"techisbest" interviews CEO John Bordynuik

Many skeptics and doubters continually question the economic viability of P2O, CEO John Bordynuik's ability to "execute" and the "reality" of JBII to successfully launch its business model. iHub member "techisbest" shares the following email answers from the CEO in response to typical questions repeatedly asked by JBII naysayers.

"techisbest" states
The skeptic was not me, but represents who I would consider the typical person seeing JBII at this stage and no experience with John Bordynuik.

Q: Regarding JBII, first and foremost, look into the existing companies technologies....and Google "catalytic pyrolysys" and "patents"....there's a lot of patents issued and pending in this process....many academics, industries, and universities working in this area for decades.....and there's no way to even begin to research if JBII's "seceret" catatalyst infringes on the current base of claimed IP. How does one even begin to research intellectual property rights with the minimal information JBII has made available?

JB: We are not going to release the composition of the catalyst, the same as Pepsi is not going to release information about their secret formula to appease investors.

As for Universities working on this.... I've had assistance from institutions with respect to this. I've talked to one prof at length who was involved in catalyst development for the Oil and Gas industry. He has advised they have done away with a lot of R&D in the catalyst field because the refineries are quite efficient now. They keep R&D costs down for a good bottom line.

I work with a large Oil and Gas company now (8+ billion) and I know their R&D cycles and it usually pertains to new exploration and only when crude prices are high. As I communicate well with scientists, I have had many discussions with their geophysicists and scientists about how they work. It helps us process and migrate their data.

Look at Firefly Battery. The physicist who developed their hybrid battery had never worked in battery research before. He was not bound by assumptions of scientists immersed in that field.

Q: That's not to mention that Bordynuik has no experieince in the petrochemical industry that I know of.

JB: I don't need to be. That why I have two chemists Alan Barnett, Ron Kurp, and islechem. We have 5 total and they do know what they are talking abut. I can however take information in unrelated fields and apply it. I purchased the blest unit, modified it and tried a catalyst composition. Alan then purchased a GC, then Intertek tested the fuel and then we purchased a large processor, tested the process at 300kg, then islechem. It works scaled. If you are sceptical then don't invest until we see financial data.

Q: Regardless of any one's IQ, if you don't have experience working in a regulated industry, you'll tend to overlook and oversimplify the regulatory requirements and the direct and indirect costs of compliance with those industries regulations.

JB: You don't need a high IQ to hire process engineers and technicians to solve those problems. Our key person has already designed and built a fully operational permitted magnesium recycling plant. He is not a chemist but knows permits and processes -- and understands volatiles.

Q: For instance, there's boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulations that are coming into effect later this year.....those will likely affect the gas burning "heater" unit for JBII's >>process....and I imagine they will require some emissions controls.....that I'm most certain that JB didn't account for when he threw out that $10/barrell number out there.

JB: Yes we did. In fact $10/barrel was a very conservative amount. It is much less.

IQ has nothing to do with it. Bringing in the right people to test, refine, and build a successful process is what is key. I have a gift to apply knowledge and solutions in one area to a completely different field. It paid off again with P2O.

Q: Honestly, I'm intellectually offended with the way he throws that number around with no good explanation of the factors involved....does it include employee retention costs, maintenance, property, feedstock handling equipment, etc., etc.? Frankly, I don't think he can honestly claim to have a clue of the production costs without any operations history to refer to....that number is completely based on assumptions....and I've never even seen a basic explanation of what those are.

JB: It clear this individual has done no DD on our management team. I don't throw numbers out lightly. Our management team has completed many $100M+ private deals that do involve complex costs and they make them profitable. Geoff Weber loaded up the JV business model with every cost imaginable including: royalties, maintenance, labour, permitting (URS), operator, spares, and then after determining those costs (really loaded up), he cut production in half.

I'm surprised this individual hasn't done 10 minutes of DD. Start with islechem and work back if needed.

I would suggest this individual not invest until he is comfortable. To me, it really doesn't matter. I haven't sold a share and our management team is not on payroll. We get paid when the process is highly successful. We get nothing otherwise.

P.S. islechem engineers formed islechem by privatizing Occidental Chemical's R&D lab. Their passion is unique: They are concerned that their own kids can't get jobs on Grand Island (or in Niagara for that matter). They've run their tests and allowed us to put their name in a PR as they are happy with the results so far. and don't think for one moment they didn't weren't sceptical at first.

Now we know how IsleChem has been involved. Removal of hydrogen and other "uglies."

Q: John, regarding the work being done in universities in this field, this article was pointed out:

smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/10439/1/Ofoma_Ifedinma_200605_mast.pdf

The question is how can the catalyst you found from so long ago be so much better than catalysts being researched currently?

Perhaps it is simply a matter of being first to market and quickly grabbing market share?

JB: Good questions.

"The question is how can the catalyst you found from so long ago be so much better than catalysts being researched currently?"

Because they are going down the wrong road and generally look to value add where progress has been made. Islechem did extensive searches for catalysts and patents (and so did I) to see what had been done to date. They are quite thorough. After much research they advised me that that our catalyst was quite novel. It did have problems though -- a couple of the chemicals in it were acceptable in the 70's but should not be used today. They "modernized" it and took out what I call the "uglies". I am not going to use the proper terminology as I do not want to even give reference to the groups the exist in - it's of no benefit to our shareholders educate anyone in the field.

"Perhaps it is simply a matter of being first to market and quickly grabbing market share?"

No, an efficient catalyst is required for this specific task. Then, it's capture market share quickly.

In my experience (as with the drives I developed, patent, etc...) the best inventions and "game changers" are those found in an area others aren't looking. If it was then they probably would have found it and exploited the technology.

I'll comment more on this later.

Regards,

John Bordynuik
CEO
JBI

techisbest