Monday, December 13, 2010

Airdale1 discusses global plastic waste problem, JBII, and P2O solution

Throwaway plastic is everywhere. Virtually every package and part imaginable is plastic based. The petroleum based miracle product of the 60's is the bane of the 21st century. We are drowning in plastic. It's a problem for landfills, dumps, the ocean, recyclers, and large cities who have to haul it away. It's an issue for the EPA and every city manager in any environmental based high tech country. We've all had two or more garbage receptacles for decades. One for "garbage" and one for recyclables, and they are both becoming a huge problem. Where do we keep putting it all?

JBII and probably others are on the right tack. Take those petroleum based plastics and return them to petroleum. Problem solved. No one company will have all the solutions. It's going to take more than just JBII to cure the enormity of this issue IMO so that argument is moot. Bring them all on.

You can argue which company or process is the best but it will be the engineers and their fancy tests for governing agencies that make the final decisions. The firm with the cleanest process, that is most efficient and that is cost effective will win the majority of contracts.

Successful companies in this niche could be anywhere from the DOW to a Pinky and they will make their shareholders a ton of money. The need for this process cannot be argued by reasonable beings, it is essential.

Islechem LLC., a highly reputable firm, has already given the green light to JBII. If the DEC issues the permits to process then JBII has a huge lead in the U.S.A. for plastic to fuel. The stringency of New York's permitting process will enable JBII to replicate quickly, country wide. They will also pave the way for others to follow their process. Big deal, there is plastic enough for a lot of competition.

We all need this process to work, we, and our children will be grateful for those who make it happen.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Steady_T justifies $10 / bbl cost estimate for P2O

All the needed information has been disclosed to support the claims of profitability.

The cost of the input material has been described as free.

That leaves the operational costs of the processor and the amortization costs to be computed.

The cost of the processor has been quoted at $200,000. Estimates by others have the cost of the building site prep etc in the vicinity of $1,000,000 for the first processor and little more for the second one.

Operational costs will be low since the process itself provides the heating gas, so the operational costs will be most personnel and maintenance.

Production has been quoted as 109 bbl / 24hrs. Twice that for 2 machines. 218 bbl /24 hrs. Assume selling it at current WTI price of $85 / bbl = $18,530 per day income.

At a cost of $10 / bbl that results in $2180 per day for salaries, operational expenses, maintenance, and amortization.

Lets say 2 employees @ $30/hr ,including benefits etc., X 24 hrs a day = $1440/ day leaving $740 / day for operational expenses, amortization, and maintenance.

Amortization of $1.5 mil over at 10 year period is $410 / day.

Leaving $330 / day for maintenance and misc operational expenses.


Yeah.... I think that there is a legitimate basis for a $10 / bbl cost estimate.

rcELF projects conservative analysis of potential JBII price increase


For those on the board interested in the conservative estimate of possible growth in JBII share price as it relates to growth in processors:

It is a conservative estimate to give people something to go off of, after all there are a lot of longs on this board and it only makes sense to try to peek into the future a bit. Lets add another $5 so JBII costs are $20/bbl (the company estimates $10/bbl), lets leave crude at $60. It still works, simply lower the pps by 25% per processor. We know crude is trading in the range of $70-$90, with all likelihood that range will increase over time there is plenty of wiggle room built into the estimate/assumptions. It is also important to remember the stock market is a forward looking instrument i.e. when JBI has 3 working processors will the market value the stock at 4,5,6 working processors? (just an example)
I say have fun!


This is an attempt to break the business model on the first 5 processors, and see what the results are.

Assumptions:

O/S: 53,000,000 (Roughly 1.5 million more than current)
Oil: $60/barrel (Bear market/Deflation)
Production:32,000 barrels (20% downtime)
Cost: $15/barrel(claim is under $10)
WTI (Should get WTI+$2, blending site should increase margins)
Taxes:40% (No tax incentives or credits)
PE:100 (Should be very achievable with easily replicated machine and media attention to cheap production, waste to fuel)

EPS/processor: 0.0163

1 Processor $1.63
2 Processors $3.26
3 Processors $4.89
4 Processors $6.52
5 Processors $8.15

Still very good numbers. What are the odds that every variable will come under claims or expectations?

To give an idea of the difference between $60 oil and the price of oil today at roughly $76/barrel, 2 processors would equal $4.41.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Justice37 strongly disputes naysayer skeptic's comments


Did you even read my post. It didn't take 2-3 months to fill out the paperwork dude. I said a month, one month, 1 month, 30 or so days, however, this is just an approximation off the top of my head. Way different from 2-3 months. Also, you have to include more than just, as you say, a ten page form. Things like test results, etc... This is the information they gathered.

You seem to be the only person who claims the DEC approves things quickly, it seems that is not the case. I suggest you go to the DED website, do some better research on the application process.

Your last paragraph... "I'm telling you...this is a delay tactic. Mr. Bordynuik has no intention of commercially producing a worthless product--that would cost him money that he could instead be sticking in his pocket. The permit 'problem' was inserted in April as part of the story line. If you think he can't insert more 'steps' then you're being naive."...is at it's best a wonderful piece of fiction, there is nothing in your claim based on fact.

If you want to do some reading on the process and issues leading up to the stack test, getting results and the application, this is from the 10-Q, out there for everyone to read, and hopefully you will too:

On December 9, 2009 a New York state certified lab, IsleChem, was engaged to verify the Company’s Plastic2Oil process. During 40 test runs, IsleChem was able to isolate the conditions that allowed the process to run optimally and they verified that our Plastic2Oil process is scalable and repeatable.

Following IsleChem’s report, the Company assembled a 20T Plastic2Oil processor in at a facility in Niagara Falls, NY. In addition to the P2O machine, the Company purchased a shredder and granulator to preprocess any bulk plastic that the Company may encounter. The P2O process produces a minor by-product of off-gas, which is much like natural gas. After testing at high processing rates, it was found that all of the off-gas could not be burned in the processor’s furnace. Flaring excess off-gas is common in the oil and gas industry, but this practice is not environmentally friendly, is a waste of valuable gas, and would require a separate permit. To avoid flaring the excess gas, the Company purchased a gas compression system in June 2010vthat buffers and regulates the off-gas. The gas is then stored in mobile tanks and can be resold or used to cold start the P2O furnace.

There have been many other additions to the P2O machine and facility since the last quarterly filing, all of which have been designed to increase efficiencies and improve operations. A second condenser was added to the P2O system so that there is one condenser to condense the heavy fuel (diesel) and another to condense the light fractions (gasoline). Additional improvements include an expansion of the furnace, installation of a small cooling tower and the purchase of a small diesel generator for times when our machinery is disconnected from the electrical grid.

We have made investments in securing the premises of our P2O site. We installed a multi-camera security system, a video archival security system, a perimeter fence, and we built a small guardhouse to control access to the facility. Off-duty East Buffalo law enforcement have contracted with JBI Inc. to protect and secure the property around the clock.

To assist in control, data logging, operations, and management, a complete P2O automation system that includes 63 sensors, was developed by our CEO. In June 2010, it was discovered that oxygen sensors supplied by a major US sensor manufacturer had failed after being exposed to the process over time. A number of oxygen sensors were tested until suitable replacements were found. As of the date of this filing, all sensors on the P2O processor continue to function properly. This delayed the testing of our emissions, and consequently our application to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) simple air permit. During July and August 2010, the machine was operated at a steady state in order to gather data for the emissions test on our stack.

The Company scheduled a third party engineering firm, Conestoga Rovers & Associates (CRA), to conduct our stack test. It was completed on August 17, 2010 and witnessed by associated members of the DEC. IsleChem assisted the Company during this period by providing engineering support in gathering the data required for the application of our DEC simple air permit.

On September 17, 2010, the Company received the stack test results from CRA. The Company had expected to receive the CRA report within 7-10 days of the testing, however, an additional three weeks passed before it was received. The results indicate that the processor is emitting 14.87% oxygen to the stack, while only emitting 3.16 ppm (parts per million) of carbon monoxide, 0.81 lb/hr (86.4 ppm) of NOx, SO2 and THC levels that were below 1 ppm, and a particulate level below 0.02 lb/hr. In other words, the process puts a high percentage of oxygen back into the air while emitting very little, if any, toxic substances during the conversion of waste plastic into usable hydrocarbon fuels. The stack test confirmed that the P2O processor emissions are far below maximum emissions allowed under a DEC simple air permit and consequently confirmed that the only air permit we require for the process is a simple air permit."


Lets clarify some of the information you posted.
"cost between crude oil and petroleum products is just a few dollars per barrel"

The current cost of oil is $87.82 per barrel. Converted the cost of diesel is approximately $3.25 per gallon X 42 gallons (to equal a barrel) = $135.50 per barrel or a difference of $48.68 per barrel. So the difference is more than a third per barrel between the two, a single barrel could be seen as a few dollars, multiplied by 1000 and it's more than a few dollars.

JBI has a refinery, the product sent to the refinary needs little refining, based on what Islechem and other third party analysis have shown. So technically, JBI could sell the diesel after minimal processing at $135.50.

You also reported:
"Mr. Bordynuik stated on Facebook that he was trying to get hydrocarbon-only plastics showing he understands the problem of elemental oxygen. The problem is that the plastic sorted into types to exclude those containing elemental oxygen costs around $500/ton meaning that the margin would be virtually zero or negative just based on the feedstock."

You are quoting very old information, however, that's not much of an issue. Testing was done on all sorts of plastics, any kind will do including mixed, he has indicated what you put in determines what you get out, fewer additives means less waste product but anything that can be converted to oil will be. Also you reported "trying to get hydrocarbon-only plastics" does not mean has to get them. You also say that John understands "the problem of elemental oxygen". Show me where John or JBI have said that, how do you know he understands there is a problem, did he tell you this? You seem to be stating this assumption as a fact, it isn't a fact. Show me real research that supports your claim re: the problems with plastic with elemental oxygen. I think the O2 issue you bring up is a red herring but you are more than welcome to keep bringing it up.

Another issue is that you refuse to believe that JBI can get free feedstock. I again suggest you do some research on the internet. There is a lot of plastic out there, companies, municipalities pay for others to take their plastic to be put in landfill. It's a huge savings for them to give it away. I also want to know where you came up with the $500/ton for sorted waste plastic that has not been completely separated, sorted by plastic type, and reground, could you provide a link? People have also asked why JBII won't provide the name of the company. In my opinion it is because in the past any such information results in the company being called numerous times and groundless accusations are made about JBI. Happened with MIT and even NASA back when the tape reading business was being bashed. But again, this is just my opinion. JBI may report the supplier or suppliers when they receive the permits and are into full production but then it depends on contracts and if the providers want it publicized. Reports given to SEC should have plastic costs it but if there is no cost then it won't well it, none yet by the way.

I think the biggest reason to believe that there is a supplier is that there have been hundreds of hours of testing (if not thousands) done on the P2O. Since the processor can convert approximately 20 tons (or 40,000 pounds) of plastic to oil in 24 hours (assuming there is no shut down) that is a lot of plastic needed to do testing. I don't think employees brought in plastic from home or raided their neighbors recycling boxes to get it.

Another point is you keep referring to JBI offering pyrolysis oil. It isn't the same process as is used by other P2O processes. Others basically heat the plastic till it melts and some oil comes out leaving a lot of waste. Much less heat, I believe half, is used for the JBI process, the plastic needs to be heated but it's what has been disparagingly referred to as the "magic catalyst" which breaks down the plastic and converts it to oil, huge difference and not the same as the competitors mentioned by many on the board. I won't go into the differences in the cost of competitors machines compared to JBI's, oops, just did.

Lastly, you said:
"My experience with these situations is that those who could provide evidence of value but never provide anything unambiguous and substantive generally are trying to hide that they don't have anything."

It's my impression, but please let me know if I am wrong, that when evidence is provided, such as Islechem reports, the results of the stack test from Conestoga Rovers & Associates (CRA), PR's regarding test results of the converted plastic (diesel, gasoline, propane) are continually ignored or not believed. The companies are labeled as incompetent or in league with JBI with the purpose of scamming shareholders. I fully believe that when I'm driving my car using the gasoline sold to an independent gasoline station, I'll still hear that it doesn't exist, is a scam, or something along the lines that the gasoline causes birth defects. The negative comments will probably never stop. Think I'm going to take a break now and watch "Conspiracy Theory".... great movie.

Ryoko comments on DEC issuance of temporary P2O permit

Actually, it is not surprising that DEC might issue a temporary permit while the full permit is being processed. There are several reasons why this might happen:

* They are satisfied with the stack tests that the P2O process poses little environmental risk,

* They want to see the processors perform a full-capacity run to gather additional data for the final application review,

* They are anxious to see waste plastic being diverted from landfills and don't want to see this tied up while the paperwork finishes going thru the pipeline.

Remember that P2O is pretty revolutionary and is expected to have a big beneficial impact on the environment and recycling efforts. It makes sense that they want to cut them some slack to get this moving.

Friday, December 10, 2010

Rawnoc discusses the abundant supply of P2O feedstock


(1) Out of thousands of types of plastic that JBII can process, only a few can be recycled which means thousands of types of plastic are worthless and landfilled and FREE to JBII.

(2) Dyes and other additives which MOST plastic has canNOT be recycled and must be landfilled. JBII can take for FREE.

(3) Most plastic gets sent to landfill because it's too tough/expensive to recycle it. Which is why recyclers themselves have incredible amounts of free plastic available.

(4) The recycling war is failing miserably. Production has outpaced recycling five-fold which means the supply of FREE plastic has also grown, despite foolish claims to the contrary about recycling reducing the amount available.

"Only a few kinds of plastic have the supply and market conditions that make recycling feasible."

"Atlhough there are only seven resin codes, there are actually thousands of different types of plastic. Different combinations of dyes and additives can be added to the basic resin to produce a desired color, shape and texture in the final product. There variations in the manufacturing process lead to different melting points and other properties within the same resin code. To be made into another product, plastic must be carefully sorted by type. Combining different types of plastic renders it useless for manufacturing."

"Unfortunately, plastic is much more difficult to recycle than materials like glass, aluminum or paper. Most plastic ends up in a landfill or incinerator."

"Despite the promotion of plastic recycling, plastic production has outpaced recycling by five times over the plast decade. While increased plastic recycling is one way to alleviate this problem, it only has limited potential to reduce the glut of plastic waste."

http://pdfcast.org/pdf/recycling-plastic-complications-limitations

Thursday, December 9, 2010

terryels discusses his recent P2O factory tour


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.

FOLLOW-UP SHAREHOLDER QUESTIONS:

What more were you able to find out about throughput?


i verified it in the time I was there. It's simple pounds in/pounds out. I watched the gas compression system and the burner to tell me how much heat was being driven into the system. The charge is monitored by a scale and the final petroleum product was quantifiable by the level of the fuel in the tank. What is important here is the ratio of charge to final product. They scale the machine to whatever size they want. So to me 20T was not the important question. The material balance is what is important. They have excess heat so the primary production factor in this machine is how much heat can they drive into it.

The ratios provided by JBI jive with the material and heat balances I was able to complete.

What type of regulatory limit?

They have no emission monitoring or controls so the only way to ensure they do not exceed Title V emissions is to limit the lbs in. They have a long way to go to reach a Title V so I believe a simple per amendment for a 100T or more a day machine would not be difficult to get.

Johnik opines on Kaplanis' termination

Jimmenknee’s Quote:
________________________________________
No-- please read the timeline. He states in his complaint that he received a 60-day "Termination without Cause" on/around July 14.

Is there some rule that says one must wait then until September 14th? Doesn't that seem silly on its face?

________________________________________
To give some backing to GWMAN's theory, this is what we know about the timeline of Kaplanis's departure. I assume you have read the filings.

According to Kaplanis, as set forth in his complaint:

(1) July 14, 2010: Kaplanis received 60-day termination without cause letter (and allegedly was told he would transition from working for JBI to working for P2O).

According to the Florida Secretary of State's database:

(2) August 3, 2010: Revma Investment Group, LLC is formed by filing Articles of Incorporation, with an effective date of August 2, 2010. Michael Kaplanis is listed as managing member.

According to Kaplanis, as set forth in his complaint:

(3) August 9, 2010: Kaplanis was terminated via letter from Mr. Bordynuik.

(4) September 14, 2010: Kaplanis was allegedly scheduled to transition from working for JBI to working for P2O (which JBI denies).

Now for some pertinent language from the employment contract, attached as an exhibit to the motion to dismiss (with no objection to its validity raised by Kaplanis in his opposition to the motion):

Paragraph 1(b): "During the Employment Term, the Employee shall report directly to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The Employee shall obey the lawful directions of the CEO to whom the Employee reports and shall use his diligent efforts to promote the interests of the Company and to maintain and promote the reputation thereof." (emphasis added)

Paragraph 1(e): "During the Employment Term, the Employee shall use his best efforts to perform his duties under this Agreement and shall devote all of his business time, energy and skill in the performance of his duties with the Company. The Employee shall not during the Employment Term (except as a representative of the Company or with consent in writing of the Board) be directly or indirectly engaged or concerned in any other business activity." (emphasis added)

According to JBI, as set forth in the answer to Kaplanis's complaint:

(1) JBI terminated Kaplanis with cause.
(2) Kaplanis breached the above-referenced paragraphs of the employment contract(as well as paragraph 1(c)) "by failing to devote all of [his] business time, energy and skill in the performance of his duties and his failure to obey the lawful directions of the CEO and use his diligent efforts to promote the interests of the Company." (emphasis added)

So yes, GWMAN's proffered theory has much support, and I am sure you would agree that it is at least plausible. Do we know that Revma was the basis for JBI's decision to terminate Kaplanis? No, we just know that JBI claims that Kaplanis breached the above employment contract provisions.

As for this question of yours:

Quote:
________________________________________
Is there some rule that says one must wait then until September 14th? Doesn't that seem silly on its face?
________________________________________

No, it is not silly. In the event of termination, the contract states that the "Employment Term shall terminate on the first of the following to occur:

(d) Without Cause. On the sixtieth (60th) day following written notice by either Party to the other Party without Cause . . . ."

Thus, assuming Kaplanis was terminated without cause on July 14, his "Employment Term" continued through August 3 when Revma was formed, and Kaplanis remained obligated to comply with his duties set forth in the above paragraphs 1(b) and 1(e).
Point taken, and understood, but a few counter-points should be made.

Quote:
________________________________________
I do believe it is silly to expect that a soon-to-be-let-go employee would not attempt to set themselves up to continue to draw a paycheck from somewhere outside of their soon-to-be-terminated employment.
________________________________________

Sure, but note that the employment contract afforded Kaplanis post-employment benefits in the event of termination without cause, including continued payment of his salary and medical coverage for 2 months after termination. Also note that we are dealing with two sophisticated parties that negotiated contract terms.
Quote:
________________________________________
I also find it sad that posts are willing to judge one side so easily and yet complain if the other is challenged-- can we not recognize the insincerity of the "whole" discussion under these conditions? I choose to not pre-judge either...
________________________________________

With all due respect jimmenknee, I at least have seen far more posts drawing unfavorable inferences from the so-called "bombshell" emails from the CEO than I have any criticism about possible misgivings of Kaplanis. Haven't you drawn some of those negative inferences yourself? (hint: "stock promotion" comments)

If you sincerely wish not to pre-judge, then that is admirable. I will agree that we are not in the position to determine precisely what transpired when we have very limited documentation before us, presented by adversaries to a lawsuit that is still in its infancy.

Quote:
________________________________________
again for me the importance of the litigation is what is revealed outside the legal issues being argued.
________________________________________

Okay, I understand what you are saying, but there is a Catch-22 element to this endeavor. The information revealed during this litigation will be channeled specifically to the legal issues being argued. If dissected from those legal issues, then you are left with a glimpse of insight into a matter that lies outside of the proceedings. Simply put, you can't get meaningful insight into a topic that is unrelated to the issues being argued because you will be unable to get the full picture.

As for the comment about the contract being "unsigned," I really think this is a non-issue. We can't assume that the contract was never signed just because an electronic copy of the document downloaded to Pacer did not display a signature. Note that Kaplanis, in his complaint, asserts that the parties entered into an employment agreement referenced as Exhibit A (but failed to include a copy of said Exhibit A). Note as well that Kaplanis has not contested the validity of the employment contract submitted to the court by JBI. Thus, at least to date, there is no disagreement that the contract on file in the court is the one embodying the parties' agreement.

BTW: The faces you add to your posts (both happy and sad) always give me a good chuckle. Thanks for keeping the mood light.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

StockSpock logically celebrates P2O


"Dashing through the snow, in a one horse open sleigh

Laughing as we go, our permit's on the way

Bells on bobtail ring, making spirits Bright...

The fact P2O is real will take us through the night...

P2O P2O.... P20 is real

If you don't have a clue then kiss my ass instead....

HA

P20 will help to solve the global plastic recycling problem


WATCH THE VIDEO WHICH DEMONSTRATES JBII's REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4-UDF1TqY4&feature=related

Two enthusiastic JBII shareholders discuss the stock

provencial comments:
I think JBII will be on the big boards trading at over 10.00 a share in 3-5 years.
I sold off all other stocks I had and put my money here, I plan on buying as much as I can when I can.
Never thought I could buy-in here at this price!!!!
A dream come true for me.

P2OBleavR says:
Thank God for Pipe Dreams and Dreamers. We are only at the tip of the iceberg on the potential of JBII and all its products. I grew up prior to the computer age and watched it develop from the hugh main frame stage for commercial use to the ability to take ones laptop and access from anywhere. Just think what this world would be without if someone didn't have the ability to dream and "tweak" his/her dream.

provincial responds:
I agree! To me JBII is the equivalent of discovering IBM or google when they started out.
A very rare opportunity!

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Rawnoc answers doubting skeptic


Skeptic's question:
If a stock is going to go up 2,000% why is it so cheap before it goes up 2,000%?

I don't know. Maybe because the market is filled with idiots like you say. I cannot explain why a stock is so cheap before it goes up 2,000%, but your logic doesn't change the reality.

I've seen stocks rise 15,000% and sustain it for years, still sustaining it, and I still can't explain why nobody was buying it before it happened. (see my first pick to IHUB ever....UVE)

Friday, December 3, 2010

Estimated_Profit offers his personal JBII "due diligence" to a questioning skeptic

The due diligence that helped me believe P2O is for real the most all came from things outside of the message boards. There are three key items that make me a believer in P2O. I am just stating my personal belief. If you want the incredibly strong evidence, you will just have to wait. The price should rise accordingly, if/as stronger evidence mounts.

1) Meeting John, his wife, co-workers, and family. Couple this with the very small city of Niagara, Canada. I just don't think an individual would scam 100's of people in a 70k city, along with his family. Having met many of these individuals, there is no way they are "in on it". They are your typical small town, homely, good natured people. Running a stock scam is the furthest thing from their minds. Hearing stories from John's old neighbors, and people that have known him for decades goes a long way. You would have had to attend the AGM to have this experience.

2) NYSDEC-I have never personally called, but I know quite a few individuals who have. These are people that I trust. You can talk to several different individuals, and the things they say they heard from the NYSDEC are all the same. The DEC is truly impressed and excited about JBI.

3) Islechem-Obviously, their "validation" hasn't lit up the investment community. People seem to place little belief in their stamp of approval. I can come up with a sinister plot for them to be "in on it". Seriously though, I know they are impressed, and want their name stamped all over this project. I know that wasn't how it started from the beginning. They were just as skeptical as anyone should be when someone tells you the claims of JBI's P2O. Hal Pierce appears to be a big force in helping JBI, and the NYSDEC has confirmed that JBI is moving at lightning speed compared to most projects. Division of Oxyshmoxy, however you want to put it, it is a nice endorsement, nonetheless.

It's absolutely fair to say that the lack of evidence to date, the absence of key backers/partners, lack of visibility, funds on hand, and along with some mistakes along the way, is why JBI is only trading at $.57.

This is a young company, with a fast learning, but rookie CEO. John wasn't groomed on how to run an organization. He possess the ability to learn quickly from his mistakes. The next several months will prove if he grew from the rough first year and a half that all new entrepreneurship's("one who undertakes innovations, finance and business acumen in an effort to transform innovations into economic goods") face. Raising money to manifest an idea isn't easy, especially if you want a large control of it, and extra especially in this tougher economic climate. Add to this the paranoia that would come if you have the recipe to transform and give birth to a new industry potentially worth billions.

When funds are tight, you don't always have the best tools, resources, and personnel at your disposal. This has caused a lot of the red flags. Put yourself in John's shoes. What would it be like to hold the "secret catalyst" worth billions? Think how hard it would be to make it to the commercial stage, while maintaining huge control of it. Think how it feels to have that power, all while many are calling you a scam artist, fraud, etc.?

I don't blame anyone for being hugely skeptical of JBI at this stage. If you "want to believe", then keep watching with your critical eye, and maybe evidence will pierce your threshold of risk tolerance, and you can invest accordingly. I think any rational investor/speculator knows that if P2O works as claimed, then the stock is worth hundreds of percent more than where it is today, bare minimum, with the ability to something incredibly special if managed well.

Good luck!

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Rawnoc believes DEC permit is imminent & says JBII has Senator endorsement


DEC UPDATE -- PERMIT EXPECTED NEXT WEEK "OR SOONER"

(1) They expect air permit only to operate and if a solid waste permit is needed at all it will be processed while they are already operating and won't stop allowing them to do full scale commercial production. As confirmed by several people who called today.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57322266 (one example)

(2) It was discovered that JBII has Senator endorsement:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=13Czzgcs8ypnHkqp9S_Wk0Gfuq3Q8Xta5RJcVOoZRsQp-FqwNySpmwjAjcIMD&hl=en_GB&authkey=CPep4IgM

(3) $$$$$$$. From the 10Q:

"...it is expected that the Company’s current cash balance will sustain operations until the DEC issues an air permit for our Niagara Falls, NY P2O machine. Upon receipt of this air permit, the Company expects to immediately commence P2O operations in order to generate revenue and earnings from the P2O machine"

Raw

Johnik comments on solid waste permitting for JBI's P2O process

Perhaps JBI is seeking broad approval for a number of different sources of plastic feedstock, thereby implicating solid waste regulations. I really don't know.

Regardless, this is an ongoing process that is complicated, in my view, by the novelty of JBI's business venture. Due deference is appropriately accorded the DEC in interpreting its own regulations, and if the scope of JBI's application touches on solid waste permitting, so be it. I do think that the DEC is our friend in this process though.

In any event, what has been posted today reflects the current position of the DEC, as stated by the Region 9 permits administrator. Mr. Denk sounded confident in his position, so I take it as strong guidance as to where we are headed. Of course the DEC is not bound by anything said today, as no final determination has issued, but we at least can anticipate the likely series of future events. By the same token, nothing reported today would preclude JBI from seeking further relief, whether in the form of a manufacturing facility exemption or otherwise, but it appears that such relief is not presently on the table.

Bottom line: let's hope JBI and the DEC work together to expedite the requisite approval for P2O to commence commercial operations. That would surely be a joyous day for us "longs".

skibumbz speculates on P2O permit approval & JBII price movement


CALL DAVE DENKS @ 716-851-7165, HE IS WITH THE N.Y. STATE D.E.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND WILL STATE IN FACT THAT THE PERMIT FOR JBI IS VERY CLOSE TO FINALIZATION.

I WILL BET MY $50K IN JBI STOCK TO YOUR INVESTMENT THAT THE STOCK PRICE WILL HIT .88 BY DEC. 15, 2010. OR EARLIER!

Rawnoc provides informative article on "peak oil"


Peak oil and the end of growth: we need to start planning now

Published Thursday December 2nd, 2010
By Michel Desjardins
Post Carbon Greater Moncton

A few weeks ago, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its World Energy Outlook 2010. The IEA is an organization established by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1974.

For the first time in its history, the IEA admitted that crude oil production (conventional oil) peaked in 2006 and will never ever grow again.

It also projected that the bulk of any new crude production needed just to compensate for the depletion of existing fields will come from fields "not yet discovered."

That's the good news!

The bad news is that the IEA is notorious for overstating its energy resource projections, often bowing to pressure from some of its members who fear market panic.

What cannot be overstated, however, are the massive implications of this peak in oil extraction.

First, you can expect sky-high oil prices in the not too distant future.

Of course, that will be painful at the pump. But it's just the tip of the iceberg.

Think about it. Most food we eat today traveled from far away on fuel-propelled machines.

Petroleum products are used in the production of everything we wear, from our sunglasses to our shoelaces.

More expensive energy will make it harder to run our hospitals and our schools, heat our homes, let alone enjoy our yearly winter vacation in sunny Varadero.

Just about every thing we do and consume on a daily basis will be dramatically more expensive.

But actually, might it get more profound and complicated than that?

Might Peak Oil spell the end of growth as a political, economic and social goal?

Let me try to explain.

We have become increasingly aware that there are fundamental constraints to ongoing economic expansion, that perpetual growth on a finite planet is a fool's dream.

If Peak Oil is here - and there is solid evidence showing that it is - then it means we have begun to run up against the planet's natural constraints. Mother Nature has begun to tell us that the party is over.

It's an uncomfortable thought, but one that can no longer be ignored.

We can no longer assume that decades of economic and population growth based on ever-increasing rates of resource extraction, manufacturing, and consumption can continue.

We can no longer assume that the systems we have built for a "growth economy" will work in a "no-growth economy."

Take our monetary system.

For decades banks have lent more money than they have on deposit on the assumption of continuous economic growth. In essence, the collateral for today's debt is the promise of increased future growth and wealth.

But what if the economy can't expand because of limited energy resources?

Globally, debt obligations will then have to be increasingly met by default, resulting in the collapse of a fragile world monetary system.

What you are reading these days about Greece and Ireland may very well be the start of that process.

Peak Oil is a problem like no other.

It can't be fixed by politicians, which probably explains why few dare to talk about it.

It can't be fixed by the oil market itself, because the laws of supply and demand are no longer valid in that market.

It is truly a game-changer.

The first step in dealing with Peak Oil is to acknowledge its existence.

Communities that are quick to recognize the problem stand a better chance of weathering the storm.

Then, we need to start managing the risks.

We need to find ways to dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil fuel energies, start promoting local agriculture, alternative methods of transportation and energy efficiency.

Bottom line: we need to build our community's capacity to adapt to a very different world.

Given what we know now, any discussion about the future of our community or our province that does not take into account Peak Oil is a misguided discussion.

* Michel Desjardins is a member of Post Carbon Greater Moncton, a group working toward ensuring a sustainable future in our communities.

Raw

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

OGINVU discusses his recent P2O tour

Well, since you asked, it was my first time getting to see it work in person...I was really impressed watching the process from start to finish...I was blown away holding it, looking at and smelling the gas freshly tapped...(no glove required) it’s the real thing..John is a real bright guy who took some time to answer my questions even though there were far more important people waiting for him...I really like the guy and feel better than I ever have about my money now knowing who is controlling it...he is a no-frills, cut off the useless fat, kinda guy that will get him in trouble with fatty people...My honest opinion?

THE FUTURES SO BRIGHT I GOTTA WEAR SHADES..(safety shades for TBG)

you gotta do your own DD...I do not want to be responsible for you making a decision one way or the other....I was impressed and things seem to be moving forward...but that’s ME....

Waiting on air permit and should not need BUD or SW

Saturday, November 27, 2010

tykundegex comments on why waste incinerators won't want to see P2O proliferate

Because MSW commonly has a lot plastic content. During incineration, plastic generates a lot of energy (more than most other things in MSW). However if the plastic is converted into fuel along the lines of the efficiency claimed by JBI, you can recover 2x more energy from it (see a prior post of mine from ages ago with figures taken from the UK Royal Society of Chemistry April 2009 "Plastic waste as a fuel"), here: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2009/EE/b908135f

That would explain why any company doing incineration of waste doesn't want the plastic removed from the mix (and it's not just household food packaging we're talking about), as it would affect their energy output.

From an environmental standpoint (and also a commercial standpoint), P2O is a far better use of plastic waste than incineration: C02, NOx, and dioxins are all avoided with P2O.

That's what makes P2O so compelling -- it's not only far more profitable than other waste-to-energy systems, it's also far more environmentally friendly. Finally a green solution that is not at odds with a capitalist society! That's gotta be a first, no?

Tykün

Friday, November 26, 2010

Steady_T responds to skeptics' negative comments & provides P2O production calculations

Why do you keep posting items that are not related to JBII, but are related to somebody else's process.

In the second line of that post the process description says that the process use very high temperatures. We already know from previous statements by the company that the JBII process uses a much lower temperature than other pyrolysis processes.

Therefore that post is unrelated to JBII's process and this board.

You keep posting this unrelated stuff on the JBII board.

Taylor is burning garbage.

JBII is running an enclosed P2O processor. There is NO COMBUSTION of plastic. Plastic is decomposed in an anaerobic environment into it's original hydrocarbons.

You also may want to look up the COMBUST. More useless information that doesn't apply to JBI.

Skeptic's Quote: To obtain a BUD, the petitioner must show consistency with solid waste regulations. BUDs to combust materials such as paper, plastic, etc., are not usually granted since these materials are readily recyclable (see Appendix A for a more complete discussion of the BUD process).

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/31238.html

Taylor's problems are unrelated to JBI's situation. I did some calculations some time back about how much space 20 tons of plastic would take. Turned out not to be that much.

I think that most people would crush the air out of the bottles before shipping them but that is an individual decision.

Many plastic bottles are made of PET plastic which is the type that is most likely to be recycled. As PP points out it is not likely to be in the input stream to JBII because of the value as a recycled plastic. Of course JB has said that he doesn't want or expect much PET plastic in the input stream.

Here are the calculations I posted for the benefit of another poster, you may have missed them.

Plastic has a density of .35 to .45 lbs/cu in.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_density_of_plastic

20 tons = 40000 lbs

40000 / .4 lbs/cu in =10000 cu in.

1 cu ft = 1728 cu in

100000 /1728 = 57 cu ft.

Lets assume the plastic is bundled loosely and double that 57 cu ft to 114 cu ft.

That is a cube 4.9 ft on a side. One truck load a day should do it.

One truck a day in and per your calculation $7560/day of fuel out. Sounds like a money making deal to me.

$7560 / day time 5 days a week and 50 weeks /yr = $1,890,000 / YR
INCOME.

You may ROFLMAO at that kind of money, but I take that kinda of revenues seriously.

There's none so blind as he who will not see.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Steady_T & P51-D comment on P2O air permit approval

Steady_T states:
Talked to DEC. Larry Sitzman. Says that application is in and has been reviewed. There are now discussions going on between DEC and JBI about how much of the material in the application will classified as confidential / trade secret. When that is resolved the permit will be acted upon.

This is Larry's last week in the Reg 9 office. He goes to Albany to assume larger responsibilities. As I understood it he will be over Air Compliance state wide.

He also said that he expected the Solid Waste people in Albany to decide about BUD/SW requirements this week.

Things are moving forward.

P51-D says:
That's consistant with what I have discussed with them and heard / confirmed through others....we're on solid ground with the DEC, and on the brink of approval for JBI.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

techisbest opines on known & unknown facts about JBII's P2O


Firing up the lawnmower with JBII gasoline!

My unrehearsed video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1XdgRJ1CSg

First of all, JBII will not initially be selling to a refinery. The diesel and gasoline do not need "refinement." They are refined coming directly from the P2O processor. They are more pure than what comes from crude. Less sulphur.

They would need some "blending" to be sold at a pump.

Initially JBII diesel and gasoline will be sold back to the companies that are supplying the plastic for use in their industrial processes.

What's impressive about JBII P2O:

- The purity of the diesel/gasoline that is impressive.

- The clean process to produce the diesel/gasoline that is impressive.

- The process cost to produce the diesel/gasoline that is impressive (processor, energy, catalyst).

What's not known:

- The overhead costs to produce the diesel/gasoline (transportation of plastic, transportation of finished fuel, etc.).

- The amount of plastic that can be easily sourced with a joint agreement to sell back the generated fuel at a discount (a discount to market prices which are high, not given away).

- The ease with which plastic can be sourced for a facility to allow the processors to run 24/7.

- The number of P2O facilities that can be supported in various locations in North America and beyond.

- The most economical distribution of P2O facilities.

- How quickly JBII will be able to expand once the first full production model (sourced plastic to fuel to customer) is in place.

- The amount of time it take to establish that first production model.

- The ability of John Bordynuik to manage the growth of the business.

Not a complete list, but those are the bullets that stand out in my mind.

P2O is great, but it is not without risks.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Rawnoc speculates Pak-It & Javaco are about to become profitable


PAKIT & JAVACO looks about to make some bucks....

Q1 2010 Net loss = ($645K)
Q2 2010 Net Loss = ($500K)
Q3 2010 Net Loss = ($25k) <~~~95% reduction over the Q just prior


Looks to me like a bottom line improvement of $475,000, reducing the net loss by 95% in a single sequential quarter basically down to nothing. Looks like the "trend" is headed for +$300k net income for PAKIT for Q4 2010, despite "many US-based transactions are accounted for through Pak-It resulting in an increase in expenses associated with Pak-It that would not otherwise be incurred by the operating unit."

Looks like Javaco's whopping $5,000 loss will be turned into a profit for Q4 as well, making both segments of Javaco and PAKIT profitable for Q4 -- something not even the most optimsitic among us seemed to expect if I recall. :)

"The Company uncovered inefficiencies in Javaco’s operations and consolidated some of the workforce at this subsidiary in order to improve performance and working capital turnover. Javaco is now being focused towards higher profit margin sales, and the Company is identifying these customers and tailoring an integrated sales approach that we expect will improve this subsidiary’s earnings."

Looks like Javaco & PAKIT will easily be profitable and just P2O is at a loss because they're not selling fuel yet of course.

2 out of 3 business producing a net income while their 3rd is about to be launched is not too shabby. That's probably why they have access to loans.

Raw

stocker11 comments on JBII's positive progress

Of course expenses have increased although many expenses were a one time expense. When you're on the cutting edge of something this great you gotta go for it.

The processor is now complete.

It can be built quickly (5 weeks) and cheaply (less than $300,000.)

Pak-It is fully automated and Master Suppliers are being set up around the world.

Javaco has moved to cheaper premises which will result in tens of thousands of dollars of savings per month.

JBII has purchased new office space which will result in tens of thousands of dollars savings per year.

Blending site has been purchased and renovated which will increase the selling of the fuel tremendously.

Large salaries have been cut.

Stack tests have confirmed that emissions are not an issue.

Partners are permitted to go when Simple Air Permit is issued.

Supplies have been acquired to assemble at least 2 more 30 ton processors?

Production audit is pending.

Media is pending.

Huge profits are pending.

Huge increase in price per share is pending.

My retirement is pending.

My dream home is pending.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

stonehenge disagrees with negative skeptic & predicts bright future for JBII


I dare to disagree.
*Money seems not to be that tight, as has been pointed out a couple of times today and yesterday. See the 10Q on 'liquidity';

*Shares handed out: if you count the amount of shares that have been withdrawn and compare that amount to the minor amount of shares rendered for services or to commit employees, I still think we have been witnessing a negative dilution in 2010.

*Profitability has yet to be proven, I agree. But THAT is where the bets are on the table, LOL.

In addressing the future earnings potential you have to have a feeling on potential sales volume, growth margins, costs, etcetera.

Assuming that the P2O process does have this revolutionary USP's (which have been confirmed by IsleChem and the DEC) and assuming that the production costs per barrel are less than $10.-, while being able to sell it for apx. WTI, and assuming the Capex of a processor are apx. 400,000.- this leads to a conclusion ex ante that this might become an ultra profitable business model.

By the time the definite proof you seem to be asking for will be released (10Q, 10K), the pps will be much higher. No doubt about that.

In investing there's a golden rule:
The (by the general market participants perceived) risk is 1-to-1 correllated to the potential and required returns.

The main question is: are the investors/participants in the general market as well informed about JBII (at this moment) as the relatively few who have been digesting and DD'ing this JBII concept in detail?

It is obvious that your perception of the risks associated with investing in JBII is much higher than the perceprion of those who think it is undervalued.

And that's the reason people win or lose money in the stockmarkets. My bet is that the current JBII shareholders are going to make huge gains, percentage wise.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

JBII's latest 10Q discusses Pak-It's "DropShots"


On July 30, 2010 Pak-It launched a new retail product line called DropShot. DropShot’s initial advertising campaign was managed by Western Creative and included a 60-second and 120-second commercial, as well as an online store, www.buydropshot.com. The launch of DropShot commercials was seen by the Company as a way to gain a better understanding of this market’s dynamics. With the airtime we purchased, the commercials provided limited success, and the Company expects to pursue a more in depth retail approach when it makes more financial sense.

DropShot’s unique selling proposition lies with its packaging process, which is positioned to capitalize on the ‘green’ movement that many businesses and consumers have become focused on. Although the retail-cleaning sector is highly competitive with low barriers to entry, by exploiting our technological advantage, and through correct product positioning, the Company believes there is an opportunity to derive considerable value from what many would consider a saturated market. A successful marketing approach will involve significant up-front financial investment to make sure that DropShot and Pak-It products produce the revenue we believe they are capable of.

When purchasing PakIt, we saw that there was a considerable amount business value that was being lost to inefficient internal controls and operating procedures. In addition, the Pak-It accounting system runs from a DOS operating system that turns tracking orders and analyzing data into a complex process. We have invested in a new accounting system for this subsidiary, which is currently being implemented. With this new accounting system, purchasing, production orders, inventory, sales, and shipping/receiving will be integrated into a network with the capacity to accommodate larger sales volumes, increased inventory turnover, and a shortened cash conversion cycle.

JBII files 10Q, has received P2O air permit approval for Canada, will commence U.S. P20 when air permit is received from NYDEC


The Company received notice dated October 15, 2010 that the Ontario Ministry of Environment registered a “certificate of Approval for Air, Section 9, EPA” in the Company’s name. A “Certificate of Approval for Air” in Ontario is equivalent to a NYDEC Air Permit in the United States. The Company also received a Certificate of Approval for Industrial Sewage Works, Section 53, from the Ministry of the Environment. These approvals are for use at the Company’s fuel blending site. The Ministry of Environment allowed the transfer of existing approvals (permits) of the blending site to the Company.

"...the Company has been reviewing the feasibility of realizing P2O revenue in different jurisdictions with partners who have already obtained the necessary operating permits required for P2O. The Company is also reviewing the feasibility of installing a P2O machine in Ontario, where one of the Company's facilities recently obtained it’s air approval."

On November 10 th , 2010, JBI Inc.’s simple air permit application was officially submitted to the DEC after significant consultation and meetings between the parties. JBI Inc.’s environmental consultant has significant experience with permitting and in consulting with the DEC prior to submitting our permit application, we mutually agreed upon language and data so that many of the questions that would typically arise during a permit review process were already eliminated. These lengthy consultations and discussions with the DEC about the permit language and data greatly reduce the amount of time required for the DEC to review a submitted application.

NO BUD NO WASTE PERMIT NEEDED:

"...it is expected that the Company’s current cash balance will sustain operations until the DEC issues an air permit for our Niagara Falls, NY P2O machine. Upon receipt of this air permit, the Company expects to immediately commence P2O operations in order to generate revenue and earnings from the P2O machine"

"In speaking with various investment funds and high net worth individuals, the Company expects that once an air permit is obtained, raising significant amounts of capital for the purpose of building P2O sites will be a relatively straightforward process, however there can be no guarantee. In the event that cash is needed in the interim, JBI Inc. is positioned favorably for small debt and equity issuances."

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Rawnoc responds to skeptic's extremely pessimistic comments


So let's summarize your thoughts...

(1) JBII has to sell fuel some day and can't exist for the next 500 years without doing so. Really? lol

(2) Filing an extension automatically disqualifies JB and the other 759 CEOs of public companies from being the CEO even though the very filing apparently prepared by their auditors specifically states that they won't be late and gives the reason that two filings had to be prepared at once so the filing will be done this week within the NORMAL extension period.

760 public companies and counting have taken advantage of the extension period:

http://sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcurrent&datea=&dateb=&company=&type=NT&SIC=&State=&Country=&CIK=&owner=include&accno=&start=700&count=100

Many of them NASDAQ, NYSE, and AMEX companies.

I think they need to raise money in the form of LOANS unless they already did in which case they don't of course.

Additionally, I think they are one permit away from having so much money thrown at them they'd have to reject it. There is so much dough being thrown on the biggest POS projects that are green it's ridiculous. JBII proves their processor is even break-even? It's BOOYAH time.

Look at the money being thrown down that rat hole Agilyx just on a hope of turning waste plastic into black slurry sludge crap and they can't even do it in a viable efficient manner.

The company is NOT in any position to go to zero. They are about to get their air permit and start full production.

Raw

Zardiw discusses Fuel registration requirements for offroad fuel manufacturers.


RE: Fuel registration requirements for offroad fuel manufacturers.

1-EPA just told me over the phone that fuel that is manufactured to be sold for off road use has NO DESIGNATION under the registration program!

2-"At the present time, only gasoline and diesel F/FAs produced and commercially
distributed for use in highway motor vehicles are designated for the registration and testing program. Both domestic and foreign products are included in the designation. Fuels intended for use exclusively in off-road vehicles are not currently designated. EPA is developing a separate rulemaking to designate alternative fuels and fuel additives for registration in the future."
http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/fuels/additive/spring94.pdf

3- another poster had posted he called and was told the same
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53300564

Quote:StockSpock Share Friday, August 13, 2010 12:03:46 PM
Re: None Post # of 71129

FYI JBI can sell fuel Immediately!

I just spoke to a very helpful person with the EPA. JBI does not need to register with the EPA to sell their fuel for off road use(construction, logging etc.) or for legitimate R&D purposes.

Registration is only required for on road motor vehicle use.

So put that in your DD tank!

4- Just to be clear I asked if such a manufacturer of such a fuel wanted to sell it...he stated there was no problem in doing so, as long as the fuel is not used in vehicles travelling on streets or highways....to be clear as a bell I suggested railroads...he stated "fair game."

NOW
It is my opinion that jbi can and will sell to offroad, but I would like them to eventually register for on road use

BUT THIS SHOULD OBVIOUSLY CLEAR UP THE MISCONCEPTION THAT THE FUEL IS USELESS FOR SALE IF NOT REGISTERED.

OH...RE: EPA is developing a separate rulemaking to designate alternative fuels and fuel additives for registration in the future."

I ASKED if theres any action on that yet...the answer was no!

Millions of dollars get thrown at these technologies that have a small fraction of the potential that JBII does........We should be at $10 just on the promise of what's coming....considering the 51M OS........This is the bargain of the decade if not the century.....and looks like the bargain is getting better.......until the permit is approved.....then all bets are off, and we can start reaching our true value............

JBII is one of the greatest companies to come along in a LONG Time.........She will have a HUGE effect on making Mother Earth a Better place to live...........z

COMMENTS?

z

Monday, November 15, 2010

lites59 submits article discussing the shrinking global oil supply & the potential impact of alternative energy development such as P2O

Oil will run out 100 years before new fuels developed:
Mon Nov 15, 4:39 PM

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The world will run out of oil around 100 years before replacement energy sources are available, if oil use and development of new fuels continue at the current pace, a US study warns.

Researchers at the University of California, Davis (UC-Davis) used the current share prices of oil companies and alternative energy companies to predict when replacement fuels will be ready to fill the gap left when oil runs dry.

And the study's findings weren't very good for the oil-hungry world.

If the world's oil reserves were the 1.332 trillion barrels estimated in 2008 and oil consumption stood at 85.22 million barrels a day and growing yearly at 1.3 percent, oil would be depleted by 2041, says the study published online last week by Environmental Science and Technology.

But by plugging current stock market prices into a complex equation, UC-Davis engineering professor Debbie Niemeier and postdoctoral researcher Nataliya Malyshkina calculated that a viable alternative fuel to oil will not be available before the middle of next century.

The researchers analyzed the share prices of 25 oil companies quoted on US, European and Australian stock exchanges, and of 44 alternative energy companies that produce fuels such as ethanol or bio-diesel, or are developing fuel cells, batteries and propulsion systems aimed at replacing gasoline and diesel in vehicles of the future.

What they found is that the market capitalization, or total value of all stock shares, of traditional oil companies far outstripped that of the alternative energy companies.

That indicated to them that investors believe oil is going to do well in the near future and occupy a larger share of the energy market than alternative energy, said Malyshkina.

"To assess the time until a considerable fraction of oil is likely to be replaced by alternatives, we used advanced pricing equations to make sense of the large discrepancy between the market capitalization of traditional oil companies and the market capitalization of alternative-energy companies," she told AFP.

Their calculations show that there would not be a widely available replacement for oil-based fuels before 2140, which, even if the more optimistic date of 2054 for oil depletion is retained, would mean there could be a gap of around 90 years when it might be difficult to run a motor vehicle.

Nearly two-thirds of crude oil is used to produce gasoline and diesel to run vehicles, said Malyshkina.

The researchers' calculations were based on the theory that long-term investors are good predictors of when new technologies will become commonplace.

"Sophisticated investors tend to put considerable effort into collecting, processing and understanding information relevant to the future cash flows paid by securities," said Malyshkina.

"As a result, market forecasts of future events, representing consensus predictions of a large number of investors, tend to be relatively accurate."

Similar calculations have been used to accurately predict the outcome of elections and the results of sports events, Malyshkina said.

But all is not doom and gloom, says the study.

On the oil supply side, consumption could well decrease in future as more energy-saving measures are introduced and used by consumers, and new oil reserves could become available as extraction techniques improve.

On the alternative fuel side of the equation, the study did not look at nonprofits, government agencies and universities which are developing new fuels, because they are not quoted on the stock market.

And if governments announced new policy initiatives to promote alternative fuel development, share prices of alternative energy companies would rise, and the gap between the end of oil and the kick-in of alternative fuels would shrink.

.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

techisbest demonstrates use of JBII's P2O fuel in his lawnmower


Firing up the lawnmower with JBII gasoline!

My unrehearsed video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1XdgRJ1CSg

This lawnmower has not been run this season. The smoke you see when I first fire it up is from it sitting idle. Note that the longer it runs the cleaner it runs.

The jar used is the one on the left in this pic:
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs942.snc
/73533_459502925788_832165788_5395895_704048_n.jpg


I sent John an email to tell him about the YouTube video I posted.

His response:

Quote:Nice to hear your lawnmower ran well with the fuel tapped directly off our gasoline condenser.

Our gasoline is no different than highly refined gasoline from a refinery. Our gasoline is different than gas found at the pump because we do not inject the additives and low cost cutting agents (butane injection), aromatics, and other additives to artificially inflate the octane thereby reducing the amount of high-cost gasoline. Many additives are injected in pure gasoline to increase the margin on gasoline at the pump. Our fuel was tested in a new engine long ago and the spark plug, head, valve seats and valves were inspected. There was no carbon build up, pitting, burns, or oxidation on those parts. We were quite impressed by how cleanly it burned.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

lites59 provides article re the plastics industry

Plastics industry battles negative image

Fri Nov 12, 12:15 PM

SASKATCHEWAN (CBC) - The Canadian plastics industry is aggressively fighting government and consumer efforts to curb the sale of its product, according to industry documents.

There are mounting negative perceptions across North America about plastics' toxicity, recylabilty and harmful effect on the environment.

Plastics are made from a non-renewable resource petroleum and combined with chemical additives to help bind and soften the material. One of the additives, Bisphenol A, was declared toxic by Health Canada in October.

Civic facilities and universities across Canada have moved in recent years to ban plastic bags and bottles. Several grocery store chains have also banned plastic bags outright or started charging customers for them.

Toronto and Vancouver have passed laws banning municipal water bottles sales, and the Manitoba community of Leaf Rapids in 2007 became the first Canadian municipality to ban plastic bags.

The rising tide against plastics has prompted a "very aggressive, pro-active campaign to change [the] publics perceptions," wrote Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) president Mark Badger, in an industry bulletin released in late August.

The campaign was initially launched in 2009 and ramped up again in the fall of 2010.

As part of the campaign, the CPIA has published stories and issued news releases touting the benefits of plastic liquor bottles. The agency said they "significantly decreased in-store/ in-transit scrap, improved safety, decreased transportation costs due to lighter weight, and even allowed more bottles on the shelves since they are thinner walled than glass."

"Our next stories within the campaign will include energy-efficient vinyl windows, plastic packaging that reduces food spoilage and increases safety," states the bulletin from Badger, who has blamed the public backlash for cutting into the industry's profits.

"Unfortunately, in North America, the public's perception of plastic is predominantly negative," he wrote.

"The fallout from misperceptions includes de-selection of certain plastic products by retailers, changing consumer purchasing patterns and also in legislation that makes doing business difficult."

He noted in an online video with Canadian Plastics magazine that "the plastics industry contracted in 2009, and very substantially, by 17 per cent or 18 per cent."

Recently re-elected Winnipeg City Coun. Harvey Smith, who tried unsuccessfully in 2008 to ban plastic bottle sales from Winnipeg's recreation centres and city-run facilities, is not surprised by the industry's push to change perceptions.

He said he was amazed at how industry representatives flew out to Winnipeg to persuade other councillors to reject his motion before it made its way to council chambers.


"The industry sent two people out immediately to [an executive policy committee meeting]," Smith said. "I couldn't believe it. They wanted to forestall anything happening in Winnipeg."

With a new council in place, Smith said he will try to reintroduce the motion again.

"Maybe we'll get more support," he said.

Nestle Canada's John Challinor told Winnipeg councillors at the time a bottle ban was "nothing more than political greenwashing, environmental symbolism and bad political policy."

The plastics industry maintains plastic water bottles are safe, highly recyclable and provide a more convenient alternative to tap water.

The CPIA insists plastics are superior to paper, glass, aluminum and cardboard packaging from an energy-efficiency and transportation perspective.

It has also engaged in a glitzy pro-plastic marketing campaign to reverse anti-plastic sentiments. Their efforts include a "Teachers Ambassadors Program" to help Canadian schoolteachers educate children on the environmental benefits of plastic recycling.

This week, a CBC News investigation revealed 82 per cent of Winnipeg's residential blue bin plastics were shipped last year to China, to mostly become durable goods, like fly swatters and toy dolls, that never get recycled again.

"The good news with plastic is that we don't need most of this junk," says Manuel Maqueda, co-founder of Plastic Pollution Coalition.

The California-based environmentalist recently travelled with a Canadian film crew to a remote Pacific island to shoot a documentary, Journey to Midway, about plastic pollution killing birds who mistake plastic for food.

But Maqueda admits cutting back on plastics can be overwhelming given that stores are full of plastic packaging.

"It's really hard to avoid plastic 100 per cent, but this is something we must do," Maqueda said. "This is a conversation we need to have.

"Don't be afraid of having this conversation with your children, with store owners. We can do it. We can move away from the disposable plastic era."

Maqueda recommends two simple steps: refuse plastic bags and bottles and choose products with less plastic packaging.

The City of Winnipeg is hosting a Speak Up on Garbage Expo at the Convention Centre on Saturday to kick off six months of consultations on the future of trash and recycling.

Friday, November 12, 2010

KingVegita2006 summarizes JBII's P2O DEC Permit Application

DEC Permit Application

Summary of company P2O

(1) JBII is in the very final stages of obtaining an air permit from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation which will allow full commercial production and sales for their first Plastic2Oil processor for which they plan to turn free feedstock into high value diesel fuel. It only takes two modestly-paid employees to run a P2O machine, the energy from the free feedstock runs the machine, and the machine only costs around $200,000 to build and can be duplicated fairly quickly.

For these reasons, it appears that JBII's fuel margins on their fuel will be obscenely high from such low costs and low capital investment.

(2) It's my opinion, and nobody else that I've challenged has been able to come up with his own opinion, that JBII's P2O processor is about to prove to be the most viable alternative energy producer that's clean to come around in decades. Nothing else that I or others can think have possess these three key characteristics:

(a) Doesn't pollute and is green (certified by Islechem, the NYSDEC, and CRA)

(b) Has a high return on capital (around $200,000 per machine that should make at least $4 million in fuel per year)

(c) Makes energy cheap at high margins (estimated cost $10 per barrel of fuel that can be sold for up to $100 or more per barrel)

BRIG_88 believes smart money is currently aggessively buying JBII at 60 - 61 cents!

JBII...increasing volume as the smart money scoops cheap shares....just remember the DUMB money always sells at the bottom....they are what MAKES a bottom in stocks.....soon enough they will be standing there with their dick in their hand wondering wtf they have done to themselves......

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Nice article on eco-friendly Dropps as featured on http://www.philadelphiasustainabilityawards.org


Jonathan Propper's family created and owned the Conshohocken Cotton Company, a pioneer in the early 80s in developing a heavier cotton yarn used by Perry Ellis and Ralph Lauren. Seeking a better way to clean cotton, Jonathan's family developed Cot n' Wash, in 1986, a patented concentrated liquid detergent that earned top review for efficacy in leading consumer rating magazine.

Cot'n Wash Inc. is a privately-held, Philadelphia based business, that was sold in 1996 and was repurchased in the fall of 2005 by Jonathan Propper

.Noticing the trend toward high efficiency washing machines and convenience, Jonathan saw how the Cot n' Wash formula could translate into a new consumer product that could change the way consumers do laundry by offering conservation, convenience and results.

Jonathan put a lot of thought into creating an environmentally friendly product. dropps are biodegradable and NPE- and phosphate-free, and dropps is packaged in a stand-up pouch to reduce its environmental footprint. dropps offers a convenient way to protect the planet -- the highly concentrated formula is made without the water that traditional laundry detergents needlessly waste. By eliminating water, Jonathan was able to gain the intellectual property to put dropps liquid detergent in a water soluble film, thereby doing away with the lugging, pouring and measuring associated with traditional laundry detergents. As a result, less packaging (plastic and corrugated), less fuel required to transport lighter water-free dropps and less gas emissions.

dropps is available nationally and in the Philadelphia region at Whole Foods, Target, Wal-mart, Mapes and Killians Hardware and Mapes.
Sustainability Narrative

There is currently a lot of talk and media coverage about environmental sustainability, but for the average consumer, it can be confusing, with many wondering how they can personally make a difference. The makers of dropps put a lot of thought into creating a truly 'green' product. With the move in the market toward concentrated detergents and High Efficiency washers, dropps saw a great opportunity to develop a product that can eliminate the waste currently inherent in the household cleaning industry, addressing not just the cleaning formula in the package, but the packaging itself.

Few consumers realize that most traditional laundry detergents are 75% water; even the new '2X concentrates' are 50% water. dropps asked why consumers should pay for this excess water, when water is added during the washing process. In fact, dropps calculated that an average town of 20,000 could save over 55,000 gallons of water per year simply by using dropps instead of traditional detergents. And if you factor in commercial laundry operations, the savings can be even greater. Because dropps does not contain water, less packaging (plastic and corrugated) and less fuel are required to transport dropps and with dropps pre-measured packets you do not overdose your laundry with detergent.

dropps are biodegradable and NPE- and phosphate-free, and dropps has not only paid attention to what is in the laundry detergent formula but also how it was packaged. Laundry detergent bottles -the standard packaging for liquid laundry detergent - are more difficult to recycle than the highly publicized drinking-water bottle. Laundry detergent jugs are made of 75% non-recycled virgin material, and the caps, which cannot be recycled, are almost always sent to landfills. dropps patented delivery system first came to market with a PET 100% recyclable plastic package, and with a recent upgrading, we've chosen another package, a stand-up pouch, with an even smaller environmental footprint.

The makers of dropps are passionate about achieving sparkly clean results without the waste.
Results

The environmental impact of dropps is huge. Laundry is chore that all Americans do, and 70% of Americans use liquid laundry detergent. Traditional liquid laundry detergent jugs are loaded with water, use only 25% post consumer plastic, and have caps that are non-recyclable. Traditional detergents also only have one benefit per bottle, i.e. one bottle is for high efficiency washing machines and another bottle allows you to use cold water for your wash. dropps has multiple benefits loaded within one small pac. dropps can be used in high efficiency machines and in cold water washes, which saves the consumer energy and water. dropps saves even more water by eliminating water completely from its formula. The elimination of water reduces the overall weight of the package thereby using less cardboard to pack dropps, and less energy and gasoline to transport them. Best of all, there is no way to waste with dropps. Traditional liquid laundry detergent requires pouring and measurement; the more you pour, the more you use. Detergent companies want consumers to overuse. We don't. We've figured out how much detergent you need for each load, so that you don't waste and you get what you paid for. If the average family used cold water for washing, they would save $65 per year in energy costs.

In addition, in the U.S., liquid laundry detergent is used for 25 billion wash loads every year. If these loads were done with dropps instead of the usual cup and jug, we would save:

1. 6,233,726 gallons of diesel gas in transport
2. 267,968,750 pounds of plastic
3. 622,373 tons of greenhouse gas emissions in transport

We have also taken great lengths to make sure that no harmful toxins go into dropps. The dropps formula is phosphate-free, NPE-free, enzyme-free and biodegradable. Not only is what goes in the detergent important, but so is the packaging itself. We have recently switched from a 100% PET clamshell package to a Flex Pac stand-up pouch. The PET clamshell was a big step away from detergent jugs, but there were still too many additional pieces of the packaging. The stand-up pouch is one piece that flattens completely when empty, and leaves the smallest footprint of any liquid laundry detergent packaging. As dropps gain greater distribution the impact of the product will continue to grow and we will continue to cut down on waste as a whole.

http://www.philadelphiasustainabilityawards.org/node/332

PRE opines on P2O's "Golden Spigot" & JBI's global impact

GOLDEN SPIGOT

Internal and External Logistics must be in place before The Golden Spigot opens.

"Timing is Everything" - Bob Dylan

"There is much going on behind the scenes". JB

The P2O MACHINE

1 Kilo Plastic = 1 Liter Fuel

1000 Kilos Plastic = 1000 liters of Fuel

20000 kilos Non-Biodegradable PLASTIC = 20,000 Liters LIQUID GOLD and Liberating EARTH from 20,000 kilos Non-Biodegradable Plastic ..... OR ...

100 BARRELS FUEL FOR MAN 1 GIANT STEP FOR MANKIND in one 8 hour shift from 1 Small Processor.

Planning, production, inventory, purchasing, transportation, warehousing, etc. >>
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL LOGISTICS.

"Stand unwavering Patiently in Faith" - Bob Dylan

Steve Prefontaine was the greatest middle distance runner in American history. As the youngest man in the MUNICH OLYMPIC 5K FINALS .... he MADE the race ... when with 1mile to go in a slow tactical race ... he shot to the front and almost ran the last mile in sub 4 minutes. He is, though deceased almost 35 years, more quoted then any runner in US athletic history. One of my favorite quotes of his ......

"TO DO ANYTHING LESS THAN YOUR BEST ....IS TO SACRIFICE THE GIFT"

PRE

I believe that JB practices this maxim.

Steven Prefontaine held every American record from the 2000 meters through to the 10,000 meters; something no US runner has ever done since He took the Sport to a new level and together with Phil Knight and Bill Bowerman, established a small company .... that would become bigger. You may have heard of them flptrnkng (a skeptic)? They are called Nike.

I believe JB will set similar records in the Environmental Industry soon to be processing more plastic to oil than any other company on Earth.

You look at Prefontine and see one race and you think he failed !!!!! but It was the Olympics at Munich .... where he was 4th Best In the entire World .... he was the youngest man in the race and the only one brave enough to take it out and make it a classic with 1 Mile to go. His efforts changed the sport of Track and Field and brought down the AAU that would not allow athletes more than 3 dollars a day or amateur status was lost.

Pre changed things Friend ....

JB is changing things to because he is courageous and is doing .... what others would not dare.