Understand that I writing in a manner that if all of the hurdles I outlined in this post were addressed and the system works perfectly the first time out of the box:
But you are absolutely correct they have no means of extraction, they have never identified at any point they have a solution to extract or if they are contracting that extraction out. They have had no money to buy such an extraction process, so I can only see a solution of contracting out which just means another cut for someone else in a limited size production capability at this point.
I surely do not see this going well the first time around as they have many issues to work out let alone meet production quotas. Combine all of that with the natural issues I identified and the cash flow and well it is truly a grim picture as to any success in the next 5 to 6 months on the scale of production and meeting the ideal of a complete turn key system.
I mean you see the terms “Start up” thrown around in defense, but I surely do not see it being used in the context of failure on any claims the company makes that it will meet the expectations of shareholders. Surely one does not invest thinking that this DVJ project is going to hit a home run right off the bat and meet or exceed expectations of a complete system that is a true turn key operational unit. So if the idea is that this is a start up and failures are to be expected then why be upset when people present their realistic expectations this system is not going to work, that it is possibly a year or more from being what is expected.
The success of the SJC PBR for example was overblown, the idea was sold that it could grow algae and quantities exceeding expectations in this case 30% above what was expected. But what was not really talked about was that it was contaminated, that the system did not produce the desirable material in the quantities expected. Further they addressed the harvester, but they sold the idea that they fixed all issues and modified it to work with their PBR and the manufacturer was incorporating these findings for future modifications.
I mean we were sold the tubing was modified and the turns were designed to all meet commercial standards expected of such a product. They sold the idea through PRs and a shareholders meeting that they in fact had a commercial system coming together and were ready for sale. They had clients signing contracts, oddly enough if they signed what happened to them? I mean we were even sold they were getting paid and well the filings concluded no such payments were received. They went as far as signing their Q1 documents as they were in “PRODUCTION”, of course they recanted that in the Q2 filing as a “misunderstanding of the term”. Seems to be a lot of those misunderstanding of words used, like acquiring “ALL ASSETS” for example, or the simple measurement difference between grams and milligrams. Amazing how such out of proportion accidental word usage has to be reeled back in.
In the end those going down with the ship will claim that those who post here realisticly have killed the stock, when in fact the blame rests with BEHL and BEHL only. They either succeed or they don’t, as many have eluded the PPS does not reliably show the success of a company only its results do. They could easily sell 5B shares if they actually had a product that meets what they have claimed in their mission statement. To date they do not and thus why the PPS continues to go down as they dilute ownership each and everyday.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
