Replies to post #243576 on Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[User336447]

VERSION 2.3 JBII PRICE MATRIX CALCULATOR!!!
V2.3 Updated 9/15/2013
(Now in .XLS format and I tweaked some math to make it more realistic. I also added explanations for each box to make it easier to understand the mechanics!)

Not only does this Matrix show you the potential of the technology, it shows you just what they need to achieve in the coming months to get to CFP. It gives you a good sense of where the company is now and what it has to do to advance.

I urge all investors and potential investors in P2O to plug in your own numbers that you feel are reasonable! Share your results with the board!

DOWNLOAD JBI PRICE MATRIX HERE
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/93018379/Excel/Koolmoto_JBI_v2.3.xls

OR HERE!
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-VTgeLMx1sAR05fTU5hbkFHcnc/edit

(Download and edit with excel)

If one link doesn't work for you, try the other one!

[User336447]

Z, in your sig it only shows the max potential of the processor without HTF. With HTF the max revenues per year are more like 17.5M per year!

[Rev Kilgore Mullet]

Hey Z, don't you think we have sufficient evidence to conclude at this point that the $10 million per year processor output is not very likely?

[Eliot Ness]

JBII complete summary $0.10. NUFCED?

[retiredptt]

JBI fuel was produced @ $102.06 per barrel Q3 2013. Far from the $10 per barrel claims!!! What was negotiated in the Oxy Vinyl relationship? $109 per gallon? Will making $7 per barrel make these $10 million per year processors???

JBI, Inc. Announces Initial Third Quarter 2013 Fuel Production, Files Form 10-Q for Second Quarter 2013, Announces Board and Governance Changes, and $3 Million Secured Debt Commitment

The Company produced 43,814 total gallons of fuel in the second quarter of 2013, compared to 68,569 gallons produced in second quarter 2012, a 36.1% decrease. Total cost per gallon was $2.43 per gallon, compared to $1.23 per gallon for the second quarter 2012, representing a 98.2% increase in cost per gallon. Readers are encouraged to review the Company's Form 10-Q in its entirety, including the section titled "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations."

[retiredptt]

The company's Q3 2013 numbers show that costs were $2.43 per gallon or $102.06 per barrel which works out to be nearly a barrel's sale price allowing little to no money to be made by JBI. THERE IS NO WAY JBI CAN MAKE CLOSE TO $10 MILLION PER YEAR PER PROCESSOR and many shareholders invested in this company due to $10 per barrel or $10 million per processor claims made by JBI management that those of us that have done our DD know are unattainable.

JBI board members have lost tens of thousands of dollars and some have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The company continues to allow would-be investors to believe this inaccurate information.

JBI, Inc. Announces Initial Third Quarter 2013 Fuel Production, Files Form 10-Q for Second Quarter 2013, Announces Board and Governance Changes, and $3 Million Secured Debt Commitment
link to PR detailing much higher costs per barrel than would allow for $10 million per processor

The Company produced 43,814 total gallons of fuel in the second quarter of 2013, compared to 68,569 gallons produced in second quarter 2012, a 36.1% decrease. Total cost per gallon was $2.43 per gallon, compared to $1.23 per gallon for the second quarter 2012, representing a 98.2% increase in cost per gallon. Readers are encouraged to review the Company's Form 10-Q in its entirety, including the section titled "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations."

[Eliot Ness]

and the scam continues to fall. lmao

[retiredptt]

The post, SAIC(NYSE): $10M/Yr/Processor!: is still stickied.

Processor 3 has been running since June and they've had June, July, August and September to test things out and get a feel for "the beast".

In Q4 (October, November and December) we were told JBI ran nothing but Heddle-praised plastic that we were told has improved acceptance at the hopper from 50% to 95%.

Is it safe to say that Processor 3 did $2.5 Million in Q4???!!!??? What would hold "the beast" back with 95% acceptance at the hopper, right?

[retiredptt]

$2.5 million Q4 to get to $10M/Yr/Processor!

[retiredptt]

SAIC(NYSE): $10M/Yr/Processor!: ???????????????

I see the $10 million per year per processor claim is still stickied. And it'd have to be true as Bordynuik himself used the study as recent as April 2013 in an investor call to "verify the technology and economics of the P20 process." ***Where the investor call could've been an opportunity to alter shareholder expectations adjusting the $10 million SAIC claim after that 2-3 day study*** it instead was used to "prove economics". Buy shareholders, buy!!! Buy buy buy!!!

With this said, shoudn't processors 2 & 3 produce on or around $2.5 million per quarter for this upcoming Q4 2013???!!!??? The processors should produce approximately $5 million per Bordynuik's referenced SAIC study if the study referenced again in April 2013 was to prove economics.




Bordynuik again takes the low road in April 2013.

On the April 2, 2013 investor call Rauber introduced that he'd like to bring us up to date on an exciting new strategic initiative that JBI began in the third quarter of 2012. We were told this on the April 2013 call:
"John Bordynuik, our Chief of Technology, hypothesized that a mixture of heat transfer fluid and pre-processed plastic would deliver higher yields, and at a faster rate, than pre-processed plastic alone. After testing this hypothesis in our lab, we made the decision to move forward with several test runs in the plant using Processor #2. We knew that the R&D associated with proving the validity of this new process had the potential to negatively impact production, revenue and gross profit margins in the short term; however, we believed this short term sacrifice would lead to significant longer term benefits. In Q4, we undertook numerous runs of combined heat transfer fluid and plastic, in anticipation of clearing the first hurdle in the permitting process, which was the stack test performed in December, 2012. The testing we were doing required more frequent shut-downs as we determined what effect the co-mingled feedstock stream was having on the processor. We were extremely pleased with the results, but our production numbers in Q4 did suffer".

On this same April 2013 call Bordynuik speaks about the economics of the P20 process and uses the SAIC study as the basis of the economics of the P20 process. He says this:
"In April of 2012, we had our most comprehensive audit of the Plastic2Oil process by a world renowned, independent third party engineering firm, SAIC. SAIC validated and verified the technology and economics of the P2O process."

I HAVE A COUPLE ISSUES WITH BORDYNUIK's REFERENCE OF THE SAIC REPORT ON THE APRIL 2013 TOPIC OF P2O ECONOMICS.

1.) DIDN'T JBI DISCREDIT THEIR OWN SAIC REPORT?
"JBI 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.

2.) DIDN'T BORDYNUIK HIMSELF ALTER THE PROCESSOR's ECONOMICS AFTER THE SAIC REPORT? WOULDN'T THE INTRODUCTION OF HEAT TRANSFER FLUID (HTF) AT A COST OF $1 PER GALLON (today's lower cost) SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE ECONOMICS OF P20 AFTER THE SAIC STUDY? If yes, then why reference it in a scripted conference call if not to mislead?

We defend Bordynuik's 2009/2010 behavior as behavior of the past. The example I shared proves we're still knowingly being mislead. Its unclear how deep the deception goes and if Bordynuik is misleading Rauber and now Heddle or if they're privy to the ongoing delivery of misinformation, half truths and blatant lies to JBI shareholders.

I try to stay on topic and provide examples that back the concern I have about JBI and for JBI shareholders and I believe this is a relevant example of what continues to happen by JBI management to keep the longs long and continue to sell shares. This ongoing JBI behavior is a recipe for disaster. How can you have confidence in any information provided when the information the company is providing is dissected and checks out to be misleading?

It really is confusing to know what to believe and what not to believe and I'm assuming this is just the way John Bordynuik and JBI wants it!

Transcript: JBI Investor Call, April 2, 2013, 11:00 am EST

[retiredptt]

Can we remove this sticky? ($10M/Yr/Processor!)

If anything its the everyday reminder that JBI is standing behind a $10 million per processor per year claim that they themselves are unable to achieve. It's misleading yet where other stickies are replaced this one remains..

When will JBI finally come clean and redefine what Processor 3 is and what Processor 3 is not? Its long overdue that the company readjust shareholder expectations from previous claims made!