News Focus
News Focus
icon url

fourkids_9pets

12/09/10 10:09 PM

#81170 RE: terryels #81169

post should be a sticky

thank you for the time .. effort .. and input

very much appreciated

--
4kids
all jmo
icon url

monkeyfrog

12/09/10 10:15 PM

#81171 RE: terryels #81169

What were the tough questions " Honest John" was asked by you? What were "Honest John's" answers?


I spoke to John for over an hour. He is very knowledgeable and could answer tough questions


Thanks!
icon url

MikeDDKing

12/09/10 10:20 PM

#81172 RE: terryels #81169

How much do you think it costs to build one processor going forward?
icon url

Zardiw

12/09/10 10:41 PM

#81173 RE: terryels #81169

Awesome report Terry.......Thank you!!!........et z
icon url

Zardiw

12/09/10 10:47 PM

#81174 RE: terryels #81169

TerryEls, Experienced (18 years) Refinery Expert visits JBII:

I visited the plastic to oil factory and viewed the input (charge), the process, process control, and resulting petroleum product. I examined the machine closely and followed pipes throughout the plant to better understand flow and the syngas loop. I reviewed the stack emission test report, residue and syngas analysis reports. I spoke to operators, staff, but spent most of my time with Mr. Bordynuik. I briefly met Rick Heddle at the factory.

The charge capacity of the plastic to oil process is likely greater than 20 metric tons per day. In my opinion this is a regulatory limit, not operable capacity. Barrels per day are likely higher than 100 when operated at the charge capacity. The product slate is gasoline, ultra-low sulphur diesel and/or fuel oil. The final petroleum product did not solidify when left to cool. I was able to take fuel with me for testing. Islechem confirmed the chemistry and process scaled nicely from a 1 gallon lab unit to a several thousand gallon machine. Scaling successfully rarely happens in chemistry and processes. They have a handle on the mechanical scaling and the challenges of charging different bulk densities into the process. I see no reason why the process wouldn’t benefit from economies of scale if they were to build a 50 metric ton per day charge capacity machine.

In my opinion, the machine is well designed and assembled. They have their own machine shop and were manufacturing their own parts. They have skilled machinists, engineers, and welders. They have some significant IP. It may appear like a simple process but there is a lot of technology and know-how working. I am quite impressed with the simplicity of the machine. They did not over-engineer it as cost was clearly a driving factor. It’s often difficult to keep plants simple when employing engineers in various specialties. I believe the operable rate of the machine will be in excess of 90% due to its simplicity, serviceability, and overall robust deign.

I spoke to John for over an hour. He is very knowledgeable and could answer tough questions. There is no doubt in my mind he and his team are able to refine various plastics into a marketable final petroleum product. They are processing less than 5 barrels per hour and have plenty of technology managing it. They do not require emission monitoring and reporting systems and scrubbers so the overall machine cost is low. They could further reduce emissions by installing a low NOx burner on the furnace.

The quality of the petroleum product was exceptional when compared to other plastic conversion processes I have reviewed.

Over the years refineries have had to upgrade to refine heavier crudes. JBI built a machine to refine the “heaviest crude” so to speak so they will not face the upgrade cycles as our refineries do.

Hindsight being 20/20, I do not believe it was a good decision to permit the first machine in NY. It is a difficult state to do business in and it is just too cold. I am back for a meeting in Buffalo and am looking forward to returning home.


Thank you for your report Terry.........z
icon url

Estimated_Prophet

12/09/10 11:51 PM

#81177 RE: terryels #81169

Thank you for the report! I was very much looking forward to hearing your perspective. Glad that you had the impressions you did.

Did you ask why they chose New York? I know many people who had reservations on the integrity of JBI due to that decision. Many other states, as you well know, are far easier to obtain permitting. I think JBI has been ready for commercial production since around July, and many states probably would have allowed and been ready for them to go into production at that point.

I'm guessing the decision was made due to proximity for John and IsleChem, and ease of an already existing industrial site with temporary permits in hand in Niagara. Hindsight being what it is, it probably would have been best to spend the extra money upfront in another state to reach commercial production and proof of concept much more quickly.

Do you think the processors current design/engineering is ready for mass replication in many locations around the Nation/World, or do you think there are still probably a lot of obstacles to iron out?

Are you excited about the investment opportunity of JBI?
icon url

the big guy

12/09/10 11:53 PM

#81178 RE: terryels #81169

Terry:

Good report.

A few things come to mind. Did you find it odd that they were making machine parts and maintaining a machine shop? Were they making the attempt to find the items commercially before going to this expense? Each custom part requires some arrangement or source for replacements and spares, as well as design specifications.

Even if they needed custom parts, I would think that they would spec them and have them built externally, then these same sources could be used for later P2O implementations. Frankly, I would have expected only a few custom items on an as-necessary basis.

What are your impressions on their readiness to build more P2O units rapidly? Are they ready with a Construction Package and detailed design documentation? Or is this a one-off?
icon url

Ranb2khz

12/10/10 12:54 AM

#81181 RE: terryels #81169

Thank you terryels for sharing the opinion about your visit.
icon url

techisbest

12/10/10 7:53 AM

#81186 RE: terryels #81169

terryels: Thank you for your observations. A question...

They are processing less than 5 barrels per hour and have plenty of technology managing it.



Was this throughput verified by John or is this just the number the company has been stated in the past (109 barrels/day)? What more were you able to find out about throughput? What did you mean when you said:

The charge capacity of the plastic to oil process is likely greater than 20 metric tons per day. In my opinion this is a regulatory limit, not operable capacity.



What type of regulatory limit?

The next two processors move us up from 20T to 30T. If throughput is an issue, perhaps the answer is simply building a bigger machine or creating redundancy with multiple machines. The cost of the machine is low enough to provide that type of flexibility.
icon url

old chick

12/10/10 9:28 AM

#81189 RE: terryels #81169

Thank you for the report on your visit terryels. Very much appreciated.
icon url

mikeo56

12/10/10 9:36 AM

#81192 RE: terryels #81169

Wow what a great report, a BIG THANK YOU to you for bringing this information to the board.
icon url

GWMAN

12/10/10 9:54 AM

#81198 RE: terryels #81169

<<They are processing less than 5 barrels per hour>>

I noticed with this figure JBI could still reach their 109+ barrels per day, if running 24-hrs per day.

Do you believe this 5 barrels per hour was due to the current size of the chanber, was just enough to keep it running steady-state so they could continue their tweaks and refinement while waiting for commercial permit, or for some other reason?

Thanks