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.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steady_on who wrote (15163)	12/12/2011 4:18:22 PM
From: SteveF	Respond to of 53574

Way back in the initial permit process there was wording that required JBI to show that the output product wouldn't wind up as waste. Link please. What do you think the leftover residue is?

To: Steady_on who wrote (15163)	12/12/2011 5:14:01 PM
From: PaperProphet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

Re:<"Yes they did. Way back in the initial permit process there was wording that required JBI to show that the output product wouldn't wind up as waste. I took the liberty of translating that into marketable.> Are you talking about this line?: "Submit an application for a BUD in order to establish that the outgoing raw fuel oil is not a solid waste for purposes of handling and transport, and that the raw oil will meet general acceptability criteria as a feedstock for fuel refining." sec.gov I can see your point. However just because the NYDEC requires Mr. Bordynuik to meet criteria doesn't mean it actually meets them. Keep in mind the SEC requires the filings be accurate and Mr. Bordynuik isn't meeting that requirement either. It would be good to know if Mr. Bordynuik's BUD application showed any evidence that the raw output oil met generally acceptable criteria as a feedstock for fuel refining. Does anyone have an e-mail for the NYDEC? I'll ask unless someone else wants to ask.