So why don’t you just do that publicly?
You already made a thread on this forum last year called “The most advanced extraction system on the market” and it’s just full of the same marketing claims. No proof whatsoever.
And what was even more disturbing than the lack of proof was the lack of input from any actual 3rd party operators of your equipment, until now.
We’ve finally had the first person (Wolfe), to my knowledge, step into the light saying they run one of your big machines and what he/she has to say ain’t exactly good when held up against your marketing claims.
Here are some of your past claims about throughput:
It’s a little slippery IMO, for you to change to quoting throughput in strictly pounds/hr when there are so many quotes of you citing 1000#/day.
Yea lately you have been sticking to the 100#/hr figure, but by Wolfe’s statement it sounds like even skilled operators aren’t able to hit that. Maybe another readjustment of the marketing claim is in order?
There are lots of instances of you advertising this as 1000#/day but you don’t push the fact that you really mean “day” like 24 hours continuous operation, not a standard 8 hour work day nearly as hard.
Also the fact that you’re not including startup/shutdown time, which can be significant, doesn’t really get mentioned much either, just 1000#/day.
Then there’s the fact that you cite those figures with a total work crew of 5 (3 running the machine and 2 packing tubes). That is a large work crew to get through such a small amount of material into crude in that long of a period. It’s actually really bad IMO.
I would love to ask an experienced ethanol or heavy hydrocarbon extraction company how much biomass they could get through working 24hrs straight with 5 man teams.
And just to be sure, as has already been discussed in this thread, these numbers we’re taking about are for crude production. There really isn’t enough supply/demand pressure for dabbing oil at these throughputs at this point in time in any markets.
But let’s move on.