Wait.....07s are back.

Wierd.

Not sure I'm tracking - is PROI a new company?

Define "reasonable".

Do I hear another "sub-penny" call?

When is that going to happen?

As alluded to in an earlier post, the amount of recycled plastic being discussed here isn't even the primary focus of a number of P2O efforts, as outlined nicely by this report from the American Chemistry Coucil, also referred to by Heddle earlier this year:

http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Stand-Alone-Content/Economic-Impact-of-Plastics-to-Oil-Facilities.pdf

But we have also seen that as oil prices drop, more recyleable materials will likely find their way into the waste stream, increasing the supply of plastic that could be diverted from landfill and converted to fuel.....wow.


Exciting times for P2O.

Alas, the contradiction in your statements remains unanswered, no matter how slow you go.

It's pretty simple: either recycling is directly related to oil prices (Econ 101), or it's not (Kezzek 101). You can't have both.

Start here:
http://www.npr.org/2015/04/03/397213109/how-the-price-of-oil-caused-a-downturn-in-the-recycling-business

I think these people would disagree with your assessment that recycling programs have not been shut down.

But it's not just NPR:

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/2015-year-ahead/

Paul here believes in Econ 101

And here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/recycling-becomes-a-tougher-sell-as-plastic-prices-drop-1428279575

The WSJ describes the impact of low oil prices on recycling in other countries. They also believe in Econ 101.

I believe in Econ 101, and I think PTOI believes in Econ 101 - Heddle referred to it earlier this year:

But more importantly, lest we lose sight of the forest for the trees, this discussion is only about recycled plastics, which by some estimates are only between 5%-10% of the plastics we discard every year. Imagine the possibilities for PTOI when you take into account non-recycled plastics.....

Exciting times, indeed.

Not sure which econ class this was taught in, but we are in agreement.

But then you state this:



You directly contradict the econ 101 lesson we just learned, which taught us that as the value of something drops, the value of recycling that something drops also (which is exactly what is happening now) - recycling plastic doesn't remain heavy at all when the price of oil drops.  And now that the bottom is falling out of the recycling market for plastics (because of lower-cost virgin plastic, due to lower oil prices, which is preferred by customers over recycled materials), where do you envision the recycled plastics will go?

Anyone?

Bueller?



Precisely.  Economic common sense tells us that when you can take a low / no value material, and convert it into something of a higher value that has a measurable demand (like diesel fuel) at a price point that exceeds the costs associated with conversion, then it might be something to look at.  And we are only talking here about [I]recycled[/I] plastics - what about waste stream plastic that has no secondary market?

You cannot have it both ways - either the econ 101 lesson you propose is true, or the value of recycling has no correlation with the value of oil, according to your second assertion. Which are we to believe?

PTOI may not have demonstrated (by their filings) that they are the ones who can profitably pyrolysize plastic, but buyers of their processors likely will, since their cost of entry will be far less than the development costs borne by PTOI.

Exciting times.

I believe that there is growing evidence to support the argument that lower oil prices actually hamper recycling efforts and divert more plastics to the waste stream, as Heddle stated earlier this year.

PTOI may or may not ultimately make a go of it, but P2O is here for a while.

I always chuckle when the idea is brought up that PTOI investors "wish" they could have invested elsewhere, as if the offered alternatives have stellar track records with no history of losses.....the article suggests potential losses of $100M on one deal alone for KP, and they are touted as "the smartest guys in the room"....
Right.

Yeah.....

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/a-humbled-kleiner-perkins-adjusts-its-strategy/

Al Gore was huge for those guys.....

Any chance of a "boots on the ground", real time drive by today? We seem to have competing eyewitness reports about the status of the pilot......

If your theory is correct, then if the.company announces anything "successful", we should see large volume trading with little to no price appreciation? Is that typically what "sell the news" looks like?

I respectfully disagree.

1). I wouldn't necessarily buy shares in a company with unsettled litigation, even if the tech was sound (or the pilot was almost complete).

2). The common refrain here is that PTOI is a scam, an empty suit. How could it possibly have a successful anything?




Yeah.....lots of people have said lots of things lately; hard to know just who to believe.

Los_Venados -

Appreciate the post - have a few follow up questions.

How would non-insiders verify this?



Could you provide us with some examples of other uses that PTOI processors would be purchased to fulfill?



Is the pilot happening at the Niagara site, or elsewhere?

BTW - I would consider that last quote newsworthy, and deserving of a corporate update.

That's funny right there - I don't care who you are.

Not my strong suit - they would exclude themselves:
1) to pursue their own legal action later?
2) because they didn't agree with the nature of the suit / complaint, and didn't want to be a part of it on principle?

Either way - (6) doesn't seem like a lot, does it.....

Perhaps shareholders in Rhode Island and Massachusetts felt that it would be better to opt in, and reduce the spoils left for those who do not have the company's best interests in focus (and whose litigation may well have contributed to the share price's current malaise). Sort of a....dividend, if you will, for keeping the faith. Like picking up a dollar bill off the street - some might say, "Why not? I didn't drop the dollar, but I won't pass it by." Pretty typical, I think. The concept of accumulating shares in "strong" hands is not a new one, either, and may be a motivating sentiment.

Purely speculation, however - I don't live in either of those states.

And entirely irrelevant to the current state of affairs @ PTOI.

Focus, kaymeyer - focus.

Since I'm not in the legal profession, I will carefully consider a PACER subscription. Is there some legal reason that would keep you from posting the docket sheets here? I have seen PACER updates posted here before....

Also - if you are in the legal profession - how do you interpret the legal concept of double jeopardy?

Where in the docket sheets did they decide not to pursue permanent bars? Or was that also just "boilerplate" press release jargon?

I would like to read these docket sheets - where can I find them?

I agree. The supposition that the SEC doesn't pursue cases it can't win is laughable.



Interesting. The list of guarantees continues to grow here - the intrigue is tangible.

So says you. I believe that there are many "costs" to be considered when evaluating litigation, and legal fees are only one of them - but you are free to continue to ignore that viewpoint if you choose.

As stated previously - I was not privy to the settlement discussions, or what drove them (maybe you were, and are in a better position to opine about what happened behind closed doors). I would simply be guessing as to why either side decided to settle, and guessing about past settled legal matters just doesn't seem very productive to me anymore.

You might want to reconsider that assertion; this was the 3rd result from my scientific Google "SEC loses in court" search:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-16/billionaire-mark-cuban-found-not-liable-in-sec-lawsuit




Not sure where you're going with this - is one of us a shareholder in a pink scam on the road to sub penny world? And how would realizing that make them better off?

So say you. I was not privy to the settlement discussions, or what drove them. I would simply be guessing as to why either side decided to settle, and guessing about past settled legal matters just doesn't seem very productive.

No.



I think the company faces a number of hurdles, and their corporate success (or failure) doesn't hinge on the outcome of the pilot. I don't know of any actual shareholders who believe there are no risks here.

Sorry - my bad again. I followed the link labeled "SEC complaint" at the bottom of the press release you linked, and I found this:



I guess I didn't understand the difference between requiring all Defendants to disgorge their ill-gotten gains and disgorgement. Huge blunder on my part. I can totally see why you would think that the actual complaint didn't seek "disgorgement". Good catch.



Well - I didn't miss the question, I just didn't think you actually wanted an answer. I think that determining fraud is a legal process, complete with allegations, plaintiffs, defendants, due process and lots of lawyers and paperwork. I don't have a legal background, so my comments are from a layman's viewpoint:

If someone files charges of fraud against Rick Heddle in a court of law, and he is given his day in court to defend himself, if he is found guilty in due process, then I will be able to answer your question as to him having actually committed fraud. Until then - it's simply allegations on an SMB, and I have nothing to offer.

Honestly - haven't a clue.

How about you? Any "boots on the ground" accounts to share with the board?

Maybe - I wasn't part of the legal team, and so cannot comment on their play by play. However,
it is also possible that as the SEC started pursuing the case, they discovered that they might not be able to win in a jury trial, and threatened the company with a lengthy (and costly) legal battle if they didn't settle, at a time when the company's resources (money and time) were needed elsewhere (like developing Processor 3). This would certainly explain why the SEC accepted a settlement that was far less than what they were seeking in the original complaint.

None of this has the slightest bearing on whether or not processor sales will be realized - and everyone here knows it.

That's weird! I must have completely misread the SEC complaint that you linked in your previous post:



My bad.....

BUT NO DISGORGEMENT, AS ORIGINALLY SOUGHT




AGAINST BREAKING THE LAW IN THE FUTURE - DOESN'T THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?




TEMPORARY, NOT PERMANENT, AS ORIGINALLY SOUGHT

WHY WOULD THE SEC SETTLE FOR SO MUCH LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SOUGHT?

Is that case still going on? I thought it was over, too.

COMPLAINT SETTLED - NO ADMISSION OF GUILT, NO MENTION OF THE WORD "SCAM" ANY WHERE IN THE SETTLEMENT PAPERWORK, NO DISGORGEMENT! 

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22735.htm

So you're saying that a stock price drop from $1.00 to $.08 is proof that accounting fraud has occurred?

That is an interesting theory.....

Ah yes - the damning, 1,435,703rd-ranked 2012 authoritative expose of accounting fraud. I was wondering when someone was going to bring it back up.

Funny - it doesn't sound nearly as impressive as it did back then, now that I look at it......

Any "alleged" lie or fraudulent act



It's actually closer to 937,440 minutes old now, and growing



Is there an actual court case that supports this statement, or is it merely another allegation?

that is certainly one interpretation, but it would be wrong.

I am simply reminding everyone that the case that's being referenced was settled long ago, for far less than the original complaint sought, and the people named in the complaint are no longer part of the company.

In short - old news. Time to move on.

I had never heard the term before, and I appreciate your defining it for me. I should have done a better job referencing the post I quoted it from.

Some people focus on other words, like the word "alleged". The focus on "disgorgement" seems warranted, since it was sought originally by the SEC but didn't happen.

Others focus on really interesting stuff:

Still waiting to hear more about that.

BUT NO DISGORGEMENT, AS ORIGINALLY SOUGHT



AGAINST BREAKING THE LAW IN THE FUTURE - DOESN'T THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?



TEMPORARY, NOT PERMANENT, AS ORIGINALLY SOUGHT

WHY WOULD THE SEC SETTLE FOR SO MUCH LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SOUGHT?