Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : The Microcap Kitchen: Stocks 5¢ to $5 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rawnoc who wrote (92332)	12/1/2009 11:43:49 PM
From: zen_lunatic420	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 120415

Rawnoc, I think most second graders realize that plastics are petroleum derived. The science of reverting plastics back to oil is nothing new either....but efficiency and quality are the obtacles of it ever being practical on a commercial scale. It's certainly well known that plastics can be broken back down into short chain hyrocarbons....it's just the purity of those oils that's in question....and the management of the byproducts of the process. I doubt is that their process can be scaled-up and efficiently produce an oil pure enough to meet API standards. I doubt i can be done without giving off hazardous byproducts that would require expensive air controls and hazardous waste disposal costs. These are the issues I was referring to when I spoke of a "materials balance". While a process can work great at the bench scale, when operations are scaled-up and real world factors come into play, you'll find your process yielding contaminated product and giving off hazardous pollutants. Essentially my point is, I suspect most believers in JBII's P2O don't even know enough about organic chemistry to know how much they don't know about organic chemistry. Let me know when they get the air permits for their first system and sell their first batch to a commercial refinery.

To: Rawnoc who wrote (92332)	12/2/2009 12:44:29 AM
From: Rawnoc	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 120415

From JBII CEO, Hello XXXX, It's important to understand that we are not reinventing the wheel. The big processor works. Period. By adding the catalyst to the system we have changed the dynamics of the processor significantly. Without a proper effective catalyst any plastic 2 oil system is inefficient, useless, and garbage. They have appeared over and over for the past 20 years looking for capital, then disappear. This is a viable process that is already a done deal. The fuel derived from the catalyst is already ASTM certified so we are not going through a "does it work?" test. We are going through a "I want this to run everywhere" testing and documentation. Our large processor is in third party validation and testing. so I am referring of all the possible documentation, analytics and safety information required to run these processors in volume in multiple states and countries with the least permit delays possible. The more data the better. We retained a state-certified chemical analysis company that is providing engineering analytics and results for chemical, mechanical and environmental data. They are doing extensive analysis,material balances with all the variables present in many plastics, feedstock and output analysis, safety systems and permitting. This data and documentation will allow us to deploy these processors quickly. It's important we do this right. I am constantly faced with the decision to make it run for a month, week, day, 10T, 100 barrels, 1000 barrels (what is the magic number?) continuous and then report and produce run ticket to prove it's the real thing, then go through the proper documentation process, tear down, rebuild, then roll out . It would delay us as I don't have a second one while the first is torn apart for all the analysis and poss. changes required to maximize deployment. Regards, John Bordynuik CEO JBI