Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Arthur Edward Whoof]

SAIC report, OBSOLETE AND INVALID

Two excellent points here that demonstrate that not only is the SAIC report OBSOLETE but it was INVALID as well.


http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=86767503


http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=86768161


Based on what has been provided as guidance… perhaps there is more information that has not been disclosed? However, the touted SAIC data does not demonstrate that the conclusions were derived based on the big picture. The extrapolated data that has been used as a basis for promotion is merely an unsubstantiated ‘snapshot’ of a perfect world scenario.

In order to conduct a valid test of commercial validation it is necessary to sample the full operation process. That was not accomplished by SAIC based on real world evaluation that can be duplicated as evidenced by actual historical data or conceivable future performance.

For a valid evaluation it is necessary to include the ‘residue removal cycles’ time and cost as part of an accurate assessment.

Residue removal cycles – The process for removing the petcoke residue from the premelt and reactor is a lengthy process by which we shut down the processor, remove the loose petcoke from the premelt and reactor. Petcoke is removed from the processor after anywhere between the accumulation of 6,000 to 15,000 pounds, dependent on the types of feedstock being run;
page 35 of the 2012 jbi 10K annual report

Not only are the overall fuel production values NEGATIVE as derived from the jbi financials,

Which demonstrates that the SAIC report in incorrect in concluding commercial viability…

But furthermore there is a considerable added loss based on shutting the processor down every day in a half to three days for a minimum of 24 hours to take it offline, cool it down, clean it out, fully re-inspect it and reheat it to bring it back online.

The ‘continuous’ operation that SAIC evaluated is in actuality nothing more than a ‘batch’ process with considerable less efficiency than the narrow SAIC snapshot reveals.

If a true evaluation were performed that includes all of the necessary variables including cost of feedstock (purchased or free with the associated processing cost) and the actual full cycle with cleanouts and the actual value of output produced… The conclusion would be the same as the company is demonstrating-

NOT COMMERCIALLY VIABLE


There is one more factor that the SAIC would need to take into consideration in a fully credible assessment and that is MTBF cost and Life Expectancy cost.


During the fourth quarter of 2012, Processor #1 initially began in start-up mode, in which we tested all of the connections, fittings, gaskets and other components that could be a potential issue with the processor. Through this testing, it was determined that certain components needed to be replaced due to manufacturer defect, incompatibility with other new parts in the processor or malfunction
page 34 of the 2012 jbi 10K annual report


With all of the heating and cooling cycles necessary, anyone that has an engineering background would know, that the stresses, thermal degradation and failure susceptibility increase exponentially. The fact that the company has indicated this by graveyarding one processor and deeming another only capable of reduced federates, it is clear that the SAIC would need to calculate the processor and ongoing maintenance cost as part of the full equation-

Processor cost +
Maintenance cost +
feedstock/processing cost +
operating cost +
overhead –
total product produced value for the life of the processor.

If a processor can only operate a maximum of 3 days with one day shutdown
And the processor can only last a year before needing replaced
And the value of the fuel produced is historically proven to be negative

How can commercially viability possible be concluded?

We estimate a site consisting of three processors to cost $6.5 million plus the engineering design fees and Contractor Distributable Costs that could add up to $2 million to the overall Capital Cost to construct.
from the obsolete SAIC report

That means that the ‘old’ ‘simpler’, ‘non HTF’, ‘single kiln’ processors would cost $2.8mill each.

Just the cost of the processor alone can not justify any feasible profit calculation when actual uptime and maintenance cost added to the fact that it can not run for more than a year without being completely replaced.

By the time you fully account for feedstock/processing cost + operating cost + overhead… AND a 20% discount… how is this possibly profitable?

It most certainly does not equate to a-
SAIC(NYSE): $10M/Yr/Processor!



SAIC report, OBSOLETE AND INVALID






Disclaimer;

I am in no way compensated for my opinion or my posts on this site. I have no ‘secret agenda’ or personal gain that can be materialized from the act and method of my postings. I am simply a concerned, ‘outside’ interest with valid knowledge and information that I feel may be helpful. I chose to provide this information and related opinions at my own will and from the direction of no person, company or entity. My motive is to help those that may not have the background, knowledge, means or access to this information and my personal desire to uncover the facts which show that this company is hiding through smoke and mirrors. I am compelled to educate and help offset the continued barrage of misleading and obscured information that I have identified here and expose the inaccuracies between reality and this created fantasy. No ill will, malice, defamation, or slander is intended in any way. All literary creativity utilized in my posts are intended as a vehicle to express my opinions. I am always open to mature discussions of substance and encourage rebuttal and enlightenment. My sincere apologies go out to anyone that is disturbed by the revelations of fact that I have conveyed in the past or may provide in the future.