Ski, I've seen you refer to the following a couple of times "Let's say they pull off the 250tpd."
To what are you referring when you state 250tpd? I hope that you're not implying output? What is the current tpd input? Have there been PRs that I missed stating what the current input is? Woodbridge is only planned for 7,500 tpy dry output and I believe 6,700 tpy liquid output (per the Aug 08 quarterly). That dry amount would translate to about 30 tpd max at 250 days/year (or 25 tpd at 300 days per year, which I believe is the plan). And Woodbridge is at what, 11 tpd? I'd say that they're ramping up nicely. So what if the timeline missed by a month or so. Hey man, I'm not bitchin', I'm on your side. Just wanted to get a clarification.
According to El, we may hit the daily rate of 250 tons input this month. Would like to know when they hit 125, but it's probably a big big secret to keep the share price in check. But why would you want to do that? So with each successive day there is no daily production rate number, the stock is held in check and the bond holders rape the shareholders.
What is keeping management from this, unless it really isn't happening?
Mr. Gildea, in his Fall 08 conference call, gave guidance for processing 250 tons of input by 010109. It has been my understanding that Woodbridge was originally designed to process 250 tons per day of input, 5 days per week. Do the math for yearly. The throughput rampup was supposed to take 4 to 6 weeks from the initial semiworks run. If we consider the 031609 the semiworks debut at 132 tons of output equal to 132 x 250 / 103 = 320 tons input, we have on 031609 what was supposed to happen 010109, but 2 1/2 months later.
The conversion using HTLC to product was roughly 103 tons per day of combined solid and liquid output from 250 tons per day of input, although my understanding is the stoichiometry there is both variable and manipulatable. They have also endured some learning about how the quality and consistency of input affects the quality and consistency of output. That is good, and necessary. After all, this is what semiworks production is all about.
Although, in the absence of delivering against earlier guidance, who knows? There have been processing difficulties affecting both cycle time and throughput. I will leave it there because that is general knowledge and this is a public forum. I DO find this troubling from the standpoint that more focus may have been needed on the process itself during the buildout. That's just my opinion as an outsider. But then, where's my report from the company as an investor?
With their recent cash injection however, I believe they have a very good chance of tweaking their equipment and making good on their earlier guidance for production, albeit later. I don't think being late will hurt them in the long run in terms of viability, but it has whalloped them Q109 causing serious dilution, although their float value is still way below FMV, IMO. I expect a turnaround Q209, but because of recent events, I side with those from Missouri (I'll believe it when I see it). Part of this is emotion, but then experience is a good teacher, even if she is not kind.