Is back from vacation AND is NOT impressed
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.
Then it stands to reason that this is an area in need of researching, if the refining they are planning to do can be augmented at no great additional cost it might be worth pursuing, depending on the targeted buyers...off road users may take notice, such as locomotives etc, but i suspect they have plenty of not so ulsd available. There is a lot to consider, some good info on ulsd pros/cons etc can be had here
http://www.clean-diesel.org/faqs.html
OTHER ULSD MARKETS
http://www.clean-diesel.org/nonroad.html
Well I am not sure about this, I do recall some reports stating numbers below 8.4 see here
http://www.clean-diesel.org/pump_survey.html
EPA pump survey results.
Data from EPA's ULSD pump survey from the Fourth Quarter of 2006 through the First Quarter of 2010 indicate that more than 99 percent of highway diesel fuel pumps are now dispensing Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) and that the sulfur content of the fuel is less than 7 parts per million (ppm).
BUT! THE real question is ...does the fuel show 8.4 before or after refining?
AND CAN THAT SULPHUR CONTENT BE REDUCED?
AND IF SO....AT WHAT COST?
Seems they are struggling with higher numbers
http://fuelsprograms.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/fuelsprograms.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=3826
interesting...a few weeks back I was looking into this...here is an interesting report
http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/presentations/makingulsd.pdf
If JBII could achieve Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) ratings that would be encouraging, after much reading on this topic, I am not positive if this is possible, but certainly is an avenue worth pursuing at the appropriate time.
well if it is not illegal, then how the hell can you deem it a "swindle" based on that presumptuos contrived statement?
Look i can appreciate a contrarian point of view, but at the end of the day nobody who is uncomfortable with these parameters need invest at this stage...NOW DO THEY?
IN MY OPINION...IF one is skeptical then simply wait until the production/sales element has begun.
Proof will indeed be in that pudding?
As for the constant comparisons to some biomass company.....?
Please...there is a world of difference inbetwixt, I get the profound impression if a certain shareholder was NOT present, none of those comparisons would happen.
Coming in here swinging the scam word around with personal insults towards shareholders and officers is disingenuos at best. I seem to recall a number of false statements being made at the behest of far less than perfect DD...appreciate the apologies...but that jacket is made of cellophane in my opinion.
Who knows, but it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that publishing the entire report would sacrifice (at too early a stage) MUCH proprietary or at the very least sensitive process data.
Is it not quite reasonable to assume, that certain processes or data criteria are not something they want floating about until such time as it is necessary?
Until they are producing and have locked down suppliers and buyers, I should think this is not out of the question as a possibility.
As I asked the other day...why should they divulge such sensitive info...are they REQUIRED TO? LEGALLY?
This point has been labored plenty enough and both sides have seemed to agree it is not necessary....now unless you have information to the contrary?
Please provide a link to the lab that provides these so called "smell-tests".
I see no such implication in number 17.
Try these * U.S. Patent Nos. 6,037,319; 6,136,776.
ACCORDING to the pakit brochure, I believe those are the ones from dcl solutions.
http://www.pakit.com/Catalog/PDFs/Catalog.pdf
==================================================
you may wish to revise this uh?
not sure why the p20, pakit, or dirtybomb detector is even a topic in this particular debate, the original discussion started around the purported tape reading patent applications?
yes that is correct
"17. Has been issued patents on Pak-It concept, and a Dirty bomb detector. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=41349399&txt2find=patent"
That one?...Forgive me, just popped in..no time to DD, what's wrong with it?
PEANUTS, COMPARED TO THE POTENTIAL REWARD.
company says they have spent many years and many millions so far?
what on earth makes you think they wont continue?
and btw when it comes to equipment and modifications, and the time to implement them, you don't suppose a little grease and some cash would not speed that up?
it is just a drilling rig, not a space shuttle
bah, NO worries, you INDEED made VERY valid points.
Agreed, ......as I stated, I don't find his leaving a real issue even if it is true.
My first thought was...okee dokee....the salesguy from a subsidiary quit pre expansion effort?
Big deal....whoever replaces him has only to do MORE sales and who cares.
thread started here i do believe
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=51294805
then there was this
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=51377935
That was what I kept asking...supposedly some folks called pak-it and confirmed it, then posted about it. That was why I was fact checking the need for that to be reported.
shady my foot bud....theres alot to discuss and i will respond where and when I have time....actually if is the biggest problem.
I just happen to have friday at my leisure.
check my record...I aint here everyday all day
resident expert my arse, he has made plenty of errors, admits them all the time.
This ain't ego's at work bud this is correctig false info with fact.
Fact is anyone who did real due diligence understood from day one.
This is a process, and revenues were a long way off back then.
PERIOD
it really is very simple if you look at the facts do your DD and ignore the message boards.
you are predicating your answer on information that is void of facts you need to make this determination, without the information provided in my last post, you are forming opinion on less than perfect information.
Sorry but incorrect, read my last post.
Don't feel bad...posters like you and jj "who skip over these salient facts"...have come and gone...once they realize the facts, they usually get it.
nope....I am implying that the comment is void of knowledge of the process, and that your lack of understanding of the process is the culprit here, same goes for the commenter, he chose to conveniently ignore the facts, common strategy we see here often.
p20 operations could very easily be interpreted to mean getting it running at an optimum level and deploy it into the field for preparations with the intention of having a lab certify it's EFFECTIVENESS AND scalability, then scale it up and perform the stack test and then having the NYDEC review all the results of the stack test and subsequent application for the potential air permit that is required!
lmao
You are conveniently skipping over all of that!
with none of that...you cant generate revenue beyond product produced during that process.
THIS IS A PROCESS..AND FOLKS WHO HAVE TAKEN THEIR TIME AND DONE THEIR DD...KNOW THIS
people say stuff?
Here is an example.
You are the ceo of jbii.
Now if you believe that...where is our damn filings?????
facts are facts no matter how ANYONE including you or I perceives them
company never said revenues were to be reported, or even generated for that matter in july 2009, did they?
Now instead of mincing words show a link that clearly shows the company stating they were going to?
Yes....try that
theres no need to apply logic from outside the statement.
simply apply the same logic to the first part of the statement then. lol
the result?
Commenced does not guarantee revenunes.
Is that what you are trying to say? lol
Well then the company saying commencing operations should not be taken to mean revenue reporting either.
go ahead play this game all day long.
lmao....the statement clearly implies it, by virtue of saying that after a year revenues have not occured.
Now you are forgetting to apply the overall context. The overall context was that the statement was one of the reasons the stocks pps declined.
That is precisely how I interpret it, and nothing is going to change my mind.
Here is your answer on the matter of patent applications & the term "patent pending":
Posted by: righty Date: Friday, June 25, 2010 6:18:14 PM
In reply to: MorningLightMountain who wrote msg# 52782 Post # of 52999
1. What do the terms “patent pending” and “patent applied for” mean?
A. They are used by a manufacturer or seller of an article to inform the public that an application for patent on that article is on file in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The law imposes a fine on those who use these terms falsely to deceive the public.
Return to FAQs
2. Is there any danger that the USPTO will give others information contained in my application while it is pending?
A. Most patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000, will be published 18 months after the filing date of the application, or any earlier filing date relied upon under Title 35, United States Code. Otherwise, all patent applications are maintained in the strictest confidence until the patent is issued or the application is published. After the application has been published, however, a member of the public may request a copy of the application file. After the patent is issued, the Office file containing the application and all correspondence leading up to issuance of the patent is made available in the Files Information Unit for inspection by anyone, and copies of these files may be purchased from the Office.
http://www.uspto.gov/faq/patents.jsp
that about wraps up this debate now dont it?
dont know the source
wont know it either
try to debate it anyhow lol
and it is in their interest to tell people so folks will not want to invest??I am liking you more and more everyday
thats some really funny stuff stevey
this is getting funnier by the minute
there is no flaw that i can see...you dont know the source and therefore cannot criticize their process!
if you knew the source you might, but even then you would need to know where they intend to procure it from....and what those folks motivations are!
face it steveo...you cant argue that which you do not know!
how do you know they dont have a source, or many of them already lined up willing to supply under reasonable terms?
hmmmmmmm
YOU DONT..AND CANNOT
IF YOU DID........you would come out and say it
lol...this is priceless
ahahahahahaha
i dont know the source!
and neither do you!
just going to have to wait until they reveal it eh?
not a damn thing you can do about that now is there?
tell me why they should tell you?!!!
do they have to?..
i seriously doubt it
ANY NON CHLORINATED, COMPRESSED or chopped, or preferably pre sorted and SHREDDED, UNWASHED, "SUITABLE FOR THE CATALYST EMPLOYED" WASTE PLASTIC
lmao
mind you, i have no idea what the company is actually planning to use, with respect to their source, and it's inherent properties, but obviously low hanging fruit they can minimize handling requirements thereof, would be my choice.
feeding bottles into that system is just not low hanging fruit without some kind of preparational handling.
lmao....ALREADY DID THAT! BY PROCESS OF ELIMINATION
I am going to bed...this latest foray has proven to be a total waste of time.
rest assured matey the days of ridiculing the company with incorrect data, mundane and or useless debate are OVER.
BEST WHITTLE IT DOWN TO THE ONLY DEBATEABLE FACTS YOU ACTUALLY HAVE
look while pet is something that can be used, in it's unshredded form it is not low hanging fruit.
it would...in that form slow the feed processors, take up much more room inside the reactor and require too much space for storage,
not impossible but not low hanging fruit.