Replies to post #200226 on Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[the big guy]

There are many things that are suspicious about that Summary. First of all, it is only the most basic estimate (Level 1 or "Order of Magnitude"). That means it is accurate to something like +50/ -40%. That means the true cost could be anywhere from $10M to $4M. It does not make sense that they would be so vague now. It means that they have not been doing these kind of estimates, which implies that the system is undocumented, and hence not able to be easily commercialized. I am jumping a bit, but in order to build the processor you have to be able to have a document package (set of drawings) to deliver to a contractor. I get the impression that is is something that John and his crew have been toying with for years now. With no documentation, that is useless.

FUrthermore, as the estimate is more refined, it tends to increase in magnitude. It should not... but it does. The Level 5 or "definitive estimate" is always higher. At that point you have a fully documented system with a full drawign set.

Most importantly, you can't just jump from a few production figures to EBITDA. There was nothing mentioned about the assumptions for SG&A, which are included in the calculation of EBITDA, and other costs.

There should have been statements about the Basis used, such as at the very least the pricing assumed for the product. They should have said something.

All that results is that the reader has to make their own assumptions and put it together, which is why we are still talking about it.

It is very suspicious, and for the company to come out with the statement they did, that it was a real document, only makes it more incredible.

One last thing... when was the last time the term EBITDA was used on this board? I used it a coupel of weeks ago. You will find it does not apply to JBII. They do not pay interest, and have no AMortization. You will see it does not appear on their I/S. WTF?

Someone do a Board Search on the term "EBITDA". I am curious how often it has been used up until now. I would not be surprised if I was the first person to use the term a couple of weeks ago. I am a Free member, so I cannot do a search.

[loanranger]

"At the time that report was written it was accurate."

A simple statement. Ten magic little words. Yet they don't appear here for some reason:
JBI Comments on Improper Release of SAIC Evaluation Report

"JBI, Inc. ("JBI" or the "Company") (OTCQB: JBII) has become aware of the improper release of a confidential executive summary prepared by SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC ("SAIC") relating to SAIC's May 2012 evaluation report on JBI's Plastic2Oil ® ("P2O ®") technology.

As previously announced by JBI on May 15, 2012, the SAIC report was commissioned by JBI as an independent review of its technology, process and business model. However, neither the SAIC report nor the executive summary should be relied on as management's analysis or opinion regarding JBI's current strategic plan or its business or financial prospects.

Furthermore, the conclusions drawn by SAIC were based upon a number of assumptions made at the time of the report that may be outdated or incorrect or that may prove to be incorrect in the future. Management's current assumptions may differ and additional events, risks and uncertainties may cause JBI's actual results and performance to differ from SAIC conclusions or projections.

JBI encourages investors and potential investors to look to the statements and information contained in JBI's press releases and in its periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") when making any investment decisions about JBI's securities."


The last several days have been spent debating an issue that could have been resolved with those ten magic little words:
"At the time that report was written it was accurate."

Why do you suppose that statement was absent from the press release? Is it not true? Did they forget? Did they judge it to be irrelevant and unimportant?

Here's what they found to be relevant and important:
"However, neither the SAIC report nor the executive summary should be relied on as management's analysis or opinion regarding JBI's current strategic plan or its business or financial prospects."
If your statement was true, one would think that the experienced management team with the new in-house lawyer might have replaced the "However" in that sentence with "While at the time that report was written it was accurate".

If it was true, the well-compensated responsible parties would have made it very clear that at the time that report was written it was accurate. They did precisely the opposite.

[BRIG_88]

VERY well said T.......the SAIC report validates JBI 100%....just 100%in'

[NewMoney]

At the time that report was written it was accurate.

Of course it was accurate. These kinds of evaluations is what SAIC does.

The thing is, it's probably still accurate, the "disclaimer" that it should not be relied on is standard boilerplate. Since the general public was not intended to receive this report they had to PR the disclaimer.

Boilerplate warnings are included on EVERYTHING because we are a very litigious society.

Look on your McDonalds coffee this morning what do you see?

"WARNING VERY HOT, DON'T POUR INTO CROTCH"

Look on your bottle of bleach.
"WARNING DON'T DRINK THIS STUFF YOU'LL PROBABLY DIE"

Why are those warnings there? We all know not to pour coffee into our crotches and then go home and drink bleach.

It's there because you have to warn people about everything in this country.

YES! Even if the numbers were off by 50% (they were'nt) we are still going to generate tons of profit.