Well, I am not here to call people names. Readers can draw their own conclusions. If I was to do this kind of investing, which I generally don't, I would not take this document seriously no matter what JBI the company says about it.
I have the advantage of having worked in the EPCM industry. I have had these documents on my desk, and have contributed to them. I don't think anyone else on this board has that kind of experience. So, to me the SAIC Summary is a fairly well-written document, but I do not believe it to be authentic.
If you like, do a Google search on "SAIC Summary". I have seen these documents in Mining industries, engineering industries, etc, and when you do that search the SAIC documents come up as very technical. There is not much mention of NPV/ ROI analysis or assumptions used.
The JBI SAIC Summary is a very high-level document, spanning a 3-day audit, an OOM estimate, and an accounting pro forma leading to an awesome EBITDA figure!!
Let me ask you this; let's say that SAIC did a 3-day audit of the JBI process. Then they had a discussion with JBI, maybe with some drawings, and SAIC gave some preliminary figures on Cost. Then Matt Ingham prepared a proforma on the proposed investment to give to the whales. (Incidentally, there was a fundamental misrepresentation here regardless. That money was intended for the Florida development, not ongoing operations).
Now maybe somebody (with or without JBI's knowledge) cobbled together that SAIC Summary based on that. When people are dishonest they have to convince themselves they are not actually lying, and that takes time. Why not? All the basic elements have happened to some extent. What is the big deal?
Is it any different than standing in front of a group of investors and saying that they were mere weeks away from commercial production? Just need a permit? $10/ barrel cost? $70/ barrel revenue? tape business making huge bucks in the meantime? Javaco and Pak-it providing a floor for the stock? Tankers parked outside ready to go?
I would say not. Just another in a string of half-truths.
If any senior executive of JBI were put on the stand, could they be accused of lying? I am not sure. They would definitely be uncomfortable.
Look at the sentence closely. What does "related to" mean? What is an "evaluation report"? The Executive Summary is the cover page of the report itself. Why does it relate to?
fyi... an OOM estimate is also known as a FEL 1 estimate. It usually is assigned 5% of the overall budget. In this case that would make for a total budget of almost 9 Million. In the document it states that a further 2 Million of Engineering effort is required. If you work it out... it works. A FEL 2 is worth 10% of the budget, and a FEL 3 is worth 15%. 2 Million is almost bang on.
SAIC could have told them that in 5 minutes.
An OOM estimate takes a team of 4-5 guys 2 months to do, not 3 days. Work out the math yourself at $100/ hour.
EBITDA is not their concern. EBITDA includes lots of stuff that is irrelevant like SG&A, R&D, all kinds of crazy stuff. The only person who would care is Ingham, and it would be very relevant for the Florida investment (which never happened).
So no, the document that we know is not credible. The reference was oblique, and based on that, they may be able to defend themselves in court if caught.
btw, where in your statement does it make a definitive reference to the document that was leaked? Maybe they were referring to something else... who knows. Do you?
