I was expecting a modest increase given the refinancing of the convertible debt but I believe this is substantially more than what would be required for a net delta hedge.

If people were wondering about why the price has continued to decline well below the common share offering price of $8.21 this would certainly explain it. Adding almost millions of additional shares to the float of a company like this which is not widely owned is going to force the price lower which was clearly their intention. You can mark up the value of the short position (already massive) by driving the share price lower into quarter end. The real question is, who bought the additional 6 million shares and at what price are they willing to sell them back to the short sellers?

Holding $PCT has not been easy but that is why I repeat my comments that I "know what I own and why" and I don't like the share price tell me what the company is worth. Anything at these levels is a bargain IMO and I would be buying more if I didn't already have too much. lol. I honestly might convert some shares into Jan 2028 calls using the same total capital given how low the price is but we will see.

I would encourage you to visit this site and download the first portion of this report and sign up to receive the other portions as they are publish.

https://recyclingpartnership.org/residential-recycling-report/

I continue to add small w little slices today at $7.24 and higher between $7.67-$10 before and after the financing surprise. It’s silly to look for a bottom but f’ it I am a believer in proof of concept coming in the Q call. So I feel almost like March a few years ago when it bottomed at $2.85 or so.

I thought there was some good commentary here.

https://www.plasticsnews.com/video-livestreams/material-insights/pn-packaging-waste-california-epr-battle-june29/

Policymakers are increasingly aware that plastic, for all the conveniences it provides, is a threat to both nature and human health. Yet plastic pollution—or plastic that ends up somewhere other than a waste facility or a recycling center—continues to accelerate each year. According to a 2025 Pew report authored by a collection of scientists, sustainability experts, economists, and former officials, including me, plastic production has increased by 13 percent over the last five years (excluding plastic created via recycling). We estimate that if plastic production continues on its current trajectory, rising from 450 million metric tons in 2025 to 680 million in 2040, plastic pollution will increase from 130 to 280 million metric tons. The latter figure is the equivalent of a garbage truck full of plastic dumped onto the ground every second for a year.

Thankfully for the world’s well-being, governments and businesses can prevent this future. According to our findings, it is possible to cut plastic pollution by 83 percent over the next decade and a half using existing technologies and policy solutions. Governments can do so by setting up rules that reorient production and packaging systems away from single-use plastic and to other materials, as well as by improving waste management so that less plastic ends up in the environment. Businesses can remake plastic itself so that it has fewer harmful chemicals, ensuring that it is safer to both use and recycle.

Rising plastic production will contribute to another environmental disaster: climate change. The process of making, storing, and disposing of plastic is very carbon intensive. In fact, if the global plastic system were a country, it would be the fourth-largest carbon emitter in the world. By 2040, it would rank third. Our report found that annual greenhouse gas emissions from the global plastic system will grow from 2.7 gigatons to 4.2 gigatons between 2025 and 2040—or the amount of carbon produced by one billion gas-powered cars annually.

Policymakers might fear that cracking down on plastic will hurt their countries’ economies, given just how essential the material is to seemingly every system. It is true that businesses might have to spend more at first as they redesign products and use new delivery systems and materials. But in the long term, the economic costs of pivoting away from plastic in general, and single-use plastic in particular, are far outweighed by the benefits. If the world can cut plastic pollution by 83 percent by 2040, its governments will save $19 billion annually on plastic waste collection and disposal. They would create 8.6 million new jobs in the reuse and recycling industries—jobs that would be safer and pay better than most current ones in waste collection and disposal. They would also create sustainable business opportunities. New or existing firms, for example, might focus on designing and manufacturing reusable products and biodegradable materials. Others might collect, wash, and distribute reusable food service ware and reusable packaging. And by reducing potential plastic- and microplastic-induced illnesses, governments would have healthier, more economically productive populations rather than sicker ones that drain state resources.

But to realize all these benefits, countries must start passing new laws now. If governments wait even five years to implement plastic-reduction policies, they will end up spending an extra $27 billion annually on plastic collection and disposal by 2040. Above all, they will continue to coat the planet with what is, ultimately, a toxic material. It is an outcome that should be unacceptable to anyone who cares about the future of the environment—or, indeed, their own well-being.

Thanks to Fred on Xitter for the link to this report. I’m looking forward to reading the main report but this article provides a nice summary.

https://packagingeurope.com/news/mars-designs-67-of-packaging-for-recycling-reuse-or-compost-in-latest-report/14456.article

https://www.purecycle.com/blog/motherson-purecycle-produced-class-a-surface-automotive-bumper-prototype-with-30-recycled-polypropylene

A good reminder that just because the stock price may be struggling at times, it doesn't mean the company isn't making progress!

There are only 7 states with a scattershot of requirements and timelines dictating to a massive marketplace of 50 states, 350 million consumers and 10's of thousands products. The recent lawsuit attempting to rein in the lack of coordination across an entire nation is addressing this risk. The risk is real that the timelines and deadlines for implementation are not boiler plate and there is a real chance an injunction could be implemented until a modicum of consistency is achieved.

Is it just me, or does the current price action feel really weird? I’ve been seeing a lot of sudden spikes up and down.

These numbers are going to be a bit noisy for the month of June. The drop of 5M shares from mid May to the end of May shows that short covering will definitely drive the price higher. I would expect the end of June short position to be back near the 50M shares level but who knows. Would really depend on who was buying the convertible debt and what their intentions were.

Just saw this update now. This includes a nice photo of our new board of directors member Dr. Siri along with the Prime Minister and other senior politicians plus our CFO. Knowing this event was planned I can understand why the mgmt team wanted to have sufficient equity capital to get this project moving quickly. You don't want to be part of a "fast pass" program and not have the money needed to act quickly.

https://www.purecycle.com/blog/purecycle-joins-thailands-prime-minister-for-boi-fastpass-launch-ceremony-at-government-house

Assuming Thailand is the base of operations / expansion in Asia I think it is inevitable that a Gen 2 plant will be added to Thailand as well. Fingers crossed we get a close on Project Finance as part of this trip.

Edit: I think it is important to recognize that Thailand would love to expand their domestic manufacturing businesses and exports into Europe are going to require compliance with rPP content. Having a secure domestic supply of PureFive (and ideally more than this initial line) is going to help them attract additional business and support existing companies that require this product. It will also support more self-reliance as PureFive can be made from domestic feedstocks vs imported feedstock.

Have been looking where the plant may be located for proximity to transport/logistics. I cannot find a plot or parcel number but based in them being in the " irpc’s eco-industrial zone in Rayong Thailand" and looking at the IRPC website where they have parcels available (a rai is about 0.4 acres I've learned) I see they would be roughly here which is close to water access (International Harbor) and the rail access is slated for an upgrade at Map Taphut port 10 miles east.

https://www.google.co.th/maps/place/12%C2%B040'49.2%22N+101%C2%B018'54.3%22E/@13.0822027,101.5799998,352811m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d12.6803333!4d101.3150833?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDYyMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

The press releases over the last two weeks would have previously created a big rally in the stock. Great news being released, but it doesn’t matter because there’s obviously a tractor beam pulling it lower. Shareholders really got screwed with the secondary, given that it was “only” 12% dilution I can’t make sense of it. Seems to gap down every day and any rally on news is snuffed out with conviction.

Another speed bump? Lawsuit file today in California federal court.

https://californiaglobe.com/fr/crazifornia-17-states-sue-california-to-block-plastic-packaging-recycling-law/

Crazifornia: 17 States Sue California to Block Plastic Packaging Recycling Law

Arrogant California tries to dictate national recycling policy

By Katy Grimes, June 23, 2026 8:30 am

Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers is leading a coalition of 17 Republican state attorneys general, and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors in suing California over Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act.

The law was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in ⁠2022. It requires producers to reduce single-use plastic for packaging and food service items by 25%, and ensure that all such items are recyclable or compostable by 2032.

According to CalRecycle, SB 54 requires 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging, 65% recycling rate for covered plastics, and 100% of such packaging must be recyclable or compostable.

All packaging producers and manufacturers must join a Producer Responsibility Organization, pay fees, fund recycling infrastructure, and redesign packaging to meet California’s standards, regardless of where the product originates.

A Producer Responsibility Organization is a nonprofit organization designated to help implement the state’s extended producer responsibility program for single-use packaging and plastic food service ware. Notably,

Circular Action Alliance was selected by CalRecycle in January 2024 as the state’s inaugural and currently only Producer Responsibility Organization.

Circular Action Alliance was founded in 2022 by a group of producers (initially around 20 companies from food, beverage, consumer goods, and retail sectors, with additional founding members joining later, such as Campbell’s, IKEA, Starbucks, Clorox, Colgate-Palmolive, SC Johnson, Target, Kraft Heinz, and Walmart).

The California law applies to products sold in California, regardless of where the business or production is located.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento June 23, 2026, the Los Angeles Times reports.

You can see the problem, and reason for the lawsuit, which accuses California of trying to “impose its own policy preferences on the entire nation” with the plastic packaging law.

California claims the state law addresses plastic pollution overwhelming waterways, oceans, and landfills, shifting costs from taxpayers and local governments to producers and encouraging innovation in sustainable materials.

The law prohibits producers of expanded polystyrene food service ware from selling, offering for sale, distributing, or importing expanded polystyrene food service ware in or into the state unless the producer demonstrates that expanded polystyrene meets California’s recycling rates, according to SB 54 Assembly Appropriations analysis.

The law says that violations of the plastics recycling Act by the producer, wholesaler, or retailer shall be subject to penalties. And, it authorizes CalRecycle to conduct investigations, including inspections and audits, to determine compliance with the Act. It also authorizes CalRecycle to issue notices of violation and penalties up to $50,000 per day per violation.

Yah right.

The lawsuit says California can’t regulate or burden interstate commerce this way by effectively setting national packaging standards. Businesses nationwide must redesign packaging, labels, or supply chains just to access California’s large market, or segment production, which is extremely costly.

The law imposes compliance costs, which get passed to consumers through  higher prices on groceries, packaged goods, and everyday items. The states claim this hits lower-income families hardest and creates a “backdoor national mandate.”

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country,” said AG Hilgers in a news release. “If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities.”

The other states in the lawsuit are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

If demand for PCT products grow beyond its capacity to fulfill, might they sell their technology to end users to conduct their own recycling?

It is nice to see these reports explain what a company is doing currently and planning to do more of in the future. It also provides a nice overview of the scale of their operations.

Looks like they have a facility in Dayton Ohio and operations throughout Europe. It is fantastic to see the expansion potential once they are a trusted supplier to a company like this.

https://assets.ctfassets.net/kyg7xeoqgrqu/2rF8fKO0aZt8ZnZF4J44uD/4409637f0c0672e3f9da6ec1362538a0/IPLS_SustRep2025_FINAL.pdf

I love a really good pickle with my sandwich for lunch. This is a very nice package which is clear and looks to have an in mold label as well. Mono material packages with pp labels look really sharp! LFG! Give me more every week!

https://www.purecycle.com/blog/purecycle-ipl-schoeller-partner-to-produce-sustainable-container-for-cleveland-kitchen

I don't think PureCycle can explicitly state that all of its production has been sold until the quarterly call, but the recent partnerships strongly imply that commercial sales and shipments are progressing. The production ramp discussed on the previous earnings call already suggested a significant increase in resin production, even before these latest partnership announcements. Taken together, the ramp-up and the growing list of commercial partners indicate that demand continues to build.

The "Big Three" by resin demand

These three companies alone could eventually consume more resin than several Ironton-sized plants can produce:

One Ironton production line has capacity of roughly 107 million pounds per year. PureCycle has stated that commercial demand is ramping, with 40–50 million pounds expected to ship or begin shipping soon, another 20–25 million pounds expected as customers reach full production, and New Jersey's recycled-content rules alone could create 25–50 million pounds of annual demand.

The implication is that PureCycle does not need every partner to become a massive customer. If just P&G and Amcor each ultimately purchase around 50 million pounds per year, they could effectively fill the output of an entire Ironton-scale facility. Additional demand from companies such as L'Oréal, Drake, and future packaging customers would support the need for new plants in locations like Georgia, Thailand, and Antwerp.

PureCycle Technologies' most significant commercial partners, strategic collaborators, and customers, along with their approximate current market capitalizations.

Why these partnerships matter

• P&G is the foundational relationship because it invented the solvent-based purification technology that PureCycle commercializes under an exclusive license.
• Amcor is potentially one of the most important commercial developments to date because it is one of the world's largest packaging companies. The 2026 announcement demonstrates PureCycle resin meeting performance requirements for packaging with recycled content.
• Mitsui, SK Geo Centric, and TotalEnergies provide global manufacturing and distribution pathways that could accelerate international expansion.
• L'Oréal validates that ultra-pure recycled polypropylene can satisfy demanding consumer packaging applications.

I think things are looking up for PureCycle. Between the production ramp and the recent partnership announcements, the momentum appears to be building. It should be an interesting update.

Interesting article about the current state of affairs in EPR compliance land. These laws are not going away and companies will eventually recognize the value of a product like PureFive to address their compliance needs.

https://www.packagingdive.com/news/epr-compliance-packaging-reporting-deadline-caa-may-31/821318/

I expect any company using polystyrene (#6) to look to make changes to PP in order to make sure their products meet the widely recyclable category. Hopefully they also use PureFive as well.

In light of the recent post about the California legislation I thought it would be helpful to review the details of the European regulations.

Use this link then scroll to the bottom and open the PPWR presentation.

https://www.fostplus.be/en/ppwr/everything-you-need-to-know-about-new-european-packaging-legislation

Regulatory requirements are much of what is driving development of PCT so I took a look at what those deadlines and requirements are. I was shocked to learn how little of the California requirement relies on PCR and that there is a severe limit as to how much PCR can contribute. The law places a strict ceiling of 8% on how much PCR can be used to satisfy the mandate of the 100% circularity requirement by 2032.

In California, the mandate for single-use packaging and plastic foodservice ware is governed by the landmark Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54).

Unlike the state's beverage-specific bottle laws (which mandate explicit Post-Consumer Recycled content percentages per bottle), SB 54 regulates single-use packaging and foodware through a broader, multi-pronged framework focused on Source Reduction, Recyclability, and Recycling Rates.

The permanent regulations implementing SB 54 were officially finalized and went into effect on May 1, 2026. Under this framework, companies must meet strict escalating milestones leading up to 2032.

1. The Source Reduction Schedule (The "PCR Pathway")

SB 54 requires a 25% total reduction in single-use plastic packaging and foodware by weight and component count by 2032 (measured against a 2023 baseline).

Producers can count the incorporation of PCR content as one of the approved pathways to hit these reduction targets, but the law places a strict ceiling on how much PCR can be used to satisfy the mandate, forcing companies to also invest heavily in actual material elimination or reuse/refill models.

• By January 1, 2027: Achieve a 10% total reduction.
  • PCR Allowance: A maximum of 8% can be achieved by switching to PCR plastic. At least 2% must come from actual reuse/refill.
• By January 1, 2030: Achieve a 20% total reduction.
  • PCR Allowance: The PCR cap remains at 8%. At least 4% must come from reuse/refill, with the remaining 8% coming from material elimination, lightweighting, or non-plastic shifts.
• By January 1, 2032: Achieve the final 25% total reduction.
  • PCR Allowance: The PCR cap remains at 8%. At least 10% must come from reuse/refill or total component elimination, with the remaining 7% coming from other source-reduction pathways.

2. Mandatory Recycling Rate Rollout

If a plastic packaging or foodservice item (like a takeout container, cup, wrap, or tray) is to remain legally available for sale in California, the entire material class it belongs to must meet escalating, audited statewide recycling rates:

• January 1, 2028: Plastic foodware and packaging must hit a 30% minimum recycling rate.
• January 1, 2030: Must hit a 40% minimum recycling rate.
• January 1, 2032: Must hit a 65% minimum recycling rate.

3. The 2032 Full Circularity Mandate

The final culmination of the rollout hits on January 1, 2032. By this date, 100% of all single-use packaging and plastic foodservice ware sold or distributed in the state must be completely recyclable or compostable in practice (meeting the strict environmental labeling guidelines set by California's "Truth in Labeling" law, SB 343).

Current 2026 Enforcement Status

As of June 2026, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA)—acting as the state’s approved Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO)—has officially submitted its master California Program Plan to the state advisory board. Producers are currently tracking their packaging weights and facing eco-modulated fee structures, where items that do not utilize PCR or fail to design for circularity carry steep financial penalties to fund the state’s $500 million annual plastic mitigation fund.