Thursday, September 30, 2010

Pak-It products continue to penetrate the global market

waikikian provides the compelling evidence

PakIt products are starting to show up everywhere....

https://store.dropps.com/p-15-fresh-scent.aspx

http://www.karcherresidential.com/en/agents.php

http://www.buydropshot.com/

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=71649264

http://www.bldistributors.net/pakit_brochure.html

http://www.mdstetson.com/products/pakit.htm

http://www.wesellcoffee.com/page67.html

http://www.copyrightfreecontent.com/newsusa/green-laundry-detergent-packs-mean-less-waste/

http://www.tricitiesjanitorial.com/Cleaning_Supplies_Ashland_KY.html

http://jansanexpress.com/products.php?cat=32

Steady_T opines on use of second condenser for P2O process


If there is a second condenser in place, it is most likely used to separate the diesel from the gasoline. It will have the added benefit of increasing the total cooling capacity of the system.

The biggest condenser will be the one that condenses out the diesel. As I understand it, the diesel fraction will condense out at a higher temp than gasoline fraction. Since there is more diesel produced, it will require the most cooling.

The liquid output from the first condenser would be the diesel fraction, the remaining gas would go to the second condenser where it would be condensed into the gasoline. The gas remaining after that second condenser will go to the compressor system.

The compression step causes the butane to condense out leaving the propane, methane etc. in the compressed gas tanks.

My research shows that the various hydrocarbons components of diesel condense out between 320 and 180 deg C.

My guess is that the second condenser will cool to close to ambient temps.

Indeed, things are moving forward at a steady pace.

Overall this has taken longer than expected as is frequently the case when moving from R&D into production hardware.

Still, I like what is going on. The air permit application will be the next major step. I am looking forward to that like most everyone else.

Revolutionary P2O technology converts waste plastic to fuel


A solution to the world's plastic recycling problem

The Company will commence operations with Plastic2Oil: our focus is on producing fuel from recyclable plastic products.

While mining through the research archive, John Bordynuik found the solution to a process involving breaking down plastic molecules. Bordynuik had explored this in the past but there was no research available at that time to solve the catalyst problem (the high energy to crack plastic). This research was conducted when plastic was in its infancy and oil prices were very low. It appears the research was conducted for non-commercial purposes and had no commercial value at the time. Our research has revealed that this process and catalyst is not presently used. By integrating this technology into a large batch processor we can accomplish the important facts listed below.

Important Facts

* Approximately one liter of oil is extracted from a kilogram of plastic.
* The gas emitted (a by-product) provides the energy necessary to fuel the process.
* Due to a catalyst (trade secret) and a highly optimized process, oil can be extracted in 4 hours from a large source of raw unwashed, mixed plastics.
* The process can be highly automated.

Watch the video at http://plastic2oil.com

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Jahuel opines that JBII's game-changing technology is REAL

There have been a lot of negative posts that don't seem based in reality lately; should I take this as a good sign?

The real argument here is whether or not JBII really has this game-changing technology. And honestly, I see nothing that indicates anything other than "This is for REAL!".

Should people buy into JBII now? Charts hardly make a difference, except for the boost in investor psychology they give to some. But progress matters, and JBII has steadily been making progress to create the most effective P20 machine they can. Hardly anybody knows about it in the investing world, and those who do are ridiculously excited (for the most part).

I know others say this often, but it's one of the most important things to note about this stock: JBII has not been promoting P20 to the masses. The media is, as far as we know, still vastly ignorant. When the media finally gets word of this, and investors know what is going on, this will explode. I've made 2 assumptions about this explosion:

1) It will be huge, because it will be based on results.

2) It helps prove how genuine JBII is; they're waiting until they have something concrete before promoting themselves.

Understand the potential risks of short selling a stock

While brokers are able to handle most short selling requests, shorting a stock is more complicated than going long or buying options. In fact, there are some major issues involved with short selling that you must understand before you attempt it. So don't even think about short selling before you've read this.

#1 Risk

In a long position, the most you can lose is 150% if you borrowed on margin to leverage your investment. With a short position involving the borrowing of the stock, your theoretical potential loss is unlimited.

If you borrow a stock when it is trading at $10 and the stock runs up to $200, then you're out $190 a share -- 19 times your original investment! Not a good thing.

#2 Finding the Stock

You may want to short a stock that is hard to find. The process of finding shares is called a "locate." If your broker cannot find them, then you cannot short the stock.

Some stocks are hard to short because their shares are not easily available to borrow, which could happen for a variety of reasons. If you are finding it hard to locate the shares to conduct the transaction, it likely means that the stock is not held by a large number of individual shareholders (more on this in #3) or that there is a large short position in the stock already (more on this in #4). It is also virtually impossible to short a stock with a price under $5, and you cannot short a stock within a specified period from its IPO, depending on the exchange the stock trades on.

#3 Liquidity

You should not short a stock that is not highly liquid, i.e., there are many millions of shares outstanding.

Without liquidity, you can be right and wrong at the same time -- right about the stock going down but stuck in such a way that you cannot quickly liquidate your short position and get the profits you deserve. Liquidity should be a prime consideration when establishing short-side positions.

#4 Outstanding Short Position

This is the number of shares of a company held short, measured in absolute numbers, or as a percentage of the float of the stock.

If this position is large, more than 10% to 20% of a company's shares, the word is out and the bad news is already incorporated in the stock price. For the most part, I avoid stocks with large short positions, and so should you.

#5 Margin Account

You need to open a margin account to short a stock. It is in this account that the funds from your sale of borrowed stock will be placed.

But don't count on collecting interest on this money. Not only will your broker charge you on the borrowed shares at the broker loan rate based on the price of the stock when you borrowed it (unless you are Warren Buffett or the CEO's cousin), they will not pay you interest on the funds in the account or sweep it into a money market fund.

#6 Margin Calls

And if a stock you have shorted moves the wrong way (up), you are going to need cash to meet margin calls -- perhaps daily. Your broker will ask you to put more funds in your margin account, typically enough to cover the purchase of the stock on the open market at the current price.

If you don't make the payment asked for by your broker and you have other securities held long in that margin account, your broker will sell those securities to meet the margin call.

#7 Early Sale

If the original owner decides to sell the stock, you must replace it -- either by finding other shares through your broker or buying it on the open market.

#8 The Short-Squeeze

You have probably heard this term more often than you care to remember. A short squeeze is a market event when the price of a stock rises quickly, prompting shorts to "cover" -- which means they must buy the stock in the open market to repay the shares they have borrowed.

This generates higher prices, which, in turn, prompts more people to sell and take a profit, which leads to brokers calling more loans, which then forces many short-sellers to go into the open market to cover their loans, and so on. Short squeezes can be ferocious, can last quite a while and can be very expensive.

#9 How to Cover

Believe it or not, you can end up owning a stock and shorting it at the same time if you are not careful with your instructions to your broker. When you call or go online to cover a short position, you must specify that this purchase is to cover the open short position. If you do not, you could end up buying the shares and have them sit in your account while also having an open short position on them.

Because short-sellers might find themselves exiting their positions in a hurry, it's important to take the time to ensure that you issue clear instructions to your broker so that you get out when you want to.

#10 Dividends and Taxes

If you have borrowed and shorted a dividend-paying stock, you will receive the dividends, but you, in turn, must pay the original owner the value of those dividends.

Also, should you hold a short position for more than one year, well, tough luck -- the IRS still treats capital gains as short-term gains. Ah, Uncle Sam is always reliable!

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Steady_T clarifies blending facility advantages

The blending plant is NOT reliant on the existence of the P2O business at all....
---------------
The converse of that may not be true. The blending facility provides a guaranteed outlet for the P2O product.

Perhaps the local refinery doesn't want to buy P2O because it fears the competition from JBII. Or perhaps they buy some and then demand a price cut or they will quit buying. There are a number of scenarios where JBI could find itself at the mercy of other companies. That is why in business school they teach you to never let one customer become too large. That customer acquires too much leverage over your company.

By have the blending facility JBI has a way to market its product no matter what happens. If JBI's customers know that, they also know that they don't have leverage over JBI.

Consider it as a form of insurance that can pay for itself.

BeerIsGood challenges naysayer's opinions


That's your opinion. I see it differently. There are people in the world that strongly believe in green technology. Some of them even buy 'green' cars costing much more than gas cars.
Quote: Green technologies are not going to make it unless they can compete with other forms of energy.. period.


Your opinion. I believe at first these technologies might be more expensive but some will eventually be beneficial, green, and cost effective.

Quote: So, these people want to make money regardless, but if the shares were publicly available on the market at 3.50, they are not going to buy into a PIPE at 4.00... because profit is their motive..

Again, your opinion. When buying Pipe shares, the money gets invested directly into the company, not another investors pocket(buying public shares). That's my only point. Like I said before, it's like buying a candy bar for a fund raiser. Most definitely cheaper at Wal-Mart, but its the thought of helping the charity. No, I am not saying JBI is a charity, I am saying some people invested because they support green technologies.

techisbest shares CEO's email regarding selling P2O fuel


Correspondence from JB regarding selling P2O fuel...

I received email correspondence from John in answer to my questions about registering P2O fuel with the EPA. He has given me permission to post this:

Quote: We do not have the EPA in Canada and the fuel will be sold here. We own a permitted blending site. In Canada , we must pay a % tax to the provincial and federal government depending on how the fuel is used (road, industrial, farm, etc.)

Blending sites in Canada are permitted to distribute and sell fuel they blend. We do not have to register with the EPA. If our fuel is sold back to the US (this is common) then the importer (buyer) has the same state and federal requirements as any other gas station or distribution site.

-----
BTW, a MSDS sheet had to be created for the output of the processor. This was required to import into Canada. [techisbest note: I believe MSDS is a Material Data Safety Sheet]

-----
You can post publicly. I suggest shareholders contact the EPA to get straight answers to refute any misinformation campaign.

The environmental agencies have been very supportive of our technology. They allowed us to build our proprietary process (large scale) with the existing air permits and stack at the factory. They further allowed us to run to test, run steady state, test, and rerun to iron out any bugs (with a temporary permit issued in hours). Further, the environmental agencies have reviewed the technology and allowed it to run through a stack test to gather data for a commercial permit. The stack test results proved the machine does not pollute. It's 100% stupidity that the EPA would hold up fuel sales and exports knowing that our fuel has less sulphur in it than fuel at the pump, that they have been very flexible with us to prove our technology is clean and works.

I do not need EPA registration to sell fuel. I do not understand the emphasis to sell fuel for cars in the US. Like everything else, due to our clean fuel and size of our company, it would not be a problem but why spend any time on that now when there is plenty of low hanging fruit ( ie: factories, rail, ships, thousands of farms all of whom consume vast amounts of diesel and other fuels), all of Canada, and any ship that sails by in the Great Lakes. Then, consider international ships, generators, and thousands of factories.

I suspect that if EPA registration of our fuel is critical to some people then maybe they somehow believe we will saturate the world market with diesel so much so that we would have nowhere left to sell it but to vehicles operated exclusively in the United States.


techisbest

Monday, September 27, 2010

StockSpock disputes naysayer's misleading and disingenuous comments concerning the requirements for EPA registration of the fuel produced by JBI.


JJsmith, your posting verbiage from the EPA website seems misleading and disingenuous. I am wondering if you are deliberately trying to misinform readers on this board regarding the requirements for EPA registration of the fuel produced by JBI.

I should know as I spoke to the the EPA directly.

You should know that that my questions to the EPA were not generalized. I mentioned JBI by name and we discussed what they do.

My phone call to the EPA confirmed what others have, via the same due diligence, i.e. a simple phone call.

The resultant confirmation is that JBI can sell fuel without registration for off road use or for legitimate R&D purposes.

Furthermore, I confirmed that the registration requirements for companies that qualify for a small business exemption are different than your typical large oil companies. That is there is no requirement for the expensive tier 1 and tier 2 testing that is required by the EPA for large companies, which you often refer to.

I also referred the EPA representative I spoke with to Isle-chem.

I told them specifically that Isle chem is working with JBI and the DEC on this project.

Bottom line is that I have done plenty of due diligence on the item(s) of fuel registration and your claims do not hold any water.

I suggest you call the EPA yourself and get some clarity.

Spock

righty educates naysayers about their erroneous misconception that JBII's P20 fuel is useless for sale if not registered

RE: Fuel registration requirements for offroad fuel manufacturers.

It appears the information regarding mandatory registration of all fuels may not be correct.

why?

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 there's any action on that yet...the answer was no!

COMMENTS?

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Rawnoc opines that JBII, with a $42 million market cap, is very undervalued


Since when do alternative energy stocks wait for profits to get their massive moves?

Perceived profits and/or technological breakthroughs tend to be rewarded handsomely. As an example, Tesla's electric cars lose money hand over fist yet it sports nearly a $2 billion market cap just because of the innovation and hope that maybe it may actually make a buck many years from now. AEHI, another example, hopes to have a nuclear energy plant 5-10 years from now if they're lucky. Market cap nearly $300 million just on the mild local media hype.

According to the EPA, there is no such thing as "pyrolysis oil based fuels".

They recognize renewable fuels which are Cellulosic biofuel, Biomass-based diesel, Advanced biofuel, and Renewable fuel.

Then there are Alternative fuels which include hydrogen, fuel cells, electric, natural gas, and propane.

And of course gasoline and diesel fuels.

Since there is nothing in the JBII fuels except the usual hydrocarbons, JBII pyrolysis derived fuel once separated into the appropriate fractions will meet the standards for gasoline and diesel. The EPA is not interested in where fuels come from, except renewables, because they are interested in the fuels chemical content. As has been discussed repeatedly, registering gas and or diesel with the EPA is mostly a paper work issue.

The EPA is interested in where renewable fuel comes from because they have to report to congress about meeting renewable fuel volume goals.

The list of EPA registered fuels doesn't have a category for pyrolysis oil based fuels because ti has no need for one. Pyrolysis derived fuels are registered under the usual categories.

Selling the output from the processors will not be a problem no matter how you work the semantics.

There is really only one question, that is will the output be sold to refineries or will it be blended and sold as an end product. Perhaps it will be some of each.

JBII.... $42 million market cap. They prove they can make and sell oil at all, there's going to be some insane positive attention coming to this thing, and it won't stay with a piss $42 million market cap. Profits in the future will only add "fuel to the fire" and increase the degree of the run -- not the dependency of it.

For those of you that think you can just simply wait until JBII is already showing large profits then buy a position, if you think you'll be able to buy into it while it still has under a $42 million market cap, you're living in LA-LA land.

Raw

JBII message boards have many bashers! WHY???

A must read about Stock Bashers (unknown author)

How to recognize Stock bashers on Message boards, newsgroups and in chat rooms. its too long but you got to read it.

LEARNING is a process and an evolution. Learning is not all fluff. Learning is a process of awareness and unfolding development; one must be willing to work at it though.

A year ago when I asked broker friends of mine if the internet message boards will have any affect on a stock. They ALL laughed at me and said those idiots having an affect on a stock!

A truth: IT IS EASIER TO SCARE PEOPLE INTO SELLING THAN IT IS TO INFORM PEOPLE INTO BUYING A STOCK.

Well I asked those same friends this last week, and the answer from all YES! message boards and ""shorts" (some) can manipulate with lies, and deceit.

Now think about that, you have elderly that invest and find their way to the message boards only to see false posts about "SEC Violations" and "Class action suits" or you have a Yuppie with a kid to put in college going to these message boards only to see posts by 15-20 (probably 5 or 6 under alias) "pack of shorts" posting the same false stuff about SEC Violations or lawsuits or "there's bad news coming out" ....what do you think they will do ?

It's easier to sell the stock and put the money into the bank for nervous people like the elderly and the Yuppie who needs college funds. THAT'S WHO THE PACK OF SHORTS PRAY ON AND DEPEND ON. They bet on a stock to go down-not up! Understand? And they have just as much money and risk as you. But they have the edge of fear, lies, falsehoods to post and pray on the nervous. Longs don't have that.

Lesson 1: Remember, BASHERS NEVER BASH A BAD STOCK. Watch the board for stocks with no potential. They never have any bashers. Bashers only go after stocks that are going upwards or have excellent potential to go up. Bashers get left behind, so they want to bring the price down.

Lesson 2: BASHERS ALWAYS BRING UP OLD NEWS THAT YOU HAVE HEARD MANY TIMES. New startup companies always have a few bits of bad news. The basher will post this over and over again. The stupid basher will try to make the old news a bit fresher to try to fool you.

Lesson 3: BASHERS POST MANY TIMES A DAY. They try to wear you out. They comment on everything, every other post, and can answer every question. THEY KNOW IT ALL! There is no positive comment they won't bash. They try to control the board. True longs may have to address the bashers or they will appear to the newbies as being the people with all the information.

Lesson 4: BASHERS WILL LIE TO YOUR FACE. Never trust a basher. The truth on startup companies is that many mistakes are made and losses happen. The basher will try to make you believe all startup companies make a profit, release financials every quarter and all aspects of the business run smoothly. THIS IS NOT TRUE. THE BASHERS LIE TO YOU. Startup companies can go years without profits, financials and good business, this is the nature of the beast.

Lesson 5: The bashers know YOU CAN'T VERIFY THEIR STATEMENTS. That's why they make the statements they do.

Lesson 6: The bashers PLAY ON YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. They can lie about information and you couldn't know the difference (unless you have done your assessment of the company and know the truth and facts).

Lesson 7: Bashers play on your lack of patience. YOU have held a penny stock for a while. You knew it will be a big penny stock someday, but the BASHER CAN GET TO YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE TIRED OF WAITING FOR YOUR GAIN . That's when the basher is best. You are tired. You have forgotten the goal for the penny stock was to hold it for one year. The basher is bothersome, so you dump it on a bad day. Some others also dump. Then you get mad for your loss and return to let everyone know how mad you are. Then you turn into a basher as well. THE BASHER HAS WON, AND GAINED A NEW PARTNER TOO, to be able to get in at a great price.

Lesson 8: BRING THE PRICE DOWN. That is the basher's job. The truth is not important. Lies are the norm. Post continuously on the board every day. They are trying to hit the newbies visiting the board. They are trying to wear out the longs on the board. They do whatever it takes to wear the longs out.

Lesson 9: BASHERS WILL TRY TO CREATE DOUBT AND GET YOU TO RESEARCH ITEMS THAT THEY KNOW WILL LEAD TO THE CREATION OF DOUBT IN YOU AND IN OTHER STOCKHOLDERS. A typical trick of an advanced basher is to propose that there is a potential "problem" because "we" don't have the facts on a particular subject. The basher dares someone in the group to find out the answer to the question. The basher already knows the answer; the basher already knows what will be found. The power of this tactic is that the basher is now in control of the actions of the stockholders; the basher has you, the stockholder doing HIS/HER due diligence and when you, the stockholder come back to the group with a questionable finding then the basher gains credibility. What to do??? Solution??? Well, I think it's important to find answers but on your own terms. I actually pick up the phone and call the company and talk to the investor relations person or the CEO until I get a satisfactory answer. The problem here is that the advanced basher has you doing his bidding and his work; you have essentially joined his ranks. So, develop your own little Due Diligence package and answer questions by placing the information into the package and referring all new investors to read the answers to questions raised in the Investor Information package but DON'T GET INTO A CONVERSATION WITH THE BASHER REGARDING THE TOPIC. THAT IS WHERE YOU LOSE. DON'T CONVERSE WITH THE BASHER; ANSWER INDIRECTLY; DON'T USE THE BASHERS NAME; DON'T GET INTO A PERSONALITY CONTEST.

A BASHERS HANDBOOK: know the enemy who wishes to steal your money! Do not underestimate a bashers influence on a stock. The Pro's are good at what they do and what they do is profit from your losses. Below is their "hand-book" so to speak. Learn from it or donate your money to those who make an organized plan to steal your money

BASHERS DO THE FOLLOWING:
1. Be anonymous
2. Use 10% fact. 90% suggestion. The facts will lend credibility to your suggestions.
3. Let others help you learn about the stock. Build rapport and a support base before initiating your bashing routine.
4. Enter w/ humor and reply to all who reply to you.
5. Use multiple ISP's, handles and aliases.
6. Use two (2) or more aliases to simulate a discussion.
7. Do not start with an all out slam of the stock. Build to it.
8. Identify your foes (hypsters) and the boards "guru" Use them to your advantage. Lead them do not follow their lead.
9. Only bash until the tide/momentum turns. Let doubt carry it the rest of the way.
10. Give the appearance of being open minded.
11. Be bold in your statements. People follow strength.
12. Write headlines in caps with catchy statements.
13. Pour it on as your position gains momentum. Not your personality.
14. Don't worry about being labeled a "basher". Newbies won't know your history.
15. When identified put up a brief fight, then back off. Return in an hour unless your foe is a weak in reasoning powers.
16. Your goal is to limit the momentum of the run. Not to tank the company or create a plunge in the stock; be subtle and consistent.
17. Kill the dreams of profits, not the company or the stock.
18. Use questions to create critical thinking. Statements to reinforce facts.
19. DO NOT LIE, DO NOT NAME CALL and DO NOT USE PROFANITY.
20. Encourage people to call the company. 99% won't. They'll take your word for claims made. If they do call you can always find something that is inaccurate in how they report their findings.
21. Discourage people for taking the companies word for anything. Encourage them to call the company. They won't out of laziness.
22. If the companies history/PR's are negative constantly point to that. Compile a list of this data prior to beginning your efforts.
23. If the price rises blame it on the hype or the PR, temporary mass reaction, the market, etc. Anything but the stock itself.
24. If other posters share your concerns, play on that and share theirs too.
25. Always cite low volume, even when it's not.
26. Three or four aliases can dominate a board and wear down the longs.
27. Bait the hypsters into personal debates putting their focus/efforts on you and not the stock or facts. Divert their attention from facts. Show them the facts from a "different angle."
28. Promote other stocks that would-be investors can turn to instead of the one your bashing.
30. Do not fall for challenges on the "values" of what you are doing, it's a game and you are playing it with your own rules.
!

Saturday, September 25, 2010

tykundegex reports Springwise has featured Pak-It's Dropshots

Dropshots is featured on Dutch-based Springwise.

http://www.springwise.com/eco_sustainability/dropshot/

About Springwise
Springwise scans the globe for the most promising business ventures, ideas and concepts that are ready for regional or international adaptation, expansion, partnering, investments or cooperation.

http://springwise.com/about/

Friday, September 24, 2010

Rawnoc updates FREE P2O plastic waste feedstock


JBII -- FREE PLASTIC FEEDSTOCK = EASY. EXAMPLES BELOW: (updated 9/24/10)

(1) "I have talked to industrial places that PAY to get rid of their waste plastic. Actual places that PAY, not internet searches. I have talked to places that buy waste plastic and its a small percentage of whats out there. They pay higher prices because there is so few of it out there that they can use. There are industrial plastics they don't buy because they can't use them - lots of them."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=54357508

(2) $10 to $100 per ton to dump waste plastic. Cities could save as much as $200 per ton giving it for free to JBII:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53494788

(3) "steady stream" from construction sites by the ton giving away free waste plastic:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53494745

(4) Here's an article, with references, whining that companies who burn plastic get PAID to do it:

"They receive a tip fee for disposing of the waste."
http://stopplasticfuel.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/100/

(5) $50 a ton example cost to dump plastic by a recycler who 40,000 to 80,000 lbs per month to the landfill. (JBII will take it off their hands for free). This is a single location:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53494417

(6) "non-HDPE and non-PET resins are usually sorted out and discarded at the recycling plant."

http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/03/19/green-rant-why-wont-nyc-recycle-plastic/

Discarded? How much do they PAY to discard? $25, $50, $100 a ton tip fee?

(7) From a New York City website...

These move past a series of laser beams that identify any item made of #1 PET or #2 HDPE and blow it off the main conveyor onto a second conveyor. At this stage, workers manually pull out #1 and #2 bottles and jugs.

What is left over at the end of the conveyor belt journey (#3-7 bottles, #1-7 tubs and trays, as well as non-numbered plastic containers) is disposed of as residue.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/recycling/whathappens_sorting.shtml

Disposed of = paid to get rid of = available for free to anybody who wants it.

(8) Posted by: Steve555 Date: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 9:05:53 AM
In reply to: jjsmith who wrote msg# 69037 Post # of 69059

Listen guys,
Get off the subject of feed stock for once and for all!

I have contracts for waste plastic,from hard plastic to dirty film, to be delivered to my yard, I GET PAID between $80 and delivered free. The better the plastic the worse the price I get paid, if I agree to take the better material for free I can call the period of the contract which is between 3 to 5 years.

I would be more concerned with JBI's roll out timescale.

Raw

Estimated Profit applauds JBII's blending site


JBI claims they can make 40,000 barrels a year from the processor, or 109 barrels per day.

The Blending site can hold 5952 barrels of fuel. It would take 54 processors to fill it in one day.

Not sure how quickly they can blend and send off each day.

Each full cycle of the blending facility capacity would gross them $595,200 if they received $100/barrel for their fuel. If it is all sold as colored fuel exempt from Ontario taxes, they would net that much each full cycle.

I like JBI's idea of clustering as many processors near the blending site.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Frank talk on U.S. energy innovation


Department of Energy Under Secretary for Science Steven Koonin delivers the Hottel lecture.
Photo: L. Barry Hetherington

MIT alumnus Steven E. Koonin, DoE under secretary for science, says economics, not technology, is the driver.

As a theoretical physicist by training, Steven E. Koonin PhD ’75 might have been expected to focus his talk at MIT on Wednesday, Sept. 22, on the scientific and technological aspects of energy policy. But he made it clear right away that business and economics are the real keys to progress in the energy frontier.

It’s the economics that are “absolutely essential if the technologies are going to have an impact,” he said at the outset of the annual Hoyt C. Hottel lecture sponsored by the MIT Department of Chemical Engineering, before a packed hall in the Stata Center.

“There is an urgency” about dealing with the problems of energy just from a national-security perspective, even apart from the dangers of climate change, he said, pointing out that the United States currently sends about $1 billion a day to other nations to feed our petroleum appetite. That makes us “subject to the actions and fates of centers distant from us,” he said.

But the decisions about building new power plants or investing in major new energy infrastructure are more complex than most people realize, he said. Having spent five years working for BP before assuming his present government post (as the nation’s second under secretary for science at the Department of Energy), he says he learned a great deal about that complexity. “I can tell you, it was an eye opener,” he said.

“If you want to change the energy industry, you should get to know it,” he said. “The energy-supply business is not simple, and the people in it are not troglodytes.”

As someone with a long academic background — he spent years as a professor at Caltech and then almost a decade as its provost — he postulated the issue in the form of a simple syllogism:

* Almost the entire energy industry, with only a few exceptions, is in the hands of private industry;
* Industry’s primary goal is a legal and predictable profit;
* Therefore, innovation in the energy supply will only reach a significant scale when it is profitable or mandated.

“Industry’s goal is not to deploy the most innovative or the greenest technology. The goal is to make money,” he said. And the scale of investments in energy is so vast that even the government is not in a position to make much of a dent through direct investment: A single, large oil company spends almost as much on research and development per year as the entire Department of Energy budget, he said.

So to spur innovation and the deployment of new forms of energy, regulation and financial incentives are key, he said. He cited as an example the way installations of new wind turbines in the United States have risen and fallen in lockstep with the back-and-forth passage and repeal of production tax credits for the industry.

But technological innovation still plays an important role, he said. While much of the innovation in energy has already shifted overseas, he said, the U.S. continues to dominate in at least one area that could provide a significant advantage in the development of new energy options: Sophisticated computer simulations, an area of technology initially developed under the DoE to foster research on nuclear weapons without the need for actual nuclear-bomb tests. He noted that such simulations, with DoE’s help, made it possible for Goodyear to develop an innovative new line of tires in a fraction of the time such development would normally take — an advance that may have saved the company from the brink of bankruptcy.

“This is a uniquely U.S. capability, and it gives us a competitive advantage,” he said.

David L. Chandler, MIT News Office
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/hottel-koonin-0923.html

techisbest questions, "Is somebody else beating JBII to the garbage patch?"


Is somebody else beating JBII to the garbage patch?...

http://www.covantaholding.com/site/news-2010/september-21,-2010---covanta-energy-and-project-kaisei-announce-joint-commitment-to-the-clinton-global-initiative.html

Quote: Fairfield, NJ – September 21, 2010—Covanta Energy Corporation and Project Kaisei have joined forces to clean up ocean debris as part of a project commitment with the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). The partnership was formally announced today during the opening plenary at CGI’s annual meeting in New York. Established in 2005 by President Bill Clinton, CGI convenes global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges. Both organizations are members of CGI.

Project Kaisei is a non-governmental organization focused on reducing plastic waste in the ocean. Covanta Energy is an internationally recognized owner and operator of large-scale Energy-from-Waste and renewable energy projects. Together they have committed to clean up ocean debris, beginning with the Plastic Vortex in the North Pacific Gyre; stem future plastic waste flows from entering oceans; and test a new waste-to-fuel technology for the remediation of non-recyclable plastics and plastic waste. The project will showcase how plastic, and waste in general, can have a beneficial secondary market value when properly processed, and will help initiate a larger scale cleanup effort of the ocean, aiding in the protection of marine life.


I wonder what technology they plan to use.

techisbest

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Mark Pervan believes oil futures will average $88 a barrel in 2011


Crude Price Forecasts for 2010, 2011 Cut by ANZ Bank on High Inventories
By Christian Schmollinger - Sep 22, 2010 12:51 AM

Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. lowered its forecast for crude oil in New York by 1 percent next year, citing higher-than-average inventories and slowing economic growth in the U.S.

Oil futures will average $88 a barrel in 2011, Mark Pervan, a senior commodity analyst at ANZ, said in a report today. The company also cut its 2010 price estimate by 1.7 percent.

“A high exposure to a soft U.S. economic recovery and a large overhang of U.S. crude oil stocks has tempered our view,” Pervan said. Inventories in developed nations have climbed to 60 days’ consumption compared with a normal 53 days, he said.

Oil futures have averaged $77.73 a barrel so far this year. The contract for November delivery rose as much as 63 cents, or 0.8 percent, to $75.60 a barrel today and was trading at $75.25 at 3:50 p.m. Singapore time.

Concerns about the rate of U.S. economic expansion are holding back gains in crude markets. The country is the world’s largest oil user.

The worst recession in the country since the Great Depression ended in June 2009, the National Bureau of Economic Research said Sept. 20. The group didn’t conclude that the “economy has returned to operating at normal capacity,” it said.

U.S. crude inventories for the week ended Sept. 10 fell 2.4 million barrel to 357.3 million. That’s the highest level for that week over the past five years.

Chinese consumption and stockpiling purchases may provide support for oil prices at about $65 a barrel, Pervan said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Christian Schmollinger in Singapore at christian.s@bloomberg.net

Estimated Profit speculates on JBII potential


JBI Claims

their P2O processor can process 40,000 barrels of fuel per year, which breaks down to 109 barrels per day. They claim that their cost to produce fuel is less than $10/barrel, and that they can sell the fuel for around WTI prices.

Each machine costs $160,000-$200,000 to build.

The JBI Price Matrix

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3474887/JBII%20Price%20Matrix.xls

The JBI Price Matrix takes these assumptions and shows what is POSSIBLE(it's just a road map, not necessarily what will happen) with each processor installed. You can change most variables to make it more conservative or aggressive. The second tab labeled P2O #'s can be changed as well, and will update on the first tab.

There is high potential that the matrix, in the default settings, could be conservative(save the $80 crude vs. current prices).

1) The blending site allows for a huge markup in price if they can sell direct to gas stations. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=53580852

2) The processor has the potential to process multiples of 109 barrels/day. Many believe the company may be giving conservative numbers, that was based on batch operations, before moving to continuous operation.

3) If inferior P2O companies are trying to sell their processors for $5 million, what could JBI sell theirs for? The potential to make millions off each processor also exist.

Here is a very conservative approach as an example:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52851510

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1945C8-6yEQ

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Rawnoc debates naysayer about JBII's P2O competition


Question -- Why hasn't Agri-Plas ordered a machine yet from Agilyx?

Answer:

Agri-Plas plans to buy and install a Plas2Fuel system once the company tests and manufactures its latest generation of equipment, says Mary Sue Gilliland, Agri-Plas vice president of operations and business development. “Once we’re comfortable that the new equipment works, we’ll go ahead and place an order,” she says. “We’re probably looking at September or October to fire up our first four units.”

http://www.theoutlookonline.com/sustainable/story.php?story_id=127367768353395400

Apparently they aren't even comfortable that it even works yet, hence September/October is NOT happening. Why don't you ask Agilyx how much fuel they've produced? I couldn't get a straight answer from them. They wanted to talk about capacity (10 tons of plastic a day for their mega-million dollar machine) and licensees that they confess they have zero of and are still bragging about the 4 tankers of fuel that they made over the course of 2 years. Wow! I could probably make make 4 tankers of fuel with my fists if I had two years to do it too.

Is Agilyx a competitor or a bad joke?

They compete with Envion's $7 million cirus act machine maybe.

LOL -- you believe that nonsense? Did you read what you wrote?

(1) Agilyx wasn't "shut down" -- they just removed the "test" equipment to prepare for the next generation of super equipment.

Uh huh. Sure.

(2) Agri-Plas is quite pleased. ROFL!!! What did you expect them to say -- it's a total pile of dung? We have in writing that they still want to see if the equipment even works. What happened to the original "test" crap? If it works, why wouldn't they keep it and keep producing fuel while waiting on the newer equipment and just add it?

Uh huh. Sure. They love it so much that they stopped using the equipment, said they want to make sure the new one even works then maybe they'll order one in September/October, and now it's been delayed another 6 months. Agilyx has been struggling to produce something viable for 8 years and has been failing miserably the entire time.

JBII is a viable P2O company. Not Plas2Fuel/Agilyx.

Let's review....

Plas2Fuel/Agilyx $5.6 million vs. JBII's $200,000 cost of processor or 2,700% higher.
Plas2Fuel/Agilyx 14-28 employees vs. JBII's 2 employees
Plas2Fuel/Agilyx makes a "synthetic crude-like product" vs. JBII's high quality diesel
Plas2Fuel/Agilyx has toxic emissions. JBII has none.
Plas2Fuel/Agilyx doesn't even touch the issue of residue. JBII has very little residue.
Plas2Fuel/Agilyx claims their $5.6 million machine makes oil for $42/barrel. JBII's $200,000 machine makes diesel fuel for less than $10/barrel.

If anybody is foolishly excited about Plas2Fuel/Agilyx, just wait until they feast their eyes on JBII's process.

I'm amazed.....or not.....with all the skepticism thrown at the Islechem report, who CRA reaffirmed their findings, that anybody would fall for this crap from Agilyx/Agri-Plas. As long as we're giving credibility like this to a phone call, how about this? I talked to 4 future franchisees of JBII and they all said Agilyx is a total piece of crap.

Raw

JBI, Inc. (OTCQX:JBII) Jumps Up Once Again, Half of the Volume Shorted

By Violeta Slavtchevska
Date: Sep 21, 2010

JBI, Inc. (OTCQX:JBII, JBII message board) stock gained extraordinary trading volume over the last two trading sessions. It seems that the latest press release by the company added more credibility to the stock than the recent news that JBII is now traded on the OTC market's highest tier.1JBII.png

For a second consecutive trading day, JBII share price is climbing up and the stock looks like it could finally start a new uptrend. Though, the latest press release will need an official confirmation first to justify investors' revived interest in the company.
Yesterday, JBII jumped 10.39% up to $0.92 within the session and the over 551,000 share volume was five times the average for the stock.

The large interest seems provoked by the news from Friday. According to it, the company has received positive results from the stack test on its Plastic2Oil commercial processor, which confirm that the conversion of waste plastic into hydrocarbon fuels is emitting minimal toxic substances into the air and can be classified as a "green" process.

A corresponding 8-k has not been filed and JBII also do not mention if or when these results will secure them the urgently needed authorities' permission to launch the product on the market and to begin commercial production. In the latest 10-Q, management says that the required "simple air permit" should be obtained on that above mentioned stack test.

Despite of this, it seems that half of the market's participants yesterday were not convinced of JBII stock as a long-term investment and wanted to secure only short-term gains. 50% of all yesterday's trades were short sales, that percentage being 41 on Friday.JBI.jpg

The importance of the Plastic2Oil processor for JBII future should not be underestimated, since if it gets marketed it will be the fourth and the most promising source of revenues for the company. The products of the P2O that the company plans to sell include diesel fuel, gasoline, propane and butane and JBII has invested around $1.5 million in related property and equipment.

Since the middle of last month, the stock is traded on the OTCQX, the premier tier of the U.S. over-the-counter-market, making it subject to higher investor consideration and to superior quality controls. Hopefully, it will help to gain also "quality investors" in the future.

techisbest speculates on JBII potential by year-end 2010


My hope for where JBII will be at the end of 2010 (I consider this extremely aggressive and assumes the permit is granted quickly):

- 3 processors at the Niagara Falls facility (the last two operational towards the end of the year)
- Waste plastic suppliers contracted to supply a continuous stream of plastic for those 3 processors
- Blending site operational and processing P2O output from N.F.
- Fuel sold from the blending site. If the plastic suppliers can purchase the fuel at a small discount to market prices, that's OK. Selling at market prices to distributors would be great.
- Florida JV has one processor installed and has started the permitting process
- More JV's are in line behind the Florida site, waiting for their first processor to become available.
- First revenues from P2O are reported, along with numbers indicating how much oil is being produced at the N.F. facility.
- A report from URS (or equivalent) validating the data coming from JBII

That would be a lot to have happen in the next three months. But if JBII is as far along as they indicate, then with everything going smoothly it is possible.

techisbest

Monday, September 20, 2010

BRIG_88 reports why JBII passing the stack test is such spectacular news

This information really isn't hard to find....here is a prime example of how stringent the EPA is on pollutants and why JBII passing that stack test is such spectacular news:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established new emission regulations for existing hospital, medical and infectious waste incinerators (HMIWI). In a press release, EPA says the new emission limits “will reduce about 390,000 pounds of several pollutants each year including acid gases, nitrogen oxides, and metals such as lead, cadmium and mercury.”

Acid gases, such as hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide, will account for about 62 percent of the annual emissions reduction. Nitrogen oxides will account for approximately 37 percent of the reduction, particulate matter about 0.8 percent, carbon monoxide about 0.3 percent and metals/dioxins/furans 0.2 percent.

The revised guidelines will require 50 of the 57 operating HMIWI to improve their emissions performance, EPA says. The agency also estimates that the total cost for operating HMIWI to comply with the revised guidelines will be approximately $15.5 million per year.

The new standards settle a lawsuit filed nearly 12 years ago by the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council. The suit challenged EPA's methodology for adopting its HMIWI emission regulations.

EPA's final notice on the revised regulations can be downloaded at the following Web address: www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pfpr.html.

The final rule and other background information also are available at www.regulations.gov or in hardcopy form at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, located in Washington.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

stonehenge expects explosion in JBII price within 4 weeks as the investment community discovers this stock


I don't know. Don't forget hardly anybody knows of the existence, let alone the viability of JBI's P2O.

I have to admit, at first glance it looks too good to be true. So a lot of first time eyes will turn their head and walk away.

It takes more than a standard DD to see what JBI is all about.

Once JBI will be exposed through mass media, watch out!

When that will be? No clue! I guess they will wait for permit and full commercial production, including realized sales.

IMO that will be a fact within 3, max 4 weeks from now.

We also have to take into consideration that for 5 months there has been NO PR-update on P2O. Where should new investors have found out about JBI?

I guess that the ones that have been buying are the old longs. By now, they might be too tapped out to make up for the longs whose system is telling them to sell. So whether there will be enough power to sustain a jump in pps depends on the dry powder of the longs who understand the importance of last Friday's PR.

If they have been clever (and why shouldn't they?) they have been buying heavily during the last weeks.

When will new blood come in? No idea. Tomorrow? This week?
I am pretty sure the permit will open the doors to mass media and with it: a huge investment community.

All together I expect a stabilization or a slow uptrend during the next week. After that I expect an EXPLOSION of the pps within 4 weeks from now.

But hey.... That's just me wink

Rawnoc questions naysayer's "piss poor" DD & applauds CEO's silence


I would tell that person that he's doing piss poor DD since the only links I can find about hydrocarbon plastic was clean sorted clear bottles and stuff.

Further DD does agree with Mr. Bordynuik's contention as I gave you a mere sample of it here:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=54333499

90% of my DD by the way never makes it to the boards. I do too much of it, and I'm lazy about typing it out.

The only point you've made on this topic is that everything hasn't been absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by John himself with documents. My answer is -- who cares? I don't consider being forced to take the time and do my own DD a bad thing. On stocks where there is no need to do my own DD because everything is already picture perfect in front of me -- the stock price is already way overvalued. I invest in companies all the time that NEVER even issue a press release, never mind haven't proved every little step of the way in press releases.

The environmental toll of plastics

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/dangers-of-plastic

Tidbits of particular interest from that link:

"Next year, more than 300 million tons will be produced worldwide."
"Plastic debris, laced with chemicals and often ingested by marine animals, can injure or poison wildlife."
"Floating plastic waste, which can survive for thousands of years in water, serves as mini transportation devices for invasive species, disrupting habitats.
"Plastic is so resilient that even burying it deep within the earth doesn’t keep it from impacting the environment. Currently it accounts for approximately 10 percent of generated waste, most of which is landfilled. But, as the report notes, placing plastics in a landfill may simply be storing a problem for the future, as plastic’s chemicals often sink into nearby land, contaminating groundwater."
"plastics grow in volume at a rate of about nine percent each year"

My point? The green groups are going to love JBII and so will the politicians -- grants and loans will be plentiful. There's already a bill in the works with Congress to give 60 cents per gallon of P2O produced. If JBII makes 106 barrels of fuel per processor per day, that's a $974,988 check per processor from Uncle Sam.

You take John's silence over the last 6 months (no P2O PRs until Friday for 6 months) as a sign of hiding something. I do my own DD and conclude otherwise. I take his silence as a shift to under-promising and over-delivering. The filings, the conference call, and the latest PR all point to that very fact -- he's reporting what's already a historical fact or in the extreme near term so it's as good as fact. And I absolutely love it.

And so will the market.

Raw

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Zardiw compares JBII potential vs Google


JBII vs Google:

JBII has 1/6 the OS of Google.
Google trading about $500/share

Google Yearly Income: $4B.

SO, to justify a JBII stock price of $500/share, we would need a yearly income of $4B divided by 6 = $1.3B.

And for $1000/Share JBII Stock Price = $2.6B income

If JBII processed only 20% of the yearly plastic waste produced in the US ALONE, it would generate $4.3B/Year.......

Interesting math no?

Bottom Line: Anybody wanna retire and be independently wealthy for life? ......Get some JBII shares.......hey, they're less than a buck......Very Temporarily.........lol

techisbest defines P2O "landfill plastic waste"


Landfill Plastic: Much is being made about the stack test report and its failure to mention whether or not landfill plastic waste was used.

But what, exactly, is landfill plastic waste?

My definition is any plastic that would have ended up in a landfill.

That includes all the industrial plastic waste that is generated. That includes all the industrial plastic waste that industry pays to have landfilled. That includes all the industrial plastic waste that, when taken from a single source, is of a homogeneous type without a lot of unknown substances in the waste stream.

That includes all the plastic waste that is low-hanging fruit and will keep JBII, and its affiliates, busy for years and allow them to become wildly successful before needing to address all the other plastic waste currently being tossed into trash cans rather than being recycled.

The other types of landfill waste need to be addressed. I think JBII will be able to do that as well. But it is not an immediate concern.

Industrial plastic waste makes up a huge percentage of the unrecycled plastic waste currently ending up in landfills.

techisbest

Friday, September 17, 2010

stonehenge speculates on timing of P2O air permit approval


Re: application and permit:

Application:
I really have no clue as to when the application will be filed. My guess however is that JB wants to apply a.s.a.p.

They have been waiting 1 month for the CRA to report the results. I will go out on a limb that they had a draft version of the application ready to go, except for some to-be-added details from the stack test results.

Permit:
In my previous post I outlined the formal deadlines for the NYDEC to decide on an application (derived from their website).

BUT: we have to take into consideration that the DEC has been assisting to preparing for this stack test, together with IsleChem and JBII.

We already learned from communications with the DEC that the DEC staff did not see anything that could raise an eyebrow. In fact, the DEC was 'excited'; they had never seen anything like this and they are looking forward to see this new 'green technology' in their own NY!

What does that tell you on the permit decision timeline?

I'll go out on a limb again and guess that we should expect the permit in the first week of October; they might even issue it before the end of September.

Who wants to visit the race once JBII will tell their Green P2O story to the mass media? If you don't have your tickets by now, I would suggest you grab some...

Rawnoc provides proof that the stack test was based on a variety of plastics


STACK TEST BASED ON A VARIETY OF PLASTICS -- READ ON:

CC just before the stack test:

"we handle shredded post-consumer and post-industrial waste at this time. However, we installing shredding and granulating capacity to handle post-consumer plastic that hasn't been shredded yet. And based on this information we have scheduled a stack test...."
http://www.investorcalendar.com/IC/CEPage.asp?ID=160560 ~~13:20

===========================

From Today's PR:

"The Company is pleased with these results, as they reaffirm Islechem's previous findings"
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/JBI-Inc-Receives-Emissions-pz-604709087.html?x=0&.v=1

Islechem's previous findings:

"testing for JBI's P2O technology on a diversified range of plastic feedstocks. A wide variety of plastics were tested"
"various multicoloured, mixed plastic feedstocks"

http://www.jbiglobal.com/news/2010-press-releases/isle-chem-validation.aspx

===========================

Clearly the stack test involved a variety of plastics.

Raw

JBI, Inc. Receives Emissions Statistics for Plastic2Oil Processor


Photo taken at Grand Central Station, New York on Monday, September 13, 2010

THOROLD, Ontario, Sep 17, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- JBI, Inc. (the "Company") (Pink Sheets:JBII) announces the receipt of its P2O Stack Test Report performed by Conestoga-Rovers and Associates ("CRA") on the Company's Plastic2Oil ("P2O") 20 metric ton commercial processor. The stack test, which is a measure of emissions from the processor vent, was set up by CRA on August 16th and monitored by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC"), and completed on August 17th.

The Company will file the stack test report with the DEC as part of its application to obtain a simple air permit which will allow commercial operation of the P2O processor.

The Company is pleased with these results, as they reaffirm Islechem's previous findings that the operation of the P2O processor is a clean "green" process. CRA's 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 were below 1 ppm, particulates tested 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 below maximum emissions allowed under a NYDEC simple air permit. Because of these results, the Company believes it will not need to construct any filters, oxidizers or scrubbers for the stack, which is directly connected to the processor through a condenser to cool the air.

After the stack test, the P2O processor was shutdown to gather residue samples from within the reactor for testing. The residue was tested and found to be well below the TCLP thresholds for disposal in landfill. The residue from a P2O processor can be shipped to landfill and is not considered a hazardous waste.

About JBI, Inc.

JBI, Inc. is a technology company focused on injecting intelligence into existing products and processes, making them efficient and profitable. JBI seeks to innovate new solutions to issues facing today's world, including environmental concerns. JBI currently has four business lines including JBI's tape data recovery, JAVACO, PAK-IT and our new Plastic2Oil business. Information on our company and all of our products and services can be found at www.jbiglobal.com.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Zardiw reports everyone will soon see that JBII has for the most part made all the right moves


Everyone will soon see that JBII has for the most part made all the right moves.

1. Catalyst Discovered
2. Machine located and purchased
3. Processor extensively modified
4. Process fully proved to work and independently validated.
5. Blending Facility to process the output obtained.
6. Permit process almost complete.


John Bordynuik is one of the most astute and professional CEO's around.

1. In just a short time he has taken an idea and brought it to the Cusp of Fruition. Not many other CEO's can make that statement.

2. He has steered JBII and her shareholders to a bright new land, full of wonderful sights, and valuable treasures.

3. He has navigated the JBII Ship through treacherous waters, and blood thirsty savages. There may be a miriad of cannon ball holes in her sails...she may have a slight list...her crew is battle scarred and weary...but she is still under sail, and still has a bone in her teeth.

4. All this in just a year and a half.....VERY IMPRESSIVE feats in this economic climate.

It is Perfectly Obvious that JBII is a Multi $100 Stock in the Making. WAY more obvious than say Google, Amazon, and even Microsoft back in the day was.

Just think about it. JBII has the solution to the waste plastic problem. An ECONOMIC solution. They are going to be generating MASSIVE revenues from this.

And not just in the US, but WORLDWIDE, with the P2O Marine Division.

The concept is simply Staggering!

And that concept is just days away from FRUITION.

The only thing left is to actually start production. And given the reaction of everyone from the salty seasoned chemists at Islechem, to the NY State DEC, one can Obviously and Clearly draw a line to the very next landmark, just a few steps away: Production and Fuel Sales.

Then any discussion along these lines will be MOOT..........z

JUGGERNAUT!!

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Seven Misconceptions about Plastic and Plastic Recycling

Misconception # 1: Plastics that go into a curbside recycling bin get recycled. Not necessarily. Collecting plastic containers at curbside fosters the belief that, like aluminum and glass, the recovered material is converted into new containers. In fact, none of the recovered plastic containers from Berkeley are being made into containers again but into new secondary products such as textiles, parking lot bumpers, or plastic lumber – all unrecyclable products. This does not reduce the use of virgin materials in plastic packaging. "Recycled" in this case merely means "collected," not reprocessed or converted into useful products.

Misconception # 2: Curbside collection will reduce the amount of plastic landfilled. Not necessarily. If establishing collection makes plastic packages seem more environmentally friendly, people may feel comfortable buying more. Curbside plastic collection programs, intended to reduce municipal plastic waste, might backfire if total use rises faster than collection. Since only a fraction of certain types of plastic could realistically be captured by a curbside program, the net impact of initiating curbside collection could be an increase in the amount of plastic landfilled. The Berkeley pilot program showed no reduction of plastic being sent to the landfill in the areas where the curbside collection was in operation. Furthermore, since most plastic reprocessing leads to secondary products that are not themselves recycled, this material is only temporarily diverted from landfills.

Misconception # 3: A chasing arrows symbol means a plastic container is recyclable. The arrows are meaningless. Every plastic container is marked with the chasing arrows symbol. The only information in the symbol is the number inside the arrows, which indicates the general class of resin used to make the container. The attorneys general of 11 states objected to false and misleading claims about plastic recyclability. The recent settlement that they reached with the American Plastics Council paves the way for a first-ever definition of what claims can or cannot be made about plastic recycling and recyclability.

Misconception # 4: Packaging resins are made from petroleum refineries’ waste. Plastic resins are made from non-renewable natural resources that could be used for a variety of other applications or conserved. Most packaging plastics are made from the same natural gas used in homes to heat water and cook.

Misconception # 5: Plastics recyclers pay to promote plastics’ recyclability. No; virgin resin producers pay for the bulk of these ads. Most such ads are placed by virgin plastic manufacturers whose goal is to promote plastic sales. These advertisements are aimed at removing or diminishing virgin plastic’s greatest challenge to market expansion: negative public conception of plastic as unrecyclable, environmentally harmful, and a major component of wastes that must be landfilled or burned.

Misconception # 6: Using plastic containers conserves energy. When the equation includes the energy used to synthesize the plastic resin, making plastic containers uses as much energy as making glass containers from virgin materials, and much more than making glass containers from recycled materials. Using refillables is the most energy conservative.

Misconception # 7: Our choice is limited to recycling or wasting. Source reduction is preferable for many types of plastic and isn’t difficult. Opportunities include using refillable containers, buying in bulk, buying things that don’t need much packaging, and buying things in recyclable and recycled packages

Plastic packaging has economic, health, and environmental costs and benefits. While offering advantages such as flexibility and light weight, it creates problems including: consumption of fossil resources; pollution; high energy use in manufacturing; accumulation of wasted plastic in the environment; and migration of polymers and additives into foods.

Plastic container producers do not use any recycled plastic in their packaging. Recycled content laws could reduce the use of virgin resin for packaging. Unfortunately, the virgin&endash;plastics industry has resisted such cooperation by strongly opposing recycled -content legislation, and has defeated or weakened consumer efforts to institute stronger laws. Plastic manufacturers recently decided that they will not add post consumer materials to their resins used in the USA.

There is a likelihood that establishing plastics collection might increase consumption by making plastic appear more ecologically friendly both to consumers and retailers. Collecting plastics at curbside could legitimize the production and marketing of packaging made from virgin plastic. Studies of garbage truck loads during the recent plastic pick-up pilot program showed no reduction of "recyclable" plastic containers being thrown away in the pilot areas (in fact, there was a slight increase). Due in part to increased plastic use, glass container plants around the country have been closing, including Anchor Glass Container Corporation in Antioch, putting 300 people out of work

Plastic recycling costs much and does little to achieve recycling goals. Our cost/benefit analysis for implementing curbside plastics collection in Berkeley shows that curbside collection of discarded plastics: involves expensive processing; has limited benefits in reducing environmental impacts; and has limited benefits in diverting resources from waste.

Processing used plastics often costs more than virgin plastic. As plastic producers increase production and reduce prices on virgin plastics, the markets for used plastic are diminishing. PET recyclers cannot compete with the virgin resin flooding the market.

Increasing the capture rates of glass, paper or yard debris in Berkeley could divert more resources from landfills than collecting plastics at curbside. The "recyclable" plastic to be collected in Berkeley at most would only amount to 0.3% of the waste stream.

Five Strategies to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Plastics

1. Reduce the use
Source reduction Retailers and consumers can select products that use little or no packaging. Select packaging materials that are recycled into new packaging - such as glass and paper. If people refuse plastic as a packaging material, the industry will decrease production for that purpose, and the associated problems such as energy use, pollution, and adverse health effects will diminish.

2. Reuse containers
Since refillable plastic containers can be reused about 25 times, container reuse can lead to a substantial reduction in the demand for disposable plastic, and reduced use of materials and energy, with the consequent reduced environmental impacts. Container designers will take into account the fate of the container beyond the point of sale and consider the service the container provides. "Design for service" differs sharply from "design for disposal".

3. Require producers to take back resins
Get plastic manufacturers directly involved with plastic disposal and closing the material loop, which can stimulate them to consider the product’s life cycle from cradle to grave. Make reprocessing easier by limiting the number of container types and shapes, using only one type of resin in each container, making collapsible containers, eliminating pigments, using water-dispersible adhesives for labels, and phasing out associated metals such as aluminum seals. Container and resin makers can help develop the reprocessing infrastructure by taking back plastic from consumers.

4. Legislatively require recycled content
Requiring that all containers be composed of a percentage of post-consumer material reduces the amount of virgin material consumed.

5. Standardize labeling and inform the public
The chasing arrows symbol on plastics is an example of an ambiguous and misleading label. Significantly different standardized labels for "recycled," "recyclable," and "made of plastic type X" must be developed.

Ecology Center
2530 San Pablo Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94702
Phone: (510) 548-2220 x233
email: erc@ecologycenter.org
Open 11am-6pm Tuesday-Saturday

http://www.ecologycenter.org/ptf/misconceptions.html

Monday, September 13, 2010

"techisbest" creates animation movie about ongoing JBII debate on iHub


Click on the link to see the movie!

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7125079/

tykundegex debates naysayers who insist CEO should provide proof of concept

I believe Mr. Bordynuik has already publicly stated that JBI can get waste plastic for free. You choose not to believe him, and that's your right. But submitting proof to appease those who don't believe him is perhaps not his priority.

I seriously doubt that there are many people sitting on the sidelines w/r to such claims and who choose not to invest for lack of proof of actual plastic supply contracts. You either believe him or you do not, and if you do not.. then there are likely many other things that prevent you from investing in his company.

Soon thereafter you will be demanding proof of the catalyst, proof that patents have been filed, proof that the fuel blending site is operational, proof that IsleChem is not biased, proof that the processors really cost only $200k to build, proof that it really only takes 2 hours to process 20 tons.

You see.. this proof you claim to be so important will get JBI nowhere, and will only stir the message board debate. I'm quite certain JBI simply wants to produce oil and generate revenue. After that they won't have to answer to anyone.

Tyk

stonehenge strongly objects to naysayer's claims of fraud & lying.


PP, your claims are is sooooo wrong you cannot even start to correct it.

You said:

Naysayer Quote: I weighed the data and came to the conclusion that Mr. Bordynuik is lying. Lying, causing others to rely on that information and causing those others to lose money is the basis for fraud.

Are you claiming that JB is lying in the faces of IsleChem and the NYDEC that have been working on and testing the P2O processor for quite some time? I don't mention CRA, but I could have mentioned them too.

In fact you are claiming that '....YOU weighted the data and came to the conclusion...'. THAT line in itself is sooooo ludicrous: you claim to interpret the data of the P2O process better than the specialists from IsleChem, NYDEC and CRA?

I applaud you for being able to do so sitting behind your computer. Please tell us how you did that? Maybe IsleChem, NYDEC and / or CRA are interested in hiring you.

you further said:

Natsayer Quote: For me it's telling that Mr. Bordynuik supposedly has evidence that his claims are true but refuses to share that information with those who put up the money.


Don't you think it's the right thing to do to get the permit before informing the investment community about (progress with respect to) this material fact?

And in answer to a quote in another one of your soon-to-be-proved-as-dumb posts:

Naysayer Quote: trying to get a machine up just to do something as simple as pyrolysis? A few million dollars of investment on his side and ample time but still struggling.


Simple? Haha, why aren't there dozens of companies in the world that already fixed this simple solution in a viable an non polluting way?

Well? Oh, you are soooo funny!

In the eyes of IsleChem AND the NYDEC mr. JB, who you call a con or a fraud, has something unique in his hands. Sooooo unique, you will be soooooooo flabbergasted that you are about to swallow your tongue.

JMHO of course....

Sunday, September 12, 2010

righty questions skeptic's comment about the problematic lack of P2O proof as being commercially viable

If this were some high school project, or competition for a prize for unique ideas, then a proof of concept would be an admirable goal.

This is not the case, what is being worked on here is a business model for a public company...quite a different story. Proving a concept prior to proving it can make a profit...within the confines of the regulatory sytem that regulates it, in some eyes would be fanciful.

Trying to appease some message board poster prior to having all the necessary legal and regulatory requirements in place to pursue a profit making business might be a worthwhile pursuit to some...but not all.

In this case the permitting process is quite important before an all out conceptual proofing is commissioned, especially if that proofing is to be costed against incomes yet generated.

The reason for that is very very simple.....if they cannot scale up and stay within acceptable emissions, then they have a "conceptual" problem.

Whether that is perceived or not...nothing matters more than proving the permit is attainable and moreover "in hand".

Afterall without the permit, no proof of concept is worth a hill of beans, as they will be back to the conceptual drawing board.

The arguement presented is somewhat valid, but loses favor when demands for "value" are the basic precursory ingredient for their basis, after-all....value...in this case cannot be established until "viability" is established.

There is more than one ingredient required to achieve viability, and it pretty much starts with the permit...then comes revenues, then profitability.

Demanding proof of concept in a startup such as this scenario, long before establishing operational functionality...is clearly outside the realm of necessity....and more of a demand to establish security beyond the natural speculation environment within which this technology clearly resides.

With permit in hand that environment begins to progress.

In the meantime folks either have the nads to speculate or they do not, but to make unrealistic demands on proof of "concepts" or "value propositions", prior to the permitting milestones, is not in my opinion the mark of a sound decision making process.

Rather that of a cart before the proverbial horse.

Equally so...criticizing a businessman who is following the necessary processes, for not spending copious time and/or resources to this end, prior to having his process approved, is rather inappropriate.

After-all, the process is in gear, as can be evidenced by the regulators, all one needs to do...if skeptical...is simply wait for the outcome of what is in process, then re-evaluate.

Terribly simple theory really.

Sweating a brow over what a speculator may or may not do interim...is not really time well spent.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

sdy urges support of The Plastics Recycling Act of 2009 (H.R. 3592)

Below is a list of the co-sponsors of The Plastics Recycling Act of 2009 (H.R. 3592) whereby Producers would receive a 60 cent tax credit for every gallon of synthetic oil made from recycled plastic.

Donna Christensen [D-VI]
Shelley Berkley [D-NV1]
Earl Blumenauer [D-OR3]
Peter DeFazio [D-OR4]
Alcee Hastings [D-FL23]
Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]

John Larson [D-CT1]
Eric Massa [D-NY29]
Walter Minnick [D-ID1]
Donald Payne [D-NJ10]
Dave Reichert [R-WA8]
Kurt Schrader [D-OR5]

Joe Sestak [D-PA7]
Addison Wilson [R-SC2]
David Wu [D-OR1]

That's not a lot of support to move forward with, so contacting your rep to support would be beneficial.

You can find the full text of the bill and track the bill here
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3592

The bill has been referred to the following committees:
House Ways and Means
House Energy and Commerce

If any of these are in your district, let them know you support its passage. There are a lot of bills before these committees and many bills are set aside in the shuffling if no one promotes their passage.

House Ways and Means, Subcommittee on
Chair - Rep. Sander Levin [D-MI12]
Ranking Member - Rep. David Camp [R-MI4]
Rep. Xavier Becerra [D-CA31]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR3]
Rep. Charles Boustany [R-LA7]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R-TX8]
Rep. Virginia Brown-Waite [R-FL5]
Rep. Eric Cantor [R-VA7]
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D-NY7]
Rep. Artur Davis [D-AL7]
Rep. Danny Davis [D-IL7]
Rep. Geoff Davis [R-KY4]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D-TX25]
Rep. Bob Etheridge [D-NC2]
Rep. Dean Heller [R-NV2]
Rep. Walter Herger [R-CA2]
Rep. Brian Higgins [D-NY27]
Rep. Samuel Johnson [R-TX3]
Rep. Ronald Kind [D-WI3]
Rep. John Larson [D-CT1]
Rep. John Lewis [D-GA5]
Rep. John Linder [R-GA7]
Rep. James McDermott [D-WA7]
Rep. Kendrick Meek [D-FL17]
Rep. Richard Neal [D-MA2]
Rep. Devin Nunes [R-CA21]
Rep. William Pascrell [D-NJ8]
Rep. Earl Pomeroy [D-ND]
Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY15]
Rep. Dave Reichert [R-WA8]
Rep. Peter Roskam [R-IL6]
Rep. Paul Ryan [R-WI1]
Rep. Linda Sánchez [D-CA39]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D-PA13]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA13]
Rep. John Tanner [D-TN8]
Rep. Michael Thompson [D-CA1]
Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R-OH12]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D-MD8]
Rep. John Yarmuth [D-KY3]


House Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on
Chair - Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA30]
Ranking Member - Rep. Joe Barton [R-TX6]
Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI]
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D-WI2]
Rep. John Barrow [D-GA12]
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]
Rep. Roy Blunt [R-MO7]
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R-CA45]
Rep. Frederick Boucher [D-VA9]
Rep. Bruce Braley [D-IA1]
Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX26]
Rep. George Butterfield [D-NC1]
Rep. Stephen Buyer [R-IN4]
Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA23]
Rep. Kathy Castor [D-FL11]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D-CO1]
Rep. John Dingell [D-MI15]
Rep. Michael Doyle [D-PA14]
Rep. Eliot Engel [D-NY17]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA14]
Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA11]
Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D-TX20]
Rep. Barton Gordon [D-TN6]
Rep. Raymond Green [D-TX29]
Rep. Parker Griffith [R-AL5]
Rep. Ralph Hall [R-TX4]
Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA36]
Rep. Baron Hill [D-IN9]
Rep. Jay Inslee [D-WA1]
Rep. Robert Latta [R-OH5]
Rep. Edward Markey [D-MA7]
Rep. Jim Matheson [D-UT2]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D-CA5]
Rep. Jerry McNerney [D-CA11]
Rep. Charles Melancon [D-LA3]
Rep. Christopher Murphy [D-CT5]
Rep. Tim Murphy [R-PA18]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC9]
Rep. Frank Pallone [D-NJ6]
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA16]
Rep. George Radanovich [R-CA19]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R-MI8]
Rep. Mike Ross [D-AR4]
Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL1]
Rep. John Sarbanes [D-MD3]
Rep. Steve Scalise [R-LA1]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL9]
Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ3]
Rep. John Shimkus [R-IL19]
Rep. Zachary Space [D-OH18]
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL6]
Rep. Bart Stupak [D-MI1]
Rep. John Sullivan [R-OK1]
Rep. Betty Sutton [D-OH13]
Rep. Lee Terry [R-NE2]
Rep. Frederick Upton [R-MI6]
Rep. Anthony Weiner [D-NY9]
Rep. Peter Welch [D-VT]
Rep. Edward Whitfield [R-KY1]