Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:06:51 PM
Fair enough, which of these is not concrete, third party validation regarding the process from three companies, results of the stack test, the New York DEC's unprecedented permission to allow JBI to operate during the permitting process. A long term lease on a recycling facility that only needs to break even to provide the company with enough free feedstock, as well as other sources of free feedstock. A blending facility, no need for a refinery. If these are concrete, how can it be that no one would buy the fuel when big money is put out for inferior products like, crude oil.
The new business plan has lots of potential, locating processors at waste facilities and at recycling facilities is a great option in the long run. JBI does not have to invest in land, buildings, overhead, have a regular and fixed feedstock flow, and maintain control of the technology as well as have a far greater share in long term profits per machine. A firm like Waste Management would get cheap fuel, save on costs related to transporting, sorting, and landfill tip fees (for plastic) as well as a possible percentage of fuel profits (depends on what is provided by each) whatever is agreed to, and they only have to give up 500 square feet of indoor space, per machine, to do this. They already factor in the cost of disposing of unwanted plastic into their budget so they don't have to find money to do any of this and save money in the long run having a P2O processor on-site. When you look at the costs of setting up on your own P2O factory, compared to these symbiotic relationships, the number of additional machines in the market for the same amount of money is staggering, especially if you look at the cost of the JBI technology compared to others, $200,000 each compared to several millions each.
Can you imagine anyone in the waste or recycling business, having an offer like this on the table, and explaining to their board of directors and/or shareholders, that they would rather pay to get rid of their unwanted plastic, pay more for diesel, feel they really don't need another revenue stream, and they would rather tell the general public that we prefer to put plastic into landfills so their children's children's children can deal with the effects on the environment. I admit this last part is speculation and even though it will be argued with, looking at the model, it's pretty solid.
The new business plan has lots of potential, locating processors at waste facilities and at recycling facilities is a great option in the long run. JBI does not have to invest in land, buildings, overhead, have a regular and fixed feedstock flow, and maintain control of the technology as well as have a far greater share in long term profits per machine. A firm like Waste Management would get cheap fuel, save on costs related to transporting, sorting, and landfill tip fees (for plastic) as well as a possible percentage of fuel profits (depends on what is provided by each) whatever is agreed to, and they only have to give up 500 square feet of indoor space, per machine, to do this. They already factor in the cost of disposing of unwanted plastic into their budget so they don't have to find money to do any of this and save money in the long run having a P2O processor on-site. When you look at the costs of setting up on your own P2O factory, compared to these symbiotic relationships, the number of additional machines in the market for the same amount of money is staggering, especially if you look at the cost of the JBI technology compared to others, $200,000 each compared to several millions each.
Can you imagine anyone in the waste or recycling business, having an offer like this on the table, and explaining to their board of directors and/or shareholders, that they would rather pay to get rid of their unwanted plastic, pay more for diesel, feel they really don't need another revenue stream, and they would rather tell the general public that we prefer to put plastic into landfills so their children's children's children can deal with the effects on the environment. I admit this last part is speculation and even though it will be argued with, looking at the model, it's pretty solid.
Truth is based on fact & only changes as a result of further evidence!
Lies are based on nothing, are quickly forgotten or change to meet the needs of the user!
