Doug's Dynamic Drivel

Comment from ross moyer
Time: 9/6/2004, 10:19 am

It is estimated by respected analysts like Matthew Simmons, that within a few years Hubbert’s Peak will be reached and there will be a daily shortfall of between 15 and 25 million barrels off Oil. That means that th e conversion process you describe must increase from its end of year levels by roughly a thousand times. Any comments?

Comment from Doug Alder
Time: 9/6/2004, 10:45 am

Don’t forget this process was a only a test plant designed only to process the waste from one (albeit very large) turkey processing plant. Up that to plants built around the country in every major city to process the entire organic waste from each city and you should meet your projected output need easily. Additionally Hubbard’s peak refers primarily to relatively easily extracted oil reserves, and if the recent announcement by Pemex is true then Hubbard’s peak will be considerably delayed (the estimate new reserves equal to that of Saudi Arabia in deep sea beds off Mexico).

As the price of oil increases due to a growing scarcity (a la Hubbard’s peak)huge oil reserves that are not so economical to extract – specifically the Alberta tar sands and the Venezuelan tar sands will become more attractive.

Comment from Michael Azar
Time: 9/23/2004, 4:43 pm

About global warming. Wouldn’t the above ground waste (sewage, turkey offal, landfill, etc.) eventfully decay releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases? If these wastes were instead converted to light crude and eventually petrol, the amount of greenhouse gases released after a catalytic conversion through an internal combustion engine would be greatly diminished. Can’t a case be made that wide acceptance of this process would decrease the amount of greenhouse gases released by man into the atmosphere? It would certainly reduce the amount of fossil fuels brought to the surface through oil exploration, each barrel of which introduces new (read increased) potential greenhouse gas emissions. At the very least, this technology would be “emissions neutral” if adopted on a wide scale.

Comment from Doug Alder
Time: 9/23/2004, 5:06 pm

You got it Michael – I’ve been trying to promote htis since I first read about it. Now that the first trial plant at the turkey processor is finished and an unqualified success it needs to be leapt on vigorously. It certainly solves the landfuill crises most cities have as well.

Comment from Stetts Stettler
Time: 10/5/2004, 8:43 pm

Unqualified success? Hardly. The advertised capacity was 500 bbl/day, not 100. Besides, I found one source that indcates they’re selling it to the same folks that buy used cooking oil.
I’ve spent the better part of two years trying to find some independent source to verify the quality of the product. No luck.
In all cases, everyone that’s replied to me says “IF it works, it will be wonderful.” I agree. Trouble is, I can’t find anyone who has touched, smelled, or tested the plant’s output to verify it’s as advertised.
I am beginning to believe it’s a garden-variety scam financed by tax dollars. Please, somebody prove me wrong–but use actual data, not wishes.
Thanks. Stetts

Comment from Tracy Warren
Time: 10/12/2004, 5:03 pm

I can’t prove you wrong Stetts, I can only hope that your misgivens do not bare out. Changing World claims that they are keeping things under their hat until they have patents and have figured out a way to sell or lease the technology. This seems like a plausible excuse. I first heard of this company through the Discover article and have been trying to learn more but there dosn’t seem to be a lot out of info out there. I read another article today,…it wasn’t a current, from June of this year. The jist of which was that while the plant was slightly profitable in producing oil, it was saving CON Agra the cost of disposal of turkey refuse. I guess the plant was just too small to be a real oil producer and it still cost about $ 5.00 a barrel more to convert the waste into oil than to drill for it. At current prices that would still be a profit of $ 30.00 a barrel. I’ll keep my healthy skeptism and watch to see how it plays out.

Comment from Dennis Jacques
Time: 10/17/2004, 6:54 pm

The Discovery article indicated that CTW had received a small government grant to help them get a pilot plant (The PA plant?) going. CTW hasn’t had a notable press release in almost a year, and that one only defended against US PIRG’s charges that CTW was receiving massive amounts of corporate welfare. I find it difficult to believe that patents on such potentially earthshaping technology is taking such a long time… particularly if the fed’s have a finger in it.
As I’m unable to find any recent articles with any substance, I wonder what is currently happening at CTW…. I’m going to be very disappointed if this turns out to be another perpetual motion scam…

Comment from Peter Moore
Time: 10/18/2004, 9:59 am

Just a quick response to Stetts: a later Discover article gave a brief update on the technology. It quoted my old thermodynamics professor from MIT, Jefferson Tester, as saying the technology had great merit. To give you a feel for his credentials/opinions, he spent about a week of class deconstructing various new energy schemes and showing how they weren’t realistic (at the time, he didn’t have much nice to say about the hydrogen economy), so I’ll take his opinion as qualified. However, like you I’d like to hear what a refiner thinks of this stuff. If it’s close to cooking oil, it could probably be used in diesel, but I’d like to hear a diesel manufacturer say that.

Comment from Toni Assael
Time: 10/23/2004, 9:58 am

I heard about this technology on the radio a few months ago. I looked up the website and was disappointed that there wasn’t more current information. While reading the messages on this blog, another innovative inventor came to mind. Preston Tucker also introduced advanced technologies that worked. At that time the “Big 3″ dominated and they fiercely resisted changes that would affect their bottom line. They went after Tucker tooth and nail to insure their domination. Although they destroyed his company, Tucker’s innovations are still used in the cars we drive today. I’m sure OPEC, the big oil companies and probably several governments and politicians want us to believe it is science fiction that the vast amount of waste we produce could actually become a renewable source of energy. I’ll check back periodically.

Comment from Doug Alder
Time: 10/23/2004, 10:07 am

Toni – while what you say is possible I doubt it. One of the main investors in this venture is Warren Buffet’s son, which implies possibly Buffet himself. As Warren is one of the wealthiest persons on the planet I doubt any company or group of companies could do that to an investment he believed in and which, if the technology does prove out, would be worth far more in the long run than all those oil companies are today.

Comment from Richard Wilson
Time: 10/30/2004, 6:44 pm

I also have been trying to get info out of their website. My last question to them about three months ago was whether they had any more sites pending. They indicated they did. Then a piece on their company showed up on television within the last month. I can’t remember whether it was the history or science channel but I do remember the commentary indicated they were working on four more sites, three in the US and one in Italy. I wish they were a little more forthcoming in updates because it is truely exciting technology and it would be most deplorable if it was a scam.

Rich Wilson

Comment from Stetts Stettler
Time: 11/13/2004, 9:10 pm

For Mr Jacques: Patents are now much easier to get and are awarded for most anything. Patent delay is a lousy excuse.
For Mr Moore: I wrote Dr Tester–what he actually said was “great idea IF it works.” He never smelled, felt, checked, investigated or anything. I wish he had.
For Mr Alder: No Buffet has a nickel in it. It’s all name-dropping. Buffet is an advisor, nothing more.
I must confess I have a huge stake in the outcome: I bet my sister a Diet Coke that it’s a fraud. Now every time I visit, she’s there with an empty can coozie ribbing me about it.
I say again–this is great stuff IF it works. It keeps looking, smelling and quacking like a gov’t grant project going the way of an ordinary gov’t fraud, waste or abuse. I very much wish it would work. It would be just fantastic. Remember, I’m actually trying to find someone with a smidgen of actual proof it DOES work. Read that Discover article, and it’s sequel, again, closely. It’s all regurgitation of what CWT alleges. I’ve never found an independent verification of even the 100 bbl/day of whatever it is they’re producing.
Any help sincerely appreciated. Take care. Stetts

Comment from John Gasell
Time: 1/12/2005, 4:20 pm

Discover Magazine advised me Jan.2005 they had yet to revisit the CWT plant for determining operational efficiency etc. I know they have changed the process name to Thermo Conversion Process and are selling product to a “blender” as a mix for asaphalt road building. If the product was of a quqlity stated it could be used in the Carthage Electric’s diesel engines a few miles from the plant.

Comment from John C Moricoli Jr
Time: 1/31/2005, 11:23 am

There is another article out about this company in this months Fortune Small Business which states that their per barrel cost is “…nearly $80 per barrel,…”. If the direct cost to implement this process is $80 per barrel it will be a long time before this technology goes anywhere. I have always felt that the economic viability of this process and the enviromental benefit would be in converting the enormous amount of waste generated by people rather than burning it, disposing of it in landfills, etc.. I would think that the economics of this would fit when compared to operating a municipal landfill the size of the one in New York or any other large city. Oh, by the way the article also says that the company is staying afloat thanks to a $10MM grant from the Department of Energy. My guess is there were probably others in the past by which they kept their head above water.

Comment from George Catt
Time: 3/25/2005, 4:34 am

So, why don’t someone on this forum go visit the MO site? I would think a company with this projected potential would welcome inverstor interest.

Starting to sound more like a scam with each new message. OTOH,I’d hate to miss such an opportunity. OTOOH, the first guy in pool usually gets swamped when the big boys jump in. If it works, the start-up company will probably go under when Exxon figures out a more efficient way to do it.

George

Comment from Phillip Evans
Time: 3/30/2005, 3:07 pm

I too have been disappointed with the lack of info about this process. However, I do know about the patent process, and it does take a veeeerrryyy long time to have your claims exaimned. Curently, the average is (18) months. Keep in mind that these people Must Not disclose to the public as to what their claims are, and their manufacturing methods are. The patent only excludes others from using the exact methods that are claimed. Brian Appel bought another mans patent, and I am sure that the process has been enhanced through R&D, thus creating more claims and more patent applications. The black-out is troubling but I haven’t given up yet.

Comment from John Gasell
Time: 4/14/2005, 4:53 am

A recent note from a CWT source stated no other plants were to be built in the US and future plants would be abroad where the economics were more favorable. I read this to be a high energy tax country willing to exempt their fuel. CWT has the former Carter advisors out beating the “bushes” for tax credits or other federal aid. James Woolsey says they can not compete with out the tax relief given the ethanol and soy bean ester groups,
In summary, this “alternative” fuel wont burn either unless subsidized by the tax payer.

Comment from Alan Page
Time: 4/30/2005, 10:27 am

The Kansas city Star had an article on this process this month. They have a very bad odor problem with the process and the supply material. However, the process is making 270bpd out of about 300tpd of animal waste. The town is up in arms.

The process is costing $80/bl and CWT is selling the #2-6 fuel oil to a contract written for $40/bl.

I earlier wrote to Brian Appel that their decision to do this massive scale up was environmentally and socially unfortunate. That a better mode would have been to establish a number of smaller demo plants to run on one substrate each to get the bugs out.. The odor is just one of the many bugs that might ahve shown itself if they had been more thoughtful.

This technology needs to be a neighborhood resource processor that our and global children learn to use and become comfortable with. It is the most efficient system that I have found and it now seems to work. I did visit the site in June of 2003.

Comment from Richard Stephens
Time: 10/11/2005, 4:06 pm

George,
I went to Carthage this summer for the express purpose of visiting their facility. No entry was permitted. Insurance etc. was the song and dance that they gave me.

Comment from Michael
Time: 10/21/2005, 3:39 pm

One of the problems they (CWT) had was that they built the turkey-processing plant believing that the US was going to pass a law stopping the use of turkey remains as food for animals. If the US had passed that law, then the waste stream (turkey remains) would be much cheaper. (no other use for it). As the law didn’t get passed, they have to pay more for the remains.

Comment from CFP
Time: 11/11/2005, 5:58 pm

Note on the cost: It was originally estimated that RES would be paid $24 a ton to take the turkey waste. Unfortunately the Federal Government dropped the ball: they still allow the feeding of animal waste to farm animals, in spite of mad cow disease. So now RES must pay $52 per ton of waste. That is a difference of $76/ton or about $38/barrel of oil. Take that out of the $80/barrel and you have a reasonable $42/barrel. Just using free waste would bring the cost down to $54/barrel. Add to that the $42/barrel subsidy (courtesy of the new Energy Bill) and you have a downright profitable $12/barrel!

Comment from Jodi Frederick
Time: 11/12/2005, 1:41 am

I am a college student in FSJ Canada, currently doing a research project on the Thermal Conversion Process. I believe that this is going to be the beginning of a whole new resolution. I am so happy that there are people out there doing something to help our environment. Instead of just sitting back and waiting for the answer to our oil and gas shortage problems.
However, I was wondering how this is going to effect our economy as a whole. If the Thermal Conversion Process is going to tragically decrease our oil and gas exploration. Do you think that having all these plants is going to be able to replace all the jobs that will be lost? Do they have a solution to this problem when it will occur in the future.

Comment from Robert Keefer
Time: 11/21/2005, 10:46 pm

In reading many comments, very few seem to mention the big guys, like the major oil companies or OPEC. Even with very limited information, I tend to think the process works, at least to some extent but may need more R and D. However, what is worrisome is, even after successful patenting their processes, will big majors step in and buy them out, lock, stock and barrel and shut the development down? The major win because they cut out another form competition. They win, society loses.

Think back when the oil companies bought up the solar cell manufactures back maybe 20 years ago. And what happened to solar cell development? I think it has been very limited, improvement wise including cost. Who benefited? Not the public.

Is history going to repeat itself? I wonder.

Comment from P. Calvert
Time: 11/23/2005, 11:59 am

According to their website,Pres/COO officer Lipshutz’s background was Wall Street investment banking,(Sollie, Merrill, Bear Stearns) if so; why have they not put together a project financing to build more plants ?. Lots of junk bond buyers out there looking for high yield.

Comment from Phillip Evans
Time: 11/28/2005, 8:11 am

Hey,it’s nice to see more people are interested in TCP. Just a couple of comments to add to the soup. About the solar panel topic and BIG OIL. Solar panels are available eveywhere. In fact BP Solar produces and sells exellent products. Solar is really only good for heating water. Solar still has the same problems of storage. Glad to see the student from Canada intrested in this process, however I would not worry much about job losses. Just think what Standard Oil did to the New England Whale oil business of the late 19th century. It was good for the whales then, and TCP will be good for our waste issues now.
CWT needs to stop looking to the Federal govt. for assistance, other than Patent enforcement, and start looking at govt. at all levels, as potential customers. All over this country govts. are privatizing portions of their services, as they should. Waste water systems and garbage collection are all going up for bid. Brian Appel claimed he would become Gods recycler. I would think CWT could partner with private companys already doing business with govts., to provide waste streams for the process. The process has to be practical, and part of the solution, not the total replacement for exploration.

Comment from Dean Gokel
Time: 12/3/2005, 10:27 am

Here is some food for thought about Changing-world technologies. My name is Dean Gokel (randigokel @ earth link.net). I am a professional research scientist holding degrees in both chemistry and geology. The last 18 years has been spent running my state certified environmental laboratory in North Carolina. Changing World is keeping “tight lipped” for good reason, they are mostly smoke and mirrors living “high off the hog (turkey) based solely on hype. They are doing quite well at it, no need to crash the party so to speak, 60 million and climbing requires no boat rocking. I wish my laboratory could generate the millions they have, but we are professional researchers willing to validate our or anyone who boasts technical claims with our chemists and analytical equipment, no hype, no bigger than life journalism just science. I have spent millions of my own money (all of my money) on our biomass program and can report very detailed information as to what chemicals and fuels generated in our bio-reactor. We named it the “Waste Elimination Biostill.” WE DO NOT CLAIM wild things like “anything to oil” as it is not possible to convert lead into gold!

We can only bio-react organic rich materials like poultry, hog and cattle wastes, hog lagoon wastes, organic chemical wastes etc. We are more than willing to share our analytical data, including gas chromatograph mass spectroscopy. Anybody wishing to touch, taste, smell or see our clean burning fuels are welcome to come to Raleigh North Carolina to see it FIRST HAND. I have retained all test batch samples and data for ALL QUALIFIED investigators to review. I hope Stetts Stettler can read this! (his comments published 10/5/04)

The BIGGEST problem with our technology is that the local government found out about us. Less than 24 hours after our head line new story on WRAL 5 August 29, 2005 (see their web site for past stories) guess what happened? We were slapped with an injunction to STOP MAKING BIO-SYNTHETIC FUEL AND WERE ORDERED TO DISSASEMBLE our reactor. We were found GUILTY of being a “NUISENCE” THERE WERE NO SPECIFIC REGULATIONS SITED OR VIOLATED IN OUR CONDUCT OF WORK. Think about it, the government LOOSES major tax revenues when individuals can generate their own fuels instead of going to the gas station. They do not get paid road tax per gallon, they do not get land fill taxes, they do not get to fine hog lagoons for spills and generally do not want to loose control. WE ALL are being held hostage. A gas station typically makes 3 to 5 cents per gallon over what they buy it for, but the government makes 39 cents in taxes plus they get under ground tank registration fees and fines in the for leaks here in North Carolina ($10,000 or more per incident when surface water is impacted, federal clean water act). Our bio-gasoline costs less than 30 cents per gallon to produce and the state of North Carolina remembers their high school history lessons, specifically the Boston Tea party (over taxation with out representation).

We were performing a demonstration of our technology to some potential investors as I was trying to raise capital because I went broke because of this project. Biomass conversion is REAL SCIENCE, the Federal Government is spending millions in their own research labs, but just like the cure to cancer, it is better to perpetually study, than to Solve a problem. When the public finds out the truth, the government looses billions, they just will not let this happen with out a fight. I welcome ALL who are truely interested in investing or validating ONCE AND FOR ALL that biomass conversion to fuels and chemicals of economic value CAN AND DOES work, just not in the manner that Changing World has tried to develop. They have way too much energy input, both in heating and pressurizing for a truely profitable process, ever!

According to FIRST HAND information, their oil is not high quality and will never be utilizing the process they developed. I am sure none of you will ever get to the “bottom line” of their story. Please keep reading their hype then COME SEE ME, I have the real answer. I too have filed a patent and am waiting for this long process to finish. Once a patent has been filed, one can operate as if the patent has been approved, no need to hide behind it. I do fine it fascinating that the patent office replied to my patent in less than 30 days. They granted a domestic license BUT denied me the opportunity to release this information to international markets. They sited …”existing laws relating to espionage and the National Security of export of technical data.” They further stated I must read and comply with “other agencies, particularly the Office of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State (with respect to Arms, Munitions and the Implements of War (22 CFR 121-128)The office of Export Administration, Department of Commerce (15 CFR 370.10 (j)) the office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of treasury (31 CFR Parts 500 +) and the Department of Energy.” Why did they respond to my patent so quickly? Answer, details presented in my patent application PROVED we are for real and this SCARES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!! I hope readers will contact me personally so I can Prove the science of biomass conversion is REAL and CWT is not as grand as the journalists claim. I ask where’s the science?

Comment from Pheyama
Time: 9/5/2007, 3:17 pm

Hey Deano! You have been on my mind for a little while now and I stopped by what used to be GeoChem about two months ago and there was no sign of familiarity. Today I was sitting and thinking,”what if I put his name on the internet and see what happens. “Wow!” You did good! I hope that you don’t let anyone shut you down. I know if anyone can make this work, you can. Congratulations and the best of luck with all that you do. You have worked hard for this. Did you every get to race your car? How are Kevin, Robin and the gang? Are you still working together?

I am excited for you and if you can do something to change this fuel situation, go for it!

How is your little girl? She is probably not little any more.

We’ve always had this mental connection and I guess this is why you have been heavily on my mind. I am happy knowing that life for you is good. Tell your mom, dad and grandma that I said hello.

Fe

Comment from Mark Allchin
Time: 6/19/2008, 6:09 pm

Hello Mr D Gokel
I wonder if you could give us all an update on how things are going.
Kind regards Mr M Allchin