Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Imperial Whazoo]

It needs to be understood that, from a maximation/efficiency point of view, the problem management faces is to create a workflow that uses the three machines to maximum levels of efficiency.

Now, if they have to clean the carbon out of every machine periodically, then they have to shut each one down on some kind of schedule. (BTW... I realize thatr this is only going to be the case until the modification to enable continuous cleaning get invented AND implemented).

A workflow is an equation made up of variables in formulas. By definition, variables change.

Time is a complex variable in a workflow. To maximize profits from every machine, there needs to be a workflow defined that minimizes downtime and maximizes uptime.

That said, the big issue is to NOT have unexpected downtime.

The fact is that, when I read in yesterday's filing that they are moving from a development stage to a production stage, I "GOT IT" that what is being said is that they are at the point where management is tasked with defining the workflow system that will best maximize profits, and this naturally involves controlling the variables of which the workflow equation consists.

According to the filing, downtime resulted from failure to control feedstock quality. Therefore, the necessary management issue is to control the quality of the feedstock.

If they can control the feedstock quality and continue to take free feedstock, I imagine they will do so, but IMHO, management knows that the properly implemented workfloww system they end up having developed will probably require that they enter into contracts to supply both controlled quantities AND controlled qualities of feedstock.

The issue, then, is not whether the feedstock is free.

During the period of time when the technology itself was being invented, it mattered a great deal that feedstock be as low cost as possible, but now that they specifically note, in yesterday's filing, that they are at a business stage of transitioning from development to commercial production, it logically follows that they need to revisit the issue of whether it is actually the lowest cost business plan for them to rely on free feedstock, or whether it is better to manage the quality of the feedstock by paying for it.

Unless the costs of managing the quality of free feedstock are lower than paying to control the quality, they need to be willing to pay for their feedstock, IMHO. In the case of RKT, one of the absolutely tremendous aspects of their deal is that the quality and the quantity variables are built into the equation, and they are controlled, by definition.

However, in the case of the Niagara machines, they will face quality and quantity issues that, IMHO, automatically result in it being a necessary fact of life that feedstock will not be "FREE". IMHO, I expect, and frankly desire, that they be willing to pay for thier feedstock, if doing so results in the ability to implement the best possible workflow.

If its necessary to pay for feedstock to implement a workflow that maximizes profits, then that is the proper goal.

So, with all due respect to all parties here, I think the company needs to be more concerned with the costs of quality than with whether feedstock remains FREE.

Workflow is an equation & cost of feedstock is only a single variable in that equation. It looks to me like, forcing the cost variable to stay at 0 may actually calculate out higher, all told.

Hope this helps.

Imperial Whazoo