SteveF

You must have missed this last time it was posted. Here it is again for your reading pleasure.

aybe this will help you understand how a catalyst functions in a complex chemical environment.



Reforming Catalysts
In petroleum refineries, catalytic reforming is one of the most commonly used processes. During reforming the octane number of naphtha, a raw mixture of hydrocarbons, is increased b dehydrogenation, isomerization, dehydrocycliczation and hydrocracking reactions to make it suitable for gasoline blending and manufacturing of other petrochemical materials. Worldwide, naphtha is processed at a rate of 13 million barrels per day, and reformed naphtha constitutes about 30-35% of the total gasoline pool.
Current reforming catalysts are all platinum (Pt) based, and are usually found in bimetallic formulations with either tin (Sn) or rhenium (Re). The quality of the final naphtha product is very sensitive to catalyst structure since several different chemical reactions occur at distinct catalytically active sites. Using NxCat’s adaptable technology, Headwaters Technology Innovation Group has created a unique competitive advantage by designing a reforming catalyst with superior control of the size, composition and morphology of the nanoparticles. This maximizes the yield of the desired products, increases the lifetime of the catalyst, while limiting unfavorable reactions such as hydrogenolysis and coking.

Exactly what insider information are you alleging that she has?

Stating that there are things going on doesn't seem to meet the test of material information does it?

While we are at it, as long as she doesn't trade on that information I don't think there is a legal limit on how much insider information she can have.

What is that saying... something about mountains and molehills.

Thank you for the kind words.

I haven't given up. I was just trying to set realistic expectations.

One decent TO and this runs.

Actually I'm pretty happy with the way the price has held during this long dry spell.

Since you don't know what the specific issues are, how can you make any meaningful statement about whether the CFO should have seen it coming?

I expect next quarter's numbers to be very much the same.

If they had a TO we would have heard about it.

No TO = no additional income.

Sigh.

Judging by that 10Q there is nothing to correspond about. Sigh!

At least they are managing their cash well while they try to get something going.

What am I missing here?

That letter seems to be a response to a letter from the SEC about Moore & Co being discredited and having their license revoked.

The SEC sent one of those out to everyone who has used Moore & Co in the recent past.

The new accountants are saying that that they understand that Moore & Co work can not be relied upon and that they will be responsible for the new filings.

That is what I would expect in these circumstances.

What did you expect?

MLM... what has happened to you?

The filings will either confirm or disprove your theory that this is not a reputable company.

As has been pointed out before, you nor any of us know what the issues are with the filings other than the general areas described in the 8K.

Are you in that much of a hurry to be right that you have to wail and gnash your teeth because the filings aren't done as soon as you would like.

The evidence is coming, one way or the other, be patient my man.

Since you have been so cryptic about what you're hearing about the hearing I cannot say.

It seems to me that unless JBII is alleging malfeasance by one of the previous accountants, either Gately or one of the acquired subs accountants, I don't see how they will "win" the hearing.

As has been posted here, the rules for the hearing are very narrow in what can be considered. The Naz web site makes it quite clear that the hearing process does not extend the deadline for filings.

We will see what happens when it happens. I expect to see pink.

I'll accept that you don't think it is absolute proof.

Others that have posted here have made much stronger statements in that regard.

If you think it "does present a compelling case based on high probabilities that are more than sufficient on which to base an investment decision."

That's fine with me. Guilt by association is not allowed in courts, but this isn't court, it is, as you say, an investment decision.

Each investor has to determine his or her own level of risk tolerance and how to evaluate risk.

You choose to give associations a high factor rating in your evaluations. Works for me.

I this case I don't evaluate the risk from association as being that strong a predictor.

I have been wrong before and I have been right before.

Investing is about predicting the future. That is not an exact science. Just ask the financial markets how that has worked over the last five years.

I suppose it has to do with the skeptics guaranteeing failure.

That rather forecloses a wide range of possibilities.

There is support for a number of the "promised future events."

Sometimes it is stronger than others, but none the less it is support.

A great deal of the criticism has been based on similarities with other companies that turn out to be scams.

That is a pretty weak argument because development stage companies are all based on "promised future events."

Some succeed grandly, some succeed moderately, some fail due to poor execution, some are out right scams and never have a chance of success.

Passage of time is the only way to know for sure which of the possible outcomes will apply.

Pick me teacher... pick me....


I can answer why John hasn't sold any "juice".

It's not yet in production. Duh.

I think that the step to deal with the chlorine is after the pyrolysis chamber but before the catalyst.

Depending on what her catalyst is, she may have a problem with prior art.

I have found that getting through to Mr. Grannatt is a hit or miss proposition.

He tells me to keep calling, that he tries to return calls but has a limited amount of time to do that each day because of his other duties.

Thanks for posting that. Quite interesting.

The good Professor's process does the following:

• The catalyst enhances the conversion of waste plastic in to hydrocarbons thereby improving quality & quantity of hydrocarbon gas and liquid products. Negligible Conversion was observed in absence of invented catalytic additives

• PET bottles as a feed material – Analytical results of experiments using 100% PET bottles show that yield of liquid hydrocarbon is 60 wt%. There was no formation of carboxylic group. This confirms that it is possible to convert the PET material in to liquid hydrocarbon under the catalytic conditions of the developed process.

• PVC as a feed material – Effect of catalytic conversion of pure PVC have been studied and the data shows the liquid yield of about 40 wt%. Further experiments were conducted for removal of chlorine from these products. Here de-chlorination step was incorporated prior to reaction step. It was observed that about 55% weight reduction after removal of Chlorine from the PVC.

IOC (R&D) Certified End Uses & Applications
The products obtained by this process have been tested at IOC (R&D) and end uses, are as follows:
End uses for liquid hydrocarbon:
a) D.G Sets for Generation of Electricity
b) Fuel for Agricultural pumps
c) Fuel for Boiler
d) Marine Fuel (Bunker fuel)
e) As input feed for Petroleum Refineries
f) Fuel oil etc.
End uses for Gas:
a) Any near by industries using LPG
b) For in-house consumption
For solid fuel:
a) Thermal power plants
b) Metallurgical Industries.

Looks like she will have no problem finding customers for her fuel output.

I didn't copy the mixture analysis she had about plastics in the municipal waste stream. May not be the same in India as it is here in the USA.

I thought selling restricted shares without getting the notation lifted was illegal.

Do you means that these shares were being sold illegally?

Ask .0079 bid .006 2:21 CDT

So much for the usual excuses for the FTD's on JBII stock.

Looks like NSS to me.

That's all right. Your posts are predictable no matter what board you post on.

My expectations ??????

Please look at my prediction on the Air Permit.

Please don't label me with the posts of others.

And we don't know what production will be after they get that permit, do we?

They may well start serious production right after they get the permit.

PP

I think that you are misreading the letter.

"And while it gives a breakdown of the "hydrocarbon composition," the letter completely neglects to state what percentage of the output is "hydrocarbon composition." What's the more important breakdown? Without knowing the percentage that is hydrocarbons, the breakdown of those hydrocarbons is worthless."

You are correct in saying that it addresses the hydrocarbon composition.

It says that 85 to 90% of the hydrocarbon composition in the feedstock is converted to "near diesel" fuel

Approximately 8% of the hydrocarbon composition in the feedstock is converted into usable off gas.

Approximately 1% of the feedstock remains as a residue.

The only way that last line makes any sense is if they are talking about a total of 100% of the feedstock input, of which 98% is hydrocarbon based plastics.

From that you can infer that there wasn't any PET of PVC in the input stream.

I think that the letter is telling us what percentage of the output is hydrocarbon. And by inference what the input stream is composed of.

This analysis isn't going to make some of the JBII supporters happy and will provide "fuel" for the naysayers but that is how I read it.

Let the raging begin.

We will find out if JBII is the real deal or not in the next few months.

You have made you opinion of JBII clear.

How many times do you have to repeat it?

Repetition does not make it true only tedious.

Oh Please.

Folks "extol the qualifications of the firm" because they are world class talent with serious hydrocarbon expertise that was hired to improve JBII's process.

We are told that IsleChem was initially so skeptical about JBII's process that IsleChem didn't want their name released publicly.

It was only after IsleChem performed measurements and did testing that they changed their minds and allowed the IsleChem name to be used publicly.

The letter from IsleChem DOES stand on its own.

As far as I can see you are the only one that seems to be making this mistake. The rest of us understand what that letter (It is a letter, not a report) represents.

---------------QUOTE-----------
For those of you who believe that the report is the summary of a project, it is misleading to present this information to the public as validation or assurance of the P2O process in such a way that it could be mistaken for an independent engineer report.
------------------------------------

It seems quite reasonable to believe the contents of the IsleChem report.

Do you have some reason not to?

-------------QUOTE-------------
The problem is that the IsleChem report has been presented to the public as some sort of assurance or validation when that was not the scope of their engagement.
-----------------------------------

The letter from IsleChem was presented, period.

If you accept the contents of the letter as being true then the letter does in fact provide "some sort of assurance" about the JBII process.

It is NOT an independent engineering forensic level evaluation of the JBII, nor is it intended to be one.

What is so difficult to comprehend about that?

URS is supposed to provide that level of evaluation.

It was not intended to be an independent engineers report.

The information contained in the letter from IsleChem is useful information. I'm quite glad to have it.

Further more, I have no reason to doubt it's validity. An IsleChem VP signed it. That means they are putting their reputation behind that report.

Is there some problem releasing data to the public that is signed by the company VP of the company that produced it?

Just because YOU WANT an independent engineers report doesn't mean that the world stops until you get one.

My guess is that weren't paid to do that.

"Then why didn't the engineer include a summary of the cost/benefit analysis that wouldn't endanger trade secrets? "

Is IsleChem qualified to do that sort of analysis?

To do that properly they would have to be experts in the availability of scrap plastics. Doesn't sound like the sort of thing that they do.

Please go look up the company's prior statements about why they hired IsleChem and what IsleChem was expected to do.

"The investors got shortchanged here if one of the report purposes was due diligence."

With out the word "IF" in your vocabulary, you wouldn't be able to post.

Ahhhh there's your problem.

----------------QUOTE-----------
If JBIIE were seeking to provide assurance to investors with an Independent Engineers report, they failed miserably by not engaging engineers who are willing to hold themselves to the public as independent and by limiting the scope of the review to exclude a profitability analysis.
______________________________________

That is NOT why IsleCHem was hired.

So far JBII has not published a report that is "seeking to provide assurance to investors with an Independent Engineers report..."

If I understand the company's statements, that is what URS will be doing.

You might want to wait until a report that is supposed to be an independent report is published before you criticize its failings.

Probably because that's not what they were hired to do.

--------------------QUOTE----------------
Why didn't IsleChem do a profitability analysis? Profitability analysis, economics and project schedules are routinely covered in due diligence reviews by independent engineers.
-----------------------------------------------

Please go read the statements by the CEO about what IsleChem was hired to do before you make such unfounded statements as this.

--------------------QUOTE----------------
Why was the scope of the IsleChem review limited particularly when it was apparently done as part of the due diligence process?
-----------------------------------------------

IsleCHem was not hired to "review", IsleChem was hired to utilize their expertise on behalf of JBII to measure and optimize JBII's process.

Please document your statement that "hasn't sold any of the fuel he suppossedly(SIC) made?"

As far as I am aware the company has not made a statement that it has produced any fuel. Could you show me where they have said that they have?

There has been speculation on this board that fuel has been made during the testing process, but that has not been confirmed by the company that I am aware of.

IsleChem was never intended to be "independent" in the forensic sense.

IsleChem was hired to utilize their hydrocarbon engineering and measuring expertise on behalf of the company.

What is so hard to understand about that?

I want to see the engineers running around recycling facilities counting trucks coming in the front gate, measuring the volume of the trucks, determining the percentages of materials in the trucks and quantifying the plastic in the mix. Then determining which plastics are selected out for resale, which plastics are left from that process etc.

That would be a reserve estimate report applicable to JBII.

Oh wait... that's been done by the Feds. Nevermind.

Before you ask me for a link, it in the previous msgs. Go look for it yourself.

The letter you see and made comments on was NOT the report that IsleChem gave to JBII.

It is a letter written by IsleChem at the request of JBII to be made public under IsleChem's letter head.

Frankly I'd like to see the actual report, however the large majority of investors wouldn't know what they were reading, hence the simplified letter that is more accessible by the general public.

One fact that we can all agree on....JBII(E) is up today 1.67%.

Since we don't yet know what the issues are and what is involved in rectifying them, it's pretty hard to judge accuracy, no ????

You have no idea why the re-filings aren't done.

All we know is the areas that are being redone. We know that because the 8K told us that information.

Exactly what caused the company to state the need for refiling has not been made public.

-----------QUOTE-----------
WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT, IT IS NOW JUNE 29!!!!!
-------------------------------

We will know the answer to that when the re-filing is done. Until then make up any reason you like, it's all a guess.

LOL

I was about to say the same thing.

I guess everybody heard that growing up.

What?

-------------QUOTE-------------
So after Islechem tweeked the machine it lost a third of its value?
------------------------------------

I am understanding.

"As you become more experienced in investing, you will start to understand that if there are excuses for all the information you don't have and you can't close any DD because there are dead ends on every road, it's better to wait until the company stops giving excuses."

If you think that is the case here at JBII then I suggest that you follow your own advise and wait. I have no problem with that.

"If Mr. Bordynuik had any reason to believe anybody would buy his pyrolysis oil as crude oil, he should be sharing that reasoning."

I have already made it plain that I have little concern about the company being able to sell it's product. You are concerned about that, OK with me. We each have our own evaluations of the situation.

The difference between us has to do with how we each interpret the lack of information. You seems to interpret the absence of information in the worst possible light you can think of. As an experience Pinks investor I can understand that point of view.

In this case I don't choose to interpret that information lack the same way at this point in time.

Given the present circumstances I understand and expected the information blackout. If it continues after the re-filing and a clarification of the NAZ application status I will be moving much closer to your point of view.

Let me be clear. I would like to have a more information than we do. I expect that we will have more in the near future. I have been able to find out additional information through my own investigations. Information that I don't make public here. Some of it is very positive, some is not positive. All of it can be developed by anyone that is good at digging and networking.

Probably the same things that you do in your investing, correct?

First of all, I don't know that "the only customer willing to buy all of his pyrolysis oil" statement is true, and neither do you.

All you "know" is that JB mentioned one company by name during the AGM.

We don't know what other offers JBII has had for it's products.

I am not at all concerned that JBII will be able to find customers for it's products at good prices.

The local BBQ joint sells the meat fat that drips off during the BBQ process for $40+ per bbl. In fact they had to build a caged place to store it between pickups because people were stealing it.

"But I'm certain you would agree that the more important question is whether there are any real willing customers right now, correct?"

No I don't agree. Finding customers is way down on my list of concerns.