Rawnoc adamently disputes naysayer erroneous comments & is confident of dynamic growth potential for JBII

Dead wrong. That's from Washington STATE. You took a single word in a washington STATE document and ran with it.

But you hit a brick wall. JBII doesn't make renewable diesel. A line in a Washington State document about plastic doesn't change that.

Reality from the EPA:

EISA changed the definition of renewable fuel to require that it be made from feedstocks that qualify as "renewable biomass." EISA's definition of the term "renewable biomass" limits the types of biomass as well as the types of land from which the biomass may be harvested. The definition generally applies restrictions to two feedstock sectors: the agricultural sector (planted crops and crop residues) and the non-agricultural sector (planted trees and tree residues, animal waste material and byproducts, slash and pre-commercial thinnings). These definitions affect feedstock use for production of compliant renewable fuels.

http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420f10007.htm

The actual detailed and exhaustive definition. Plastic not mentioned:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=81a18cca917dfb874d21fdb7e41073b6&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:16.0.1.1.9.13.93.2&idno=40

Dead wrong. Petroleum oil sold to a refinery doesn't have to be registered with the EPA. That's for selling it at the gas retail pump. If you actually read the EPA site, you would know that the same rule requires the fuel to contain a detergent -- no oil is required to contain a detergent -- LMAO!!! Only at the pump, sport.

"EPA regulations require that each manufacturer or importer of gasoline, diesel fuel, or a fuel additive have its product registered prior to its introduction into commerce. In some cases, EPA requires testing of these fuels and fuel additives for possible health effects. EPA also requires that gasoline contain a certified detergent in order to reduce emissions. EPA issued standards in 1973 that called for a gradual phase-down of lead to reduce the health risks from lead emissions from gasoline, culminating in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and EPA regulations banning lead in motor vehicle gasoline after 1995."

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/gasoline.htm

If you think the above applies to every nickle and dime oil well in America that they'll have to "pay the millions of dollars and years of time to do the studies necessary to be able to sell it" including adding detergents to oil before selling it to a refinery, then LOL -- I'm not sure what else to say. ROFL!!!

Diesel, oil, fuel, whatever. Selling a petroleum product to a refinery doesn't require a biodiesel registration. It's nice to talk to fellow longs about our world-changing awesome technology this investment has.

Both PAKIT and P2O both help reduce the amount of plastic that ends up in landfills and both help the plastic in landfill problem.

Reality from the Department of Energy vs. thebigguy's fantasy:

Reality:

"The feedstock cost of the oil or grease is the largest single component of biodiesel production costs." ~~The U.S. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel/

"I have been in industry on such projects and i know that it is about 5-10% of the cost if that." ~~thebigguy, self-annointed industry expert

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52848400

Yes, profitability is a no-brainer. But first you have to actually understand that feedstock going from the "largest" cost to FREE assures that.

Actually the question will be what the excuses are when Mr. Bordynuik has made fuel sales in the month of August.

Accounting fraud?
Sold to his grandmother?
Sold on the black market?
Sold to Columbian drug planes?

I can't wait to read about the conspiracy theories.
Nope. JBII makes petroleum diesel. Zero difference.

Any "bio" in it is a figment of your imagination.

Biocrap needs to be mixed with real petroleum. JBII's real petroleum doesn't need to be mixed with anything.

If JBI succeeds in just making one processor profitable, then there's no reason they can't be equally successful with a 2nd processor. It's the same technology and the same challenges and advantages only they won't need Islechem to validate and document and tweak the technology from scratch. Duplicating is far easier than inventing, especially when it comes to technology that produces a commodity.

So if they can make 1 processor, then they can make 2.
If they can make 2, then they can make 5.
If they can make 5, then they can make 20.
If they can make 20, then they can make 100.
If they can make 100, then they can make 1000.
If they can make 1000, then they can make 2500.

The challenge is making 1. After that it's a logistical challenge to expand, very similar to thousands of other successful companies in history that have undergone expansion of a proven per-location business model. Either they will be successful in doing this or they'll partner with somebody who will do it for them or somebody else will buy them out and do it for them.

Permit and profitable fuel sales is everything. I can't promise the stock price will rise the day of the permit or fuel sales, but I can promise IMO that permit + profitable fuel sales from just 1 machine makes JBII a fundamental monster. With the patents and patents pending at that point, they will be patented to basically print money.

Raw