PET has 70% (or whatever) hydrocarbon content and the Islechem report (you are calling Islechem liars, not JB) states that 85-90% of the hydrocarbon content ends up as near deisel fluid. That is not a lie and that is no defense for libel. I'd be as public in the apology as the accusation...
I do not know what John claimed a year ago. Since February it has been that the process is proven; that it is in third party validation; that it is scalable; that it is ready for production pending environmental permits (a detail I am sure Rivera always ignored); and that he starts getting paid after permits are issued.
Now, as to the Islechem report, I'll grant scion and others here that it did not address the efficacy of the catalyst. As long as the modified machines work per the report I personally don't care. I'd be happier if there were no catalyst and that this was merely the result of superior process control technology.
Again, as to the Islechem report, it did not spell out sulfur, chlorine, fluorine or oxygen rich plastics other than to subtly state hydrocarbon content, not total feedstock.
Other pyrrolisis approaches relate the condensor specifics for removing HCl from the emissions and selling it. The temperatures may not be above the pyrrolisis point for FEP or teflon since the catalist is purported to (and catalysts generally do) lower the operating temperature of the reactor. Still, HF and HCl would both be recovered the same way and be of similar value - approximately equal to the cost of recovery.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
