Whale, first you have to understand that BoD members are primarily chosen from those not directly associated with the company so that they should not have conflicts of interest in representing the Shareholders. Once members of the board they may be privaleged to inside information. The board members were appointed only a few days ago, so I am limited as to my insider information. Any insider information I would have could not be discussed anyway, so I can only address based upon information already posted here, and my own thoughts.
That being said, here are my thoughts:
P2O I believe will and does work as claimed.
P2O as an industry is not in question, as it has been in existence in many countries for some time. The true question is the reliability of the catalyst.
I believe that the catalyst performs as claimed, and that P2O will be profitible. John has stated that it was independantly tested previously. You must either accept his claims or believe that he is lying. I have met John, and personally checked him out. and am convinced of his honesty and integrity. No one to date has shown any evidence to the contrary. The one issue raised was the article about "Honest John." If this remains an issue I can refute the allegations and prove his honesty in this regard easily. Moreover, by lying he would have more to lose than he would gain. For all these reasons, and many more, I believe John. If, therefore, you believe John to be honest, then his claims are true, and the catalyst is proven.
Now, the current testing is for certification to make rollout easier in all states. The lab that was chosen Islechem (?) had no association other than being hired to test the process. The PR of association is new, and after the fact. Logic assumes that the association would not be made unless the laboratory is convinced of the viability. Why associate your company with an entity doomed to failure, or one which is a scam.
By reason of deduction, all threads of logic give me assurance that it is valid and will be profitable.
One more piece that adds to this - why puchase a blending faciltiy at all unless it is considered to be productive? JBII could have just remained with P2O rollout sites. What purpose is served by buying such a facility unless the use is anticipated? For press? Wasn't there enough of that, and does the PR not give rise to more speculation? As far as press goes, it is more couter-productive as assurance for most than it is productive as an issue for others to raise. Therefore reason again dictates anticipated production.
I could go on, but hope this suffices for now.
JW
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
