it is either free, or the costs are the present expenses involved in regulatory overhead.
If it is costed out at the overhead imposed by existing regulations, then it is actually better than free for JBII.
Either way, all that matters, once they go forward with RKT sites, is not a negative to JBII.
Imperial Whazoo
Let me point something out about the differing economics of New York & Florida.
Apparently, your basic concern is with how HTF changes the economics of running the machines in a commercial plant environment in New York.
OK. Fine with me.
However, the problem solved in the Florida RKT plant is not the same as the problem solved in New York. The economics differ a lot, to say the least, LOL.
Now let me start by saying that, IMHO, the main reason the Florida project has been stalled has been that JBII is contractually bound to bear the expenses of the RKT start-up/build-out. Simply put, the legal fights that have been JBII's constant companion have made financing the RKT site untenable.
I think that the main avenues of attack employed by the enemies of JBII have been legal entanglements.
The chief reason, IMHO, the chart of JBII has been such an underperformer is the uncertainty injected into the matter by the constant entanglements in legal fights. I further think that freeing JBII from the last remaining legal entanglement, that of the all-but-settled bogus SEC complaint, will free the JBII to build the RKT site in Florida.
So, the hold up has been the costs of such things as legal bills and the undefined costs for disgourgement, penalties, and fines. Thats my opinion.
Now, back to the HTF matter.
As you point out, the HTF issue clouds the economics in NY because it implies there are technical problems. The costs of solving these issues is unknown.
These unknown costs are on top of the costs imposed by the DEC that require the plastic to be separated, handled specially, shipped specially, and databased on both the shipping and receiving ends.
To pass muster in New York, plastic to be processed at the plant has these costs as overhead: They have to separate it, handle it, ship it, and database it. And now they have HTF in the equation.
However, why does having to bag the plastic, after it has been separated, matter in Florida?
Why does having to truck it a certain way matter in Florida?
Or why does databasing at shipping and receiving matter down there?
After all, none of this is going to be needed in a plant like the Florida RKT plant, because it is not in need of being separated or bagged or databased or shipped.
At the RKT site, the plastic ragger tails come from the plant or are pulled out of existing landfills. Separation, bagging, shipping and databasing are not variables in the Florida equation.
As such, even with HTF in the equation, the economic viability of the Florida site is not dictated by the variables in the cost equation relevant in New York.
The operation in Florida is driven by economics imposed by existing handling, landfill, and regulatory costs.
I think the economics of the RKT Florida site are favorablke to putting the machines in place down there. Thats what I think.
And my opinion is that the hold-up in putting the machines in Florida was that JBII was unable to commit to the project in Florida for economic reasons. They had legal battles to fight and these imposed uncertain costs on the company that made starting in Florida impossible. The legal issues had to be dealt with first.
Bear in mind that the RKT deal was roundly criticized because JBII took on itself the costs of putting the site together. That meant that JBII had to raise money to go forward.
The costs of legal bills, unending legal entanglement, and the possible danger of disgourgement (plus penalties and fines) held JBII back from spending the money necessary to develop the RKT sites.
Thus, IMHO, the key issue for JBII is to finalize the SEC settlement.
The costs of HTF may or may not make commercial operation in New York viable, but in Florida, where the plastic does not need to be separated, handled, shipped, and databased, the RKT site will be viable.
Very much so.
Thats how I see it.
Hope this helps.
Imperial Whazoo
Well, not wishing to be argumentative, but I was in a large multistate consulting firm that specifically dealt with the problems of negotiating with and handling multijurisdiction issues such as this on behalf of private entites and you are simply wrong about what is, and what properly should be, amongst the issues management needs to correctly plan for.
Simple as that.
Been there. Did this for a living. Wrote company wide programs and implemented standard policies for implementing just this kind of thing for any combination of jurisdictions.
Basic to this issue is the representation that is simply accepted as fact that, because NY state is the second hardest state to get approval in, it simplifies things for the DEC to have granted what they have.
OK. So getting approvals in NY is big. How does that translate to Florida? How exactly is it going to be accomplished? Accomplished with the least amount of cost and the greatest efficiency? What's the plan?
If I sat in an office in NF and my job was to get the machines I had approvals for in NY set up in Florida, I'd be negligent if I agreed with you that the questions I'm asking are beyond the scope of management.
And as regards the specifics of what I'm asking, I'm really only interested, at this point, in the pragmatic issue of how the approval in NY gets applied to the machines in Florida. Not every state conceivable. Florida. 1 state at this point. Will the approvals simply transfer (which I think highly unlikely) or will certain matters, as yet unspecified, have to be revisited when the setup in Florida has progressed to the point that approvals are needed down there? Can the manner in which a machine is assembled and/or shipped be structured so that the Florida machines face the fewest possible number of issues? What is the plan?
As a concrete reality, everything involved in doing the job of getting machines, approved in NY, set up and running in Florida, involves coming up with an efficient system for doing so.
I will ask managemnt to tell the shareholders what their plan is. I'm dumbfounded by the very idea that asking for such a thing is beyond what is reasonable to expect of management. Apart from incompetence, there is no reason on the face of the earth why any management team would toe the starting line of getting the machines up an running in Florida with a plan they can not even describe.
I want to know what their plan is and I will not even countenance, much less view as legitimate, even the slightest argument that asking this of them is beyond what is reasonable.
It is the very essence of getting the job done. And like I said, this kind of consulting was my business for 9 years.
Been there, Done that.
Got the T-shirt.
Reality check: expecting this kind of planning and efficient execution is the job itself. I think they owe it to themselves, and to shareholders, to do this the right way, and doing it the right way is both do-able and knowable.
Period.
Imperial Whazoo
For those of us not in that arena, could somebody cut-n-paste the filing?
TIA
JBII's gap down is going to be a thing of the past, IMHO.
So long, bad reaction to excellent news, LOL.
Hello upleg that grows in strength each day the CC gets nearer.
Thanx raw, BTW.
:o)
Imperial Whazoo
Since I really do not know, and since a lot of the present "understanding" has ambiguity built into it, a big part of my question is exactly what you sense.
As the design of the machines gets standardized, how much of the stack test style approvals will be rubber stamped? Will they need to get certain things passed in NY and others in other states? That kind of thing.
Or ask it in other ways, such as:
What process will be involved in getting some kind of efficiency to the "rubber stamping" of the tchnology as the machines get set up in other jurisdictions?
Or:
How will the passing grade of a standardized design get passed on to other states?
What exact process will be in place to get a machine up and running in Florida? How much built and passed here... how much built there and passed there?
Basically, as I see things, if I were to embed in my questions a certain set of precise "angles", as it were, I may, by the very act of being too specific, give an avenue for imprecision in understanding things as they will actually work.
What we saw was two machines in the flux. A third being built. We saw a shut down that cost a lot of moola. What is going to be done about this NOT becoming the pattern in the future? What is the current expectation regarding making the process of getting machines approved in other jurisdictions? Basically.... just explain what is expected and explain what is different about what we can expect copmpared to what cause the shut downs that cost a lot of money?
What I actually want is to have the path understood. It looks to me like they had to fix #1, get approval for #2, and they have yet to complete #3. In that there are delays that cost time and a lot of money due to the status and the remedy for #1 & #2 in the recent past, it seems that long term shareholders like myself, who basically see the technology and the company in a favorable light, deserve a clear explanation of whether what cost a lot of money in the recent past is going to be a regular expectation.
Fix what caused the shut down.... thats my basic point. Don't let what recently happend be the pattern going forward. But again, if its more complicated than a simple "fix" can supply, explain what we can expect and how the "fix", whatever it is, is going to work.
I do not expect to find out that every time a machine gets built, we have to shut everything down, but IMHO, there is some "splainin'" to do.
Imperial Whazoo
Obviously not on #3. Not possible to do #3 yet, because the machine has to be completed first... obviously.
I referred to the other machines and my question was intended to pin down whether each machine they bring on line will require a revenue impacting shut down of everything else. I doubt it will, but why not ask?
I presume that they have it well in hand and the manufacturing of new machines in the future will not mean we see revenue hits each time, but I also believe in directly asking questions that are otherwise assumed to be obvious.
So, to summarize, you misunderstood me: it was machines other than the incomplete #3 that underwent stack tests in the past, so your confusion regarding #3 is off target.
Hope that helps.
Imperial Whazoo
Here's my first question for the CC.
Question:
"Regarding the events involving the most recent stack tests, in that another stack test was needed to bring online the most recently completed unit, and in that the shut down impacted revenues bigtime, what can we expect as regards the need to shut everything down to do a stack test on the 3rd unit when the unit gets to the point where JBII is ready to bring it online?"
"And, assuming there will be a shutdown to stack test the new unit, will it be a fact in the future that, as new units are built, there will always be revenue impacting shutdowns to do stack tests every time a new unit gets manufactured?"
"Also, will the new units for the RKT site be built in NF, and if so, will they be stack tested in NF? Or will they be partially built in NF, shipped to Florida, completed there, and tested for permitting under Florida regulations? Or is it going to unfold in a manner that is not precisely either of these alternatives?"
"Also, what plan is in place to streamline the process of obtaining stack tests so that bringing online new units in the future will not force revenue hits to repeatedly be taken?"
I'll have other questions in the future. I'll meditate on the above and submit these (or some modified version thereof) via the methods outlined in today's PR.
Imperial Whazoo
Also... lets not balk at the idea that much of what I'm asking is already answered. Lets ask again what we all think we know, OK?
Shhhhhhhh.... kool baby...... SHHHHHHH!
Don't spill the beans. Repeat after me:
JBII is a failure.
JBII is a fraud.
JBII is a failure.
Now, take a deep breath.. Hold it a beat.. Exhale. Do it again.
JBII is a failure.
JBII is a fraud.
JBII is a failure.
EIEIO
:o)
What good is there to letting the actual truth out.... free to roam around and prowl the hiways and biways of the market?
The thing to trumpet is failure galore at JBII. Focus on that. Put camo netting on the battlements of truth and walk around wringing your hands in utter dismay over the purported failures of JBII.
ROTFLMAO, kool baby.
ROTFLMAO
:o)
Imperial Whazoo
Oh trust me, kool baby...
You are in lock step with me, LOL.
I read the thing and then I liked it, for all the reasons you list... newbie company with a bigtime set of YOY comparative gains and so on...
To be honest, I'm looking for a chart behavior that tells that it' not cryin' time.... it's buyin' time.
:o)
Well said, kool baby.
Well said indeed.
Imperial Whazoo
The process of processing waste plastic in the P20 machines is regulated to be sure PVC plastic is not used.
JBI's regulated process for turning waste plastic into oil & gas products is limited by the permits of the NY DEC to be certain that PVC plastic is excluded.
Unwashed non-PVC plastic with trace salt on it is fine.
Unwashed non-PVC plastic with a nose hair on it is fine.
Unwashed non-PVC plastic with a bugger on it is fine.
Unwashed non-PVC plastic with a plop of dry kitty litter on it is fine.
Unwashed non-PVC plastic with a bird seed adhering to it is fine.
Unwashed non-PVC plastic with a spot of spit on it is fine.
Unwashed non-PVC plastic with soil from Nebraska is is fine.
Unwashed non-PVC plastic with a grain of sand from the Jersey shore is fine.
Unwashed non-PVC plastic with rose pollen on it is fine.
Unwashed non-PVC plastic with a spitball on it is fine.
Need I go on?
The process can employ dirty or clean plastic, free or purchased plastic, sorted or unsorted plastic; so long as it is not PVC plastic.
It has to be in certain kinds of shipping containers. It has to be documented, databased, tracked, and reported on, but it can be un-washed, un-free, un-clean, and un-sorted.
As a matter of fact, if the guy unloading a shipment of free, unsorted, unwashed, unclean plastic were to leave it temporarily in its shipping bag while he went to the building to get a signature on his clipboard, a stray wolverine could wander by and piss on the corner of the bag and the shipment would still be OK as to its adherence to the permits granted to JBI by the NY DEC.
Imperial Whazoo
JBI uses plastic feedstock to feed its P2O machines. The process is permitted by the NY DEC. PVC can not be used. The permits require the source of the plastic to separate the plastic to prevent PVC plastic from being shipped. The separated plastic does not have to be sorted.
The NY DEC permits do not require the feedstock to be washed, sorted, cleen, or non-free.
The premits require that the source from which JBI obtains it must bag it, separate out PVC, and manage it in certain types of containers during shipping.
JBI can use unwashed plastic.
JBI can use washed plastic.
JBI can use sorted plastic.
JBI can use unsorted plastic.
JBI can use free plastic.
JBI can use purchased plastic.
It must be "Source separated", but it does not have to be "sorted".
Sorted, clean, washed and free are OK, but not required.
Dirty, unsorted, non-free and unwashed are OK, but not required.
Imperial Whazoo
I just love it. The argument I make that JBI is a well run little company is made for me, LOL.
First... let me refute the outright lie that the permits by the DEC REQUIRE JBI to use sorted, clean, and/or washed plastic feedstock:
Fact is that JBI is NOT REQUIRED by regulatory authority to use only clean, washed, and/or sorted feedstock.
The 100% false claim was made that the DEC permitting REQUIRES it.
It is not required.
Period.
Now, as regards the mistake of supplying me with evidence of EXCELLENT MANAGEMENT at JBII, I wish to point out to everybody that JBI is choosing to solve a problem by excercising sound management practices. They discovered that controls were needed and they implemented them.
They were not being required to do so by regulatory fiat. They CHOSE to do so. It is a CHOICE they made to act in accordance with good management practices. Its a FICTION that the NY DEC required it.
JBI is a well run little company, being managed correctly by skilled people.
Thank you so very much for affording me the pregnant opportunity to point these truths out.
:o)
Imperial Whazoo
Hi Rawnoc.
I think you need to add the following item to the list of disproven claims: the disproven claim that JBI has to use clean, sorted, and/or washed plastic as its feedstock.
Proven facts are found at these links:
Permit #1:
TYPE: Air State Facility STATUS: Issued as of 06/14/2011 EXPIRES: 06/30/2014
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=759800
Permit #2:
TYPE: Solid Waste Management STATUS: Issued as of 06/14/2011 EXPIRES: 06/30/2014
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=770377
Permit #3:
TYPE: Air State Facility STATUS: Issued as of 02/07/2012 EXPIRES: 06/30/2014
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=788898
Permit #4:
TYPE: Air State Facility STATUS: Issued as of 03/16/2012 EXPIRES: 06/30/2014
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=792467
Permit #5:
TYPE: Solid Waste Management STATUS: Issued as of 07/23/2012 EXPIRES: 06/30/2014
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=795387
Add that to your list of falsehoods thoroughly disproven by facts, Rawnoc. It belongs in your excellent listing, obviously.
:o)
Imperial Whazoo
OK everybody, here are the links to the ACTUAL NY DEC documents regarding permitting of JBI's Niagara facility.
Note this fact: JBI is NOT limited by the DEC permits to using only clean, washed and/or sorted plastic feedstock.There is not such limitation regarding the plastic feedstock.
In fact, there is nothing in any of the actual permits that restricts JBI as regards the plactic it uses.
Plain & simple: JBI DOES NOT HAVE TO USE CLEAN, WASHED and/or SORTED PLASTIC FEEDSTOCK. Period.
Read the documents youreselves.
Permit #1:
TYPE: Air State Facility STATUS: Issued as of 06/14/2011 EXPIRES: 06/30/2014
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=759800
Permit #2:
TYPE: Solid Waste Management STATUS: Issued as of 06/14/2011 EXPIRES: 06/30/2014
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=770377
Permit #3:
TYPE: Air State Facility STATUS: Issued as of 02/07/2012 EXPIRES: 06/30/2014
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=788898
Permit #4:
TYPE: Air State Facility STATUS: Issued as of 03/16/2012 EXPIRES: 06/30/2014
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=792467
Permit #5:
TYPE: Solid Waste Management STATUS: Issued as of 07/23/2012 EXPIRES: 06/30/2014
http://www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm?view=detail&applid=795387
:o)
Imperial Whazoo
Sorry man, dumpage has not been happening since the volume event occured. The selling SINCE the volume event is tiny.
Dumpage is not happening when the volume is tiny.
Dumpage, in and of itself, has to be accompanied by volume.
Since my sole concern is with what has been happening since the volume event, it is irrelevent whether the volume event is evidence of conversion & dumpage.
I'm not convinced it was dumpage that day, but since my question is with what has been happening since, it is irrelevent, isn't it?
The charts in this case do not show there is anything even approaching the required levels of volume for it to be the case that, during the timeframe I've been concerned with, there to have been dumpage going on.
The guy who pointed out my speculation about manipulation was unsupportable due to the small volume footprint had it correct & my point to you is likewise correct.
Dumpage is not the explanation for why, SUBSEQUENT TO THE VOLUME EVENT, there has been a patterns of poor chart performance with each bit of PRed good sales news.
Its not been due to dumpage.
And I'm not arguing about it anymore. You are wrong. One more time for the record... and then you can have as many instances of "the last word" as you like, LOL.
Since the volume event, dumpage is NOT the explanation for why the series of good PRs are repeatedly being met with poor chart performance.
There would be more volume if dumpage were happening in this timeframe.
Volume since the single volume event, which is the timeframe I'm asking about, has been far too low for there to have been dumpage going on.
I don't agree. Its not going lower, IMHO, anyway. There are three higher lows in the works. Its holding above the lowest prior low each time, progressively. Tells the story, if you ask me. Too low for dumpage or manipulation, too.
And lets be honest:
my question was not about "the day of approval & just after", so all the thoughts you put out there are legitimate in their own right... just not relevent as any kind of answer to my basic question of why every SUBSEQUENT good news event shows a decline in price rather than a rise.
So what that vol happens PRIOR to the instances I'm asking about? Has nothing to do with my question... obviously.
Basically, its proly more along the lines of it just not being very large sales that are PRed.
They proly are, as that other guy said, just too minor to get the market interested. That works for me. The guy who pointed this fact out has it about right, now that its been pointed out that the sales are rather tiny in terms of size. Good point to point out. Explains it pretty well, proly.
Dumpage... not so much, LOL. Not with only 185K in the decline side of the charts latest behavior.
I mistakenly assumed it was manipulation. You mistakenly attribute it to dumpage. Looks like both arguments fail the sniff test, LOL.
I, for one, generally stop pushing a bad theory when examination of it shows it to be invalid.
Just a thought, LOL
Imperial Whazoo
Yeah, once some guy said it was dumpage, I checked the vols. Its not dumpage. And the same applies to manipulation.
So you are right. Proly not manipulation because theres too little vol.
So, taking out manipulation & dumpage.... have an explanation anyone?
In any event, however, I figure its done on the down down for a while, so long as the low thusfar today holds. Third higher low is the death knell of a decline, if you ask me.
Sideways or back up. We'll just have to see.
Imperial Whazoo
The theories about shares converted & dumped are never true in cases where there is insufficient volume to jive with the theory.
And there is way too little volume for share conversion & dumpage to be operating here.
We saw 783K vol back when it touched as low as it has today... which was 2/20. If somebody wanted it to go lower, then its not doing it. In fact, if today's low holds, we actually have trhree higher lows... 12/28/12, 2/20/13, & today.... each being a higher low.
Repeated instances of higher lows speaks of failed attempts to take it lower.
Also, back to the need for volume if there is dumpage going on, in the 8 days since 2/20, not counting today, avg daily vol has been 185K, m/l.
185 K.
Big deal.
Obviously, its a yarn to spin this as conversion & dumpage.
185K per day is not dumpage.
Personally, if anyone subscribed to the theory that lows get retested, then it follows that today's retest of the last time it was back at this level (the 783K day of 2/20), then its healthy for it to revisit this low at a low volume. Revisits at low volume andfailure to penetrate... thats says its not got the power to the downside it needs to continue to fail on every bit of good sales news.
A revisit at low volume says that there is not enough down side force to make the thing fail any further. For the moment, I'm going with that theory.
If it tests today on low volume & fails to penetrate this price zone, I say its done retesting and that its either going to cycle sideways for a while, or retrace to the topside again.
We'll just have to see, I suppose. And as regards share conversion & dumpage, unless there is a volume event, that sure ain't the reason, LOL.
Imperial Whazoo