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 (25131)	5/27/2012 1:31:50 AM
From: PaperProphet	Respond to of 53574

"If you think that you have a better number that you can justify please post it and show how you got it." Well again, Steady_on, nobody here believes that number has any basis and Mr. Bordynuik hasn't given any evidence that any number should be used. He appears to have pulled that "less than $10/bbl" figure straight out of his butt and that's what shareholders are all using as a starting point. Don't you think it would be better for Mr. Bordynuik himself to some rationale for a number...and since he hasn't done so for over three years, don't you think it's time that some shareholder shuffle up to him, head held humbly low, and ask him for some rationale? You obviously don't feel it's futile at all to keep guessing at each other so you're encouraging us to guess. And while you don't give us any rationale for your figures, you want someone to show you a baseless number for which no rationale exists other than pointing out that, pound for pound, scrap plastic costs as much as diesel...which you reject because Mr. Bordynuik told you he could get it for free. Do you have any figures that don't ultimately tie to "Mr. Bordynuik said..."??

To: Steady_on who wrote (25131)	5/27/2012 11:53:16 AM
From: 1Coffeehound	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

No need for "thin air". You can use any number that you think makes sense. Just show why it makes sense. Is that asking too much? Apparently, it is. You've made no attempt to justify the fabled $10/bbl number. You simply accept it because Honest Jonny, who is facing fraud charges for fabricating numbers, told you that it's so. You don't see the incongruity in that? Really? LOL!

To: Steady_on who wrote (25131)	5/27/2012 1:41:06 PM
From: jimmenknee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53574

The only fair way to assert a number is to attach numbers to particulars involved in the process. 1. Receipt of raw materials 2. Sorting and/or preparing raw materials to process 3. Processing raw materials to produce the output 4. Taking the output and transporting or storing until sold So in JBI's case, you have 3 different facilities involved all with labor and overhead. 1. Direct/Indirect Labor 2. Utilities, equipment upkeep, building upkeep The only thing offered against $10/barrel is 2 employees' labor costs at the processing site. That's silly on its face. One big example of head scratching is the overhead-- specifically the rent charges -- at the MRF. e.g. let's say for the sake of discussion, the MRF rent is the average @ $9,000.00 per month. On a 30 day month that equates to $12.50 per hour. Let's assume the MRF can prepare 1 ton of plastic an hour. That would equate to the lease portion of the overhead adding $2.10/barrel to the CoGS assuming an 8lbs/gallon conversion. Can the MRF receive, sort, prepare and shred 1 ton of plastic an hour? If not, at what rate can they? How many employees are needed? How much electricity, water, etc.? If you want to be fair, that level of parsing is needed-- adding pieces and moving foward -- not using $10 and subtracting your way backwards IMHO You never responded to this, which I think is fairer given you'll eventually have to account for the totality of costs: siliconinvestor.com Care to try to engage in that discussion now?