The price matrix completely falls apart when you add in the cost of feedstock. The 10Q makes it very clear that feedstock is not free and is the one of the largest costs of the operation. Leaving out the cost of plastic is false and misleading.
"Profitability in the Plastic2Oil business will depend largely on the access to waste plastic feedstock where prices can fluctuate significantly"
Let's do some simple math to see if JBI's claims are even possible.
1. According to 10Q the company will NOT be getting free feedstock they will be paying for it contrary to all the false claims posted. "Profitability in the Plastic2Oil business will depend largely on the access to waste plastic feedstock where prices can fluctuate significantly"
If it were free they would have stated such in the 10Q.
2. Company claims they can take 40,000 pounds of plastic and turn it into 110 barrels of oil every 24 hours per processor for $10/barrell.
So if they got lucky and were able to purchase the plastic for .25 per pound that would be $10,000 per 40,000 lbs which would make 110 barrells of "oil" which at $70 a barrel would bring them $7,700.00.(IF THEY CAN EVEN SELL THE FUEL) A whooping Gross Loss of $2,300.00 per day per processor. That is a loss of $839,500.00/year/processor before adding in overhead and other variable costs. http://www.recycle.net/Plastic/other/xv100700.html
So the whole story falls apart without FREE plastic. Which according to the 10Q will not be free afterall. Notice on the link above with all the companies willing to pay .25 and up much higher for plastic. Why would a sane person give away their plastic to JBI when they can easily sell it? Now we know why ther is zero major media interest in the JBI story. GAME OVER.
Here is John claiming they get paid to take the plastic.
"What is the estimated cost to produce 1 barrel of fuel in terms of just the operational costs?" This is difficult to answer as we are being paid to accept the feedstock, generate excess energy and sell the output. The cost is less than $10/barrel if we load up our business plan with costs." http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=108630022808&topic=10800 Once again the 10Q is quite different. So did he lie in the alleged email and on this facebook post, or is he lying in the 10Q where they make it clear they will be paying for feedstock? They can't both be true.
EP, I think it would be appropriate to put the EPS with 1 processor at a level of 2.7 -/- (4*2 cents loss/Q) because the current normalized earnings are 2 cents operational loss per Q. This translates into a break even level (0.1 cents EPS) with 3 processors. I know, there are some wild cards (PakIT revenue increase, tape reading revenue uptick) which I didn't calculate in, but by decreasing every level of EPS (cells C11 - C20) by 8 cents/year you'll make the calculation more realistic and based on what we know.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
