InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 32
Posts 6229
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 05/11/2006

Re: Renz post# 242072

Friday, 09/06/2013 11:30:34 AM

Friday, September 06, 2013 11:30:34 AM

Post# of 312018
Renz, it is not a matter of playing poker. If they could accept any free plastic they would and they would not have to disclose anymore than they are today.

The reality is they have to pay for the "optimal" plastic that the machines require. Furthermore, the company has never claimed processor #3 or HTF solves this problem. And believe me they are not shy about making grand claims if there is even a hope of something happening, but even they don't claim this one.

And the reason I know the costs are not largely associated with transportation is I read the SEC filings. According to their last 10Q:

Feedstock Costs 61.7%
Preprocessing Costs 23.9%
P2O Plant Costs 6.6%
Freight 7.8%

So transportation is about 8% of the cost to produce a gallon of fuel. But apparently due to the new arrangement they struck those transportation costs are apparently going up as well as the acquisition costs. The company explains these costs in the same 10Q:

Full Link: http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingPdf?FilingID=9460916

"The increase in cost of goods sold and cost per gallon was due to the following factors:

* Increased costs to procure optimal feedstock for the processors. We have identified a number of significant sources of optimal feedstock which can be delivered directly to our Niagara Falls plant, without the need for pre-processing at our recycling center. During the quarter, we processed a significant amount of this feedstock, which is at a higher cost than that which requires pre-processing.

* Increased freight costs to receive feedstock. Much of the optimal feedstock discussed above came from suppliers that are not in close proximity to our Niagara Falls plant. As a result of this, we incurred significantly higher transportation costs"