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.
Which is precisely why IsleChem is using a JBII reactor to do the testing with.
It represents the production machine rather than a laboratory environment.
It would be nice if it met both. It is just not necessary to meet both.
Scientific standards are expensive to meet.
Such a test would appropriate in a scientific setting where you are trying to demonstrate that a particular variable was responsible for the change demonstrated in the experiment.
In the case of our chemical process that sort of testing is nice to do but not required.
The output of the reactor is sufficient to document that the process works.
If the chemists have it wrong and the process works in spite of their incorrect understanding, the process still works. And, it is still profitable if it performs up to expectations.
There are practical standards and there are scientific standards.
This is a business and has to meet practical standards not scientific ones.
Aside from the fact that your "Central point" wasn't in the msg that I responded to I'll say this....Your standards of acceptable proof apply to you and you alone.
Based on the information available I have chosen to invest some money in this company. It is incomplete information. That is the nature of investing and decision making in general.
I agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That proof is forthcoming. Just because the extraordinary proof isn't available yet doesn't mean that it won't be.
You seem to confuse improbable with impossible. The improbable happens all the time.
For example, in WWII there were three documented cases of people bailing out of airplanes without parachutes and surviving. Most people would consider that impossible, but in fact it was only improbable. And it did happen.
New chemical processes are developed all the time. Existing process are improved all the time. It is improbable that an existing, well studied process will be dramatically improved, yet it happens.
I suppose that you refuse to take any drugs because the testing is done or funded by the company that develops and markets them. All the FDA does is review the data presented to them.
I'm also guessing that you don't buy any bonds because the rating agencies are paid by the bond creators. Well in this example there is good reason not to trust them, but that is how it is done.
And you probably don't eat meat because the salaries of the FDA inspectors at meat packing companies are paid by the meat packers.
You must live a pretty Spartan life to hold true to your third party verification standards.
Third party verification isn't the issue here, creating FUD is.
This is not publication of a scientific process in a peer reviewed journal. This is a commercial chemical process that is proprietary.
Please don't confuse the two with each other. They are quite different in purpose.
Gee... Have you read Reg FD?
By the time you understand the definition of material information and then look at the applicable portions of Reg FD, it would appear that as frequently is the case, there is no substance to question about the Facebook posts of the "maybe" JB.
As you point out, that might not even be JB posting but someone posing as JB. In that case unless you can show that the poster is a corporate insider, it doesn't matter what they post in terms of Reg FD.
But lets assume that it is JB, then the next question becomes is the information posted material? If you look at the definition below, most people will conclude that it is not.
After that there is the issue of whether Facebook is sufficiently public access to meet the definition of Reg FD as a public disclosure. Since there is no charge to access Facebook it can be deemed accessible by anyone with internet access. Reg FD considers a website as a possible mechanism for REG FD disclosure. Personally I think that Facebook might be a little iffy in the regard.
All in all, this seems to be an attempt to create fear, uncertainty and doubt over nothing.
Sigh.
For example....
4. "Public Disclosure" Required by Regulation FD
Rule 101(e) defines the type of "public disclosure" that will satisfy the requirements of Regulation FD. As proposed, Rule 101(e) gave issuers considerable flexibility in determining how to make required public disclosure. The proposal stated that issuers could meet Regulation FD's "public disclosure" requirement by filing a Form 8-K, by distributing a press release through a widely disseminated news or wire service, or by any other non-exclusionary method of disclosure that is reasonably designed to provide broad public access -- such as announcement at a conference of which the public had notice and to which the public was granted access, either by personal attendance, or telephonic or electronic access. This definition was designed to permit issuers to make use of current technologies, such as webcasting of conference calls, that provide broad public access to issuer disclosure events.
As adopted, Rule 101(e) states that issuers can make public disclosure for purposes of Regulation FD by filing or furnishing a Form 8-K, or by disseminating information "through another method (or combination of methods) of disclosure that is reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information to the public."
Then there is the definition of material information.
Material information. Information which, if given to reasonable investors in the marketplace and analyzed by them along with other available information about the securities issuer, would likely cause a security's value to change.
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/banking_financing/be22_8glossary%281%29.html
It certainly has my attention!
More than permission.....until TO's are awarded to the primes and then down to the subs, there is no guaranteed Dollars. So there is nothing to PR except potential.
As was noted in another msg, Honeywell has to competitively bid against CSC for the TO's, then after winning Honeywell will decide how much of the TO's it will perform and how much will go to which sub.
So the question is what would a PR from EVRM say?
"Our prime is now able to bid for work against a 2.8 Bil contract. They may or may not win any work. If they do win work, they may or may not award some of that work to us."
Not exactly the strongest PR that I would like to see.
As you pointed out in an earlier msg, the work will likely be split more or less evenly between Honeywell and CSC.
Of that work some amount will be given to EVRM. What that percentage will be is not known at this time.
What we can say as investors is that there is a strong likelihood of EVRM getting some serious Dollars out of this contract that Honeywell has qualified for. The amount is unknown at this time.
If someone told his IQ was 70 instead would you care about that?
Clearly IQ isn't everything, but it is a good foundation to build on.
To quote Thomas Edison " Success is 2% inspiration and 98% perspiration."
It helps a lot if that 2% is really good.
It's another one of the joys of the internet age.
Why do we care about domain name squatters? There are many combinations of domain names possible using Evermedia, Biometrics, etc.
Just because some domain name squatter has decided to risk a few Bucks on registering them with hopes of selling them later at a much higher price doesn't mean anything to us a shareholders.
Those guys are internet lice. Annoying but not serious.
Get over yourself. You know as well as any other person that reads this board that hard data will be available when the Islechem reports are released.
Until then we have the information that has been released by the company. You haven't signed a non-disclosure agreement with the company so there is no reason for you to have any more data than the company chooses to make public at this time.
This is a proprietary process in the early stages of roll out. That time when a process transitions from R&D to production.
I suspect based on other communications from the company that the output mix and percentages are still subject to small changes based on the feedback from Islechem. Not to mention that each area that provides plastic input materials will have a different mix of plastics, which may result in a different output mix as well as a slightly different catalyst mix.
The bottom line is that you can make noise about the lack of hard data at the same time knowing that more definitive information is forthcoming, or you can be patient and wait like the rest of us.
Why do you keep replying to these guys?
They are accomplishing their goal of keeping the conversation around the word scam.
Nice job of controlling the subject guys.
In an article about the nasties that come out of plastics, the Author says that the average person in the US generates 1/2 pound of plastic waste everyday.
Lets see, that's 330 million people X 1/2 = 150 million pounds of plastic waste every day. I don't think that getting inout material for the P2O process is going to be that difficult.
Looks like destroying the plastic waste by converting it to oil is going to be a major environmental positive on several different levels.
www.physorg.com/news188210948.html
I agree with most of what you said. I have a small disagreement with your statement that it will be harder to adjust all the processors once they are on site.
Obviously we don't know what those adjustments are going to be, but we can make a few guesses.
The most likely adjustments will be in the catalyst mix which would be done at the Pakit plant so no problem there.
Other likely adjustments are operating temps and the like. Machines like our processors are generally operated by small process control computers called PLCs. Sending out a new program to a lot of identical machines is not a big deal and can be handled as routine maintenance. More likely, these PLCs will have an operator interface where the operator can adjust temps, cycle times, flow rates and the like. It's likely that process updates can handled with an email with new setting to be entered into the PLC.
If the process change requires bigger heat exchangers or something like that, then you are correct. It would be a much bigger problem to make changes to a lot of processors in the field.
I hope your gut feel is correct.
There's that.
Although trading at >$4 is hardly a "penny stock".
The definition used by many large institutions is a price >$5 and listed on the Naz not the OTCBB and as such we are a "Penny stock" in their eyes.
bid nite .014 hdsn .0115
ask nite .0149 ETMM .015 HDSN .015 UBSS .015
You are probably correct. At this time there isn't any institutional or Mutual Fund ownership. This is too leading edge for them.
Hedge funds are a different question. They seek out leading edge companies and since they are private ownership information is much harder to come by unless they meet the 5% or larger criterion.
Not me!!!!! I got a whopping 5,000 shares at .0076 and I'm holding.
Talk about getting teased by the MM's. So close to being a DZH.... but not quite.
Sigh.
This says that the primes will be getting task orders in a few days.....Those should get to the subs pretty quickly given the response times called for in the contracts.
What it doesn't say is how long the companies have to submit their bids on the TO's before they are awarded.
Anybody got any insight into that?
<snip>
But the companies have little time to celebrate, as the first three task orders for processing centers in Canada, Mexico and six English-speaking countries in West Africa will be out next week, the source said.
<snip>
http://gcn.com/articles/2010/03/01/csc-stanley-state-visa-contract.aspx
There are a few that are determined to find something that is not to their liking and use it to create FUD.
Doesn't matter what it is or how relevant it is to the overall situation.
Frankly I appreciate their efforts. If there is something of serious negative impact out there I want to know about it.
If all they can come up with is that there might not be enough plastic out there in 10 years, then that is good to know also, even if it isn't true. That increases my confidence in my investment.
Tadaaa.... very nice find. This clarifies many of the details about this contract. It also says that TO's will be competed for between the two companies. And, further says that the TO's will be coming out quickly.
Looks like TO's will be awarded in 3or 4 months, with a steady supply of them at one a month for the next 21 months.
There is nothing certain about receiving TO's, but there certainly are a lot of opportunities to receive them coming up in the near future.
There is no need for EVRM to PR the Honeywell information.
There are no task orders for EVRM from this Honeywell contract at this time which means there is no money or work for EVRM to perform.
All that PR says is that Honeywell along with another company have been awarded prime contractor status for a large contract. It does not say which of the two primes will get how much money in TO's. That information will come out in the future as TO's are awarded.
Depending on what work the TO's require Honeywell will issue a task order to the appropriate sub of which EVRm is one. For all we know, EVRM may have to compete with the other subs for the TO's.
What is significant about this PR is that a very large and well known Defense contractor publicly announced that EVRM is one of 4 subs is will use in the work it gets. That confers a large dose of legitimacy upon EVRM.
I suppose the concept of leaving money on the table is not familiar to you.
Consider..... He needs a place for his reactors that is an industrial site, compatible with working with hydrocarbons, has piping, pumps, tanks etc. plus trucking facilities.
Those requirements are satisfied with the property just purchased, plus he can get value added from his product by blending it.
You may not have noticed but there has been information posted that suggest the process can be tuned for specific outputs and that different input mixes may change the output mix some.
The flexibility of blending output from different input mixes may allow for optimization of the total production of the process resulting in a greater profit margin.
Mostly I think that blending will allow for value added processing that selling at WTC-3 price will not.
I agree.... the key word is Liquidation.
Just don't look at TDA'S LVL II. It shows 4.00 X 4.95.
The streamer B&A is correct.
Thanks. I am wondering why we get incomplete LVLII on JBII.
I have never seen that happen before.
Could someone please post LVLII. My LVLII doesn't show NITE. Atrade shows 4.00 X 4.75.
Thanks
Either you think that there is value in what the company has or you don't. It really is that simple.
We are in the stock market..... that means we are in the business of predicting the future. It's not what I would call an exact science.
You can place your bet and wait to see what the end result is or you can place your bet and fret over it until you can't stand it any more and sell out. The choice is yours.
I suggest that you determine an exit point in case hte price declines and stick to it. That should relieve your stress.
If you decide to stay in for the long haul then relax. It will happen when it happens and no sooner, which ever way it goes.
I keep seeing that "Holy Grail" phrase. I know where it came from. Does anybody have an idea as to what that piece of software was?
Did he recover the original version of MS-Dos or what?
I guess you are just going to have to deal with not knowing exactly what plastics are being used at this time.
"The analytical data IsleChem is collecting covers a range of post consumer feedstocks and will be utilized to enable the JBI global growth strategy."
By the way what is the difference between used and recycled from your point of view?
Post consumer would seem to fit both terms but I suspect you have something more specific in mind.
" As well, IsleChem has been supporting JBI's engineers to maximize process efficiency and fuel output for target markets.
CEO John Bordynuik commented, "JBI welcomes IsleChem's research scientist's knowledge, analytical capability and industrial expertise to the P2O team. IsleChem is able to work at the molecular level to further improve P2O's efficiency and hydrocarbon output and working closely with such a local partner continues to be a key component of our business strategy. This P2O process is a home run for JBI and I am extremely pleased with how it is operating."
As I said... the above quotes indicates to me that Islechem is helping JBI to characterize the process. You may interpret those sentences differently.
Steady_T
So now you quote another stock board poster and claim that is an authoritative source.
Oh yeah... Great work on that.
Lets see.....that was an article about a facility in England.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the population of England is a bit smaller that that of the US.
Then there are the other things in that article that seem relevant that you fail to mention.
"Athough more than 216,000 tonnes of plastic bottles are collected for recycling in the UK, the recycling of non-bottle household plastic packaging is still limited. By supporting this new facility WRAP hopes to demonstrate the business case for increasing mixed plastics recycling in the UK and so attract further investment in capacity."
Then there is the question of where this facility is located.....It seems to be in a seaside resort area of the U.K.
So it is not located near a major city which is where you would expect to get a LOT more plastic from recyclers.
FUD monger.
http://www.google.com/search?q=redcar+uk&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
If you read the PR carefully you would have noticed that the description of the work Islechem is doing is to use a variety of input streams and measure the outputs.
That indicates to me that Islechem is helping JBI to characterize the process.
You really should read these PR's more closely.
It's in the I-box process diagram page. They show an icon labeled tires as input material.
Thanks for that info on plastic melting temps. I was off by quite a bit.
To quote Mark Twain "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
I sit corrected.
scion
I just read that study you provided the link to. Thanks for that.
PVC and PET were not show stoppers but the authors suggested they be excluded because they didn't produce any liquids in the output stream in the process used.
Move importantly, the authors used straight pyrolytic process in their study.
The process used by P2O incorporates the use of catalysts which may solve the PVC and PET issues. Also the use of the catalysts seem to shift the product to shorter chained hydrocarbons compared to the Austrailian study.
Clearly we don't know as much about the process as we'd like to at this point. Once we get some info from the lab work going on we will have a better understanding of the situation.
Thanks for that info..... That is outstanding if it confirms.
If tires are readily usable in this process every medium to large city will want one. There is a huge amount of old tires sitting in tire dumps all over this country.
Do we know what temps this process runs at?
At least from the diagram it isn't one of the plasma thermal decomp processes.
Given that a lot of plastics don't melt until 700 F, it has to run pretty hot.
I just reexamined the I-box process diagram and noticed for the first time that old tires are considered as usable input materials.
That increases the amount of available input materials by quite a bit. Even more interesting is that you can charge people to accept old tires so the input to the process becomes a revenue stream instead of a cost item like plastics will be.
They haven't given a specific plastic mix as far as I know.
Recycled plastic is what they say is used.
I am curious about PVC and the like, as I wonder what the process does with the chlorine molecules.