Replies to post #219119 on Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[OverDraught]

IMO, the optimal feedstock is the one that produces the greatest profit.

{PS: I did not know that there were degrees of optimal. Something is optimal or it is not. Nevertheless, I will add "most optimal" to my lexicon of JBI-speak.}

[Arthur Edward Whoof]

RockTenn PLASTIC NOT MOST OPTIMAL, NO GO

From the 10K;

Historically, we operated under the premise that we would be able to obtain significant quantities of waste plastic for free, as we offered companies a more cost-effective disposal method for this waste stream. During the year, as we processed increasing amounts of waste plastic, we made the determination that in order to obtain the most optimal feedstock on a consistent basis, we would be required to purchase this feedstock.

As I have pointed out, the feedstock that JBI needs must be 'most optimal'.

In order for it to be 'most optimal' it must be free of contaminates.

This is the same feedstock that can be recycled.

If the RockTenn plastic could be recycled RockTenn would, and they would make the most money doing it.

The problem is that it cost more to process it than it is most worth.

This is JBIs MOST FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM.

There is no way JBI can use plastic that is not 'most optimal' or it will most foul the machines, cause most downtime, cause most undesired output and create most hazardous and most problematic byproducts.

If the RockTenn plastic could be processed to be 'most optimal' at a lower cost than it can be purchased for.. it can be sold for more than it is worth making fuel from it.

By the time the process cost is figured into the equation the end result is MOST NEGATIVE GROSS PROFIT FUEL SALES

This is a most circular argument.... a most catch 22.... a most dead horse.... an MOST ANNIHILATED business model.

That makes this the MOST FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM

[loanranger]

"Please note the wording....."most optimal feedstock"
That means the very best. The next step down from most optimal....is ...optimal.....then there is acceptable.......and so forth."

I really wanted to leave this alone, but I found it to be almost impossible.

The next step down from "most optimal" isn't optimal, it's NOT optimal. There are no degrees of optimal, just as there are no degrees of pregnant, maximum or impossible. The feedstock is either optimal or it isn't. And there is only ONE optimal feedstock. If they want the optimal feedstock they have to pay for it. If they can live with something less, that's fine....but under no circumstances should they refer to it as "most optimal".

It really sounds to me like they have to pay for any feedstock that isn't unacceptable.