Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Arthur Edward Whoof]

CRAYOLA Shipping Cost Update- JBI MELTDOWN


Following is a collection of information and insight that uses the Crayola ColorCycle program as a perfect example of why jib is unable to make p2o work and it explains the simple formula below-


A > B


B – A = NEGATIVE RESULT


Feedstock Cost > Fuel Produced Value


Fuel Produced Value - Feedstock Cost = NEGATIVE PROFIT FUEL SALES


As we can see from the above equation, the cost of the feedstock is greater than the value of the fuel that can be made from it. In the case of the Craola program, if we set aside all of the costs for overhead, operations, labor, infrastructure and processing, and we simply focus on the shipping cost alone… we can derive that the cost of shipping alone is an average of 4X the value of the fuel that can be produced.

Furthermore, the environmental impact has a negative net result.

When we look at recycling versus re-purposing (p2o is not classified as recycling since it removes the feedstock from the cycle) we can see that the end result of recycling is a substantially higher value end product that survives to continue in the cycle. Even with this higher value, recycling is a challenge in most cases and would not be possible without programs that subsidize its existence.

The conclusion that can be drawn from the Crayola ColorCycle program is the same conclusion that can be drawn for the entire p2o process of making fuel from plastic. The challenge of acquiring, shipping, processing, and paying for the overhead needed to carryout the process poses a substantially weighted financial burden that renders the p2o of fuel commercially unviable.

When the cost is greater than the value of the production of fuel there is no profit.

When the shipping cost alone are 4X more than the value of the fuel that can be produced… the process is not only commercially unviable but it poses a overall negative impact.
When more fuel is burned than produced, the process is a negative impact on the environment.



MORE SIMPLE MATH

It would be a good idea to do a little math before diving head first into shallow water.

Has anyone considered the logistics?

Let's face it... schools are money strapped as it is... who is going to pay for the shipping of boxes of used markers?

Even the largest flat rate box through USPS will cost $16.

Try shipping them through UPS and do the math....

How much is this great idea going to cost???

Seems like $750 a ton for plastic is a bargain by the time you consider all of the individual boxes of what 10 or 20 lbs each?

Get excited about a good idea before putting a pen to paper... par for the course at jbi... sounds like touting $10brl all over again... oh, wait, we forgot to do the math... ok it's $87 a barrel not $10. Free markers from schools means $10 a barrel... oops, when we account for shipping makes it $132brl!



FINANCIALLY UNFEASIBLE

To ship a 25lb box of used markers from California to NF = $28

To ship a 25lb box of used markers from Buffalo NY to NF = $15


The bigger the box the higher the cost.


Even at just $.50 a pound for shipping the cost per ton is $1000!



How does this make sense???


That's not counting all of the logistics of handling potentially thousands of individual small boxes coming in the door.

A non profit could possible gain some form of support/relief to pull this off but a commercial company that profits from the use of collecting old markers and crayons and gives nothing in return? Most school recycling programs provide some form of financial benefit for the effort and goodwill... where is this going to come from when the company is attempting this as a for profit program?

How does crayola benefit?

If the program was setup as a recycling basis at least they could gain a recycling subsidy for the effort... but that wouldn't cover the shipping cost. If they (crayola) thought this through they would have created this type of program with a recycler and set it up as a profit center to get the subsidy and sell the plastic... or did they and found that it was not economically viable?

So jbi comes along, without doing the math, and offers them a "hey, we'll pay for shipping to our site so you can offer a re-purposing program". Sounds like another ill planned RockTenn deal... jbi pays all the cost and ends up with another commercially un-viable disaster.


The only thought is that plastic at $750 a ton is a bargain when you consider the shipping and logistics cost.

Even at $.50 a pound just for shipping... the used crayons and markers are going to cost $1000 per ton!

With 4.4 brls a ton of production and at $110 a brl (which isn't happening due to that pesky bad naphtha issue)

You are looking at a loss of $516 per ton!

The more desperate jbi becomes for plastic,
the more obvious it becomes,
that p2o is-

NOT COMMERCIALLY VIABLE!

and the entire idea was half baked from the beginning


Thoughts?

________________________________________________________________________

In response to my numbers being skewed-

Where are the numbers skewed?

Who is going to pay the shipping?

For every dollar spent to get the used markers/crayons to jbi less than $.25 could be gained in fuel.

Spend $1 in shipping to make $.25 in fuel...
Waste fuel getting it to jbi...

If all of the math was done here I bet it takes more fuel pound for pound to get plastic to NF than they can make from it!


This is the FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM in its most basic form!!!

To ship 1 ton of used markets to NF will cost MORE than the value of the fuel that can be made. JUST IN SHIPPING COST!

If it is not completely obvious from this crayola situation I am not sure how much more blatant it could possibly be.


P2o works very well...
but it is not commercially viable!
end of story.



HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?


That is the key question.

As for jbi the answer is simple-


From one ton of plastic they can make 4.4brls of fuel.

The P2O process generates 4.4 barrels of oil per ton of plastic waste.

page 3 of Demetra Tsiamis report


At the yet to be achieved sale of fuel at $110brl that equals $484


That means that the total cost of the feedstock, shipping, processing, labor, overhead and any and all other expenses must be less than $484 per ton for jbi to make this commercially viable.

Just the transportation cost to move 2000lbs of feedstock is more than the fuel!

The sheer amount of volume needed here is huge, costly, cumbersome, expensive.

2000lbs to make $484 breaks down to $.24 per pound. That means that the entire revenue that jbi can make for every pound of plastic is only $.24


To use your example- Pound for pound a 1/4 hamburger at McDonald's is at least $1 which would be $4 per pound.


A hybrid battery weighs in at 68lbs and costs $2199.

http://www.hybridbatterydepot.com/product-p/prius-hybrid-battery-xw20.htm

That comes out to $32.34 per pound.



How about something from walmart...

Bottled water at 8.75lbs cost $17.29

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Cap10-Sparkling-Mineral-Natural-Water-20-oz-Pack-of-4/17197082

That comes out to $1.98 per pound for water.



To fully understand the apples to apples equivalent here... lets look at bananas (haha) at $.86 a pound....

That is more than 3x the price of jbi fuels maximum take per pound of plastic.



ALL of the other costs come out of this mere $.24...

It is correct in drawing the basic conclusion that-

NOTHING is feasible

...when it comes to jbi making this commercially viable.



Using USPS to ship used markers in their most economically available standard flat rate box is $16. I don't see 5lbs of used markers fitting in this box. That means that the shipping cost alone is $3.20 or 13X MORE than the value of the fuel that jbi can p2o from it.


BASIC MATH-


2000lbs
4.4brls of fuel produced
$484 max value of fuel

per pound max value of fuel = $.24

Cost to ship 1lb of old magic markers-

USPS $3.20

UPS $.60 (using the lowest and most economical way possible from UPS)

How can anyone justify saving, boxing and shipping old markers to jbi when the cost to get them to jbi is more than the value of the fuel that can be made?

I can see this story popping up in way more "Fleecing of America" type news stories than positive ad campaigns, and in a hurry!

Cyayola and jbi will be the poster child of waste.

Pay more, make less... burn fuel doing it!


This is a waste of time any way you look at it.


How Crayola could possibly promote such a bad idea for the environment is amazing... I think I will write them and help them understand why this has bad press written all over it.

This is the most telling example of why jbi has some serious issues.

It is as clear as can be that this 'great idea' has been rendered commercially un-viable by so many in the past.

Burn fuel getting feedstock to jbi at a value less than the shipping cost-

Jbi… Bad for crayola…. Bad for the environment…. Bad for investors



JBI $.24 PER POUND!

That's right... a total of just $.24 is the maximum that jbi can eek out in total revenue for one pound of plastic!

Even bananas are 3x more than that per pound.

RockTenn can not process their monofils to make it worth 2 or 3x that on the recycle market but jbi will process it to make a total of just $.24 per pound.

since they obviously can't get what you claim for the plastic there.

Since the plastic is not worthwhile for RockTenn to sell it for $.35 per pound how on earth can jbi process it for less than $.24???

And the $.24 means NO PROFIT... that is just the break even point... so the total cost of the feedstock, processing, transporting, handling, and p2oing has to come up to LESS than $.24 for there to be any profit.


At a cost of $8mill just for construction of the RockTell site not including one penny for operations after it is built it will take a whopping 33,000,000 pounds of plastic to process just to pay for the site cost! That is over a year of running 3 units at 100% 4000lbs per hour... by then the processors will need replaced so where is the possibility for any profit?
How will the workers get paid?
How will jbi account for a 20% kickback to RockTenn?
5 cents goes to RockTenn right off the top...
jbi needs to make the Rock Tenn deal work at less than $.19 per pound AND cover the cost of the machines, labor, and all associated cost.
Good Grief, no wonder there is no rush to make any progress on this losing deal...
And now lump the Crayola losing deal on top of it!!!

The FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM in its most basic form-

It cost more for plastic than the fuel that jbi can make!


Crayola ColorCycle MELTDOWN

Each pound of used crayons and markers will cost an average of $1 to ship.

Each pound of used crayons and markers will yield jbi $.24 in fuel production.

That's a loss of $.76 per pound!


To ship a 25lb box of used crayons and markers from California to NF will burn more fuel than can be made!!!

This is the perfect example of why p2o is not commercially viable.
The massive volume of feedstock to produce the minimal fuel output and a low competitive sale price make this entire scheme pointless.

Not only is the jbi p2o process not commercially viable...

BUT IT CREATES A POSITIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT!

IT'S BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!

ITS BAD FOR CRAOLA!

ITS BAD FOR SCHOOLS!

Spend more than you can make, burn fuel doing it and contribute to a negative environmental impact!


What is really amazing is that there were at least attempts at debating the points with the RockTenn deal... The Crayola deal is about to blow up as a negative press story and there are no arguments to debate because it is irrefutable!

Even Crayola has taken note of the potential bad press that re-purposing versus recycling has as indicated by their correspondences to me regarding the 'negative gain' 'non-government supported' 'fleecing of kids, parents and teachers' jbi p2o ColorCycle program.

The point here that is glaringly bad is that p2oing crayons cost more, wastes more and has a negative environmental impact for much too small of a return.

That is the FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM in a color other than grey.


If this goes ANY way it is still more cost for less than a 25% potential.

It doesn't matter who spends the money on shipping or burns the fuel to get the old crayons to the p2o site IT IS STILL AT A LOSS!

The PR value is negative once the story breaks that it cost more in shipping and fuel than the program can make!


Facts need to be straight before conclusions on things with no clue about them are drawn.

I happen to know quite a bit about corn... and ethanol

The farmers that grow corn see this as a huge benefit...

That is because they make much more from the process than from simply using the corn as feed.

They have the ethanol made, then get the corn back after the process... it is a much higher grade of feed because of the process!

So they make money on the ethanol AND still have better feed... its a win win.


Conclusions based on lack of knowledge are pointless...


Like a Good Neighbor...

The Doc is there to make sure more innocent bystanders are not harmed in this rouse-

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns with us about our latest
sustainability initiative, turning used markers into energy. I have
forwarded your email to the internal partners most familiar with all
aspects of this program.

We appreciate your efforts in helping us protect the integrity of the
Crayola brand.

Sincerely,

Kristina Lomax
CRAYOLA Contact Center Supervisor, Electronic Communications
[e-mail]

I hope a lot of emails head Ms.Lomax'x way... will really help draw attention ;)

Im sure they will be quick to respond after they start getting inquires from the media since I see this as a story that deserves my effort to make public... Fleecing Kids For Profit with negative benefit to them or the environment just to line the pockets of a self proclaimed 'genius' scammer!

Corporate Con... Good Grief!!!


Many better choices are available to recycle.

Non-profit organizations that benefit children, the environment and everyone involved.

Keeping the focus on recycling is a much better long term sustainable answer.

Implementing a program for the PR value can be good if it is a sound solution.

The jbi p2o to produce fuel is not.

It cost more than can be made.
It is negative to the environment.
It is not recycling.
It is not commercially viable.


All of the talk of $10brl fuel, franchises, machines in every city, lines of companies ready to partner, p2o boats, FREE plastic, green technology , patents, validation, fixing the world, and on and on… well, is all just talk.

The p2o MELTDOWN

The ColorCycle fades

The final chapter in a sad tale of deception.




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 gain additional knowledge and understanding of the topics discussed. I am compelled to educate. 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.