News Focus
News Focus
icon url

buenokite

08/24/13 3:39 PM

#240219 RE: Rawnoc #240209

Wow that is truly exciting, your estimate on Q3 gallons produced and gross margin?
icon url

buenokite

08/24/13 3:57 PM

#240223 RE: Rawnoc #240209

Why did the company simply not release the number of gallons processor #3 produced with costs? If you tend to believe the company's SEC filings processor #2 could have easily produced 60,000 of the 82,000 gallons produced in Q3. And if processor #3 production was great news they would have released it, everybody knows that to be a fact. But instead much like they did with cardboard recycling they obfuscate the actual results hoping people come to the most optimistic but drastically wrong conclusion.
icon url

AtlasSnuggled

08/24/13 5:38 PM

#240227 RE: Rawnoc #240209

Wright Bros. Elon Musk. Einstein, who next? A luminary list compared to DJ (Defendant, John) Juicy grows more preposterous by the day. Take a hoohum cast off time debunked process, wrap some green tinsel around and promote the holy hell out of it ... and still there is only the money losing fraud besot fairytale story
icon url

buenokite

08/24/13 6:53 PM

#240233 RE: Rawnoc #240209

1,000% more up time yet still using old assumptions on feedstock issues?

Seriously?


Why not release the number of gallons produced by processor #3? Gallons produced is a combination of uptime and throughput and if you trade one for the other you have really gained nothing. The reality is if you tend to believe the SEC filings of the company processor #2 should have easily produced 60,000 gallons of the 82,000 gallons claimed to be produced from July 1 to August 12.

At no point has the company claimed processor #3 can accept a wider range of feedstocks than processor #2, are you making that claim on their behalf?