Then why can the company not run their machines even close to the performance levels contained in the document you linked? Maybe a 3 day study is not long enough to truly determine commercial viability especially if it is spiked with assumptions that do not match reality? Put another way I find it absolutely amazing people think the very conservative estimates below are too aggressive.
I have said let's just assume #2 was able to run just 30 days for all of Q4. And machine #1 finally finishes warming up and is able to run for just 15 days. That is 45 days of processor time which seems pretty conservative. So 45 days x 218 barrels a day x $109 gives us about $1.069M in revenue. The company claims they can produce this fuel for under $10 per barrel so at $10 per barrel that gives us a cost of $98,100 to produce that fuel. But lets say due to the fact not all 3 processors are running and unforeseen stuff it takes $40 per barrel to produce the fuel or a total cost of of about $392k. So again how does the company not produce about $675k in gross profit?