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: PaperProphet who wrote (25228)	5/30/2012 4:02:40 AM
From: old 'n cranky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

" That Mr. Bordynuik found a way to get HDPE, LDPE and PP for free when others are willing to pay good money for those plastics would be very hard for me to swallow." According to this recently produced document JBI has "Processed approx. 2 million pounds of plastic waste to date". sec.gov Please indicate your beliefs about the following statements: True__ False__ JBI has not "Processed approx. 2 million pounds of plastic waste to date". (from 5/22/12 presentation) True__ False__ The approx. 2 million pounds of plastic waste to date that was processed was not HDPE, LDPE or PP. True__ False__ The approx. 2 million pounds of plastic waste to date that was processed was not free. True__ False__ The gas tanks that have been reportedly used for a large part of the feedstock for the process are either not HDPE, LDPE or PP or they have not been provided at no charge. True__ False__ There have been no gas tanks provided as feedstock. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX On a separate note, this makes no sense to me at all: "So you say that the permit says that only non-recyclable plastic can be used. Looking it up, I see, "JBI will carefully review potential sources of recycle [sic] grade plastic for use as a raw material feedstock." It looks Mr. Bordynuik likely wrote that and it looks like he meant "non-recyclable." It's certainly ambiguous as to whether that's required but you're assuming that "carefully review" means "only take." That certainly isn't clear." Whoever wrote it, it is a term of the permit that the NYSDEC issued. That permit calls for "prequalification" and a "review of the MSDS for the material where available". To suggest that the DEC had any purpose other than to require that the materials meet the required definition of the permit prior to their use......"only take" versus merely review, as you imply.......is EXTREMELY clear. What isn't clear is why neither party seems to be able to get the wording right. Apparently, and it isn't my fault that this requires some speculation, the material to be used is recycle grade plastics made of HDPE, LDPE or PP which have some characteristic other than their inherent chemistry that renders them non-recyclable OR for which there is no current method of OR market for recycling them. Do you have an opinion on this seemingly critical definition and can you cite the precise wording that supports that opinion?