Turn Anything Into Oil

In an industrial park in Philadelphia sits a new machine that can change almost anything into oil. Really.

"This is a solution to three of the biggest problems facing mankind," says Brian Appel, chairman and CEO of Changing World Technologies, the company that built this pilot plant and has just completed its first industrial-size installation in Missouri. "This process can deal with the world's waste. It can supplement our dwindling supplies of oil. And it can slow down global warming."

Here's the link to the whole article......
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm

Read more...

"The potential is unbelievable," says Michael Roberts, a senior chemical engineer for the Gas Technology Institute, an energy research group. "You're not only clean ing up waste; you're talking about distributed generation of oil all over the world."

"This is not an incremental change. This is a big, new step," agrees Alf Andreassen, a venture capitalist with the Paladin Capital Group and a former Bell Laboratories director.

Making oil and gas from hydrocarbon-based waste is a trick
that Earth mastered long ago. Most crude oil comes from one-celled plants and animals that die, settle to ocean floors, decompose, and are mashed by sliding tectonic plates, a process geologists call subduction. Under pressure and heat, the dead creatures' long chains of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon-bearing molecules, known as polymers, decompose into short-chain petroleum hydrocarbons. However, Earth takes its own sweet time doing this--generally thousands or millions of years--because subterranean heat and pressure changes are chaotic. Thermal depolymerization machines turbocharge the process by precisely raising heat and pressure to levels that break the feedstock's long molecular bonds.

The federal government has granted more than $12 million v to push the work along. "We will be able to make oil for $8 to $12 a barrel," says Paul Baskis, the inventor of the process. "We are going to be able to switch to a carbohydrate economy."

•  I am not sure about the claims

  made regarding the process or its feasibility - I am not an organic chemist...

  But the vacuous and ignorant caricature of the geological processes that give rise to oil deposits makes me very suspicious - suspicious that these people, or their publicists, have no fucking clue what they are talking about:

  Most crude oil comes from one-celled plants and animals that die, settle to ocean floors, decompose, and are mashed by sliding tectonic plates, a process geologists call subduction.

  Apples and oranges. Yes, most crude oil is formed during anoxic decomposition of one-celled organisms. But NO!!!! it is not related to suduction!

  The one-celled organisms die, and are buried by sediment in sedimentary basins in rifts, on continental margins, in shallow seas, in river deltas, and in the channel deposits formed during the migration of rivers back and forth across floodplains. Continual subsidence and burial of those organic rich deposits bring the deposits into the proper temperature/pressure regime. the temperature and pressure regimes in subduction zones are ALL WRONG for oil formation - otherwise, the Caribbean, Japan, and other areas famous for subduction zones would be oil-rich - they are not. Oil is found in sedimentary basins, NOT in subduction zones. Where the two coincide, there MIGHT be oil...but only in the sedimentary basins, NOT in the Subduction-related formations and features.

  by RedDan on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 01:51:06 AM PDT

  •  You are right

    Some one once claimed that oil and natural gas were not produced by organic decomposition, but by oozing up from the mantle over the 4.5 billion years of the evolution of the earth.  He was looking for evidence of this theory by looking for oil around meteor crater impact sites.

    That was several years ago, and I have heard nothing of this theory since then.

    by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 01:59:20 AM PDT

    •  Thomas Gold - Abiotic Oil

      He died last year but some people still do research on it overseas

      http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/2004/10/critique-of-thomas-golds-claims-for.html

      http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/2004/08/thomas-golds-abiogenic-oil-theory.html

      http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/1999/08/abiotic-origin-of-methane-and-oil-in.html

      http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/1999/08/cornell-news-thomas-gold-obituary.html

      http://www.rense.com/general58/abioticoilscience.htm

      by lawnorder on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 02:06:56 AM PDT

    •  Hydrocarbons DO

      actually come from the mantle, and are released/formed during the serpentinization of mantle peridotite...but the volumes and rates, and locations of concentrations of hydrocarbons, simply do not support Gold's contention that oil comes from the mantle.

      These conclusions are supported by isotopic analysis of hydrocarbons recovered from numerous locations.

      by RedDan on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 04:36:20 AM PDT

      •  Do you have a link to this info ?

        I would like to add it to my blog.

        You could do a diary on Abiotic oil... Hint, hint!

        by lawnorder on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 05:03:03 PM PDT

•  Diaried, dissapointing, debunked

  Original diary
  Daily Kos :: Anything Into Oil: From Turkey to Crude Oil

  Dissapointed supporters
  Changing World Technologies: Innovative Turkey-To-Oil Plant Eats Money, Spits Out Fowl Odor KAREN DILLON / Kansas City Star 12apr2005

  CWT debunked..
  lawnorder: Comments on 'Changing World Technologies' Plan to Turn Garbage into Oil PAUL PALMER, Ph.D., CHEMIST / Getting To Zero Waste 9apr2005

  by lawnorder on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 02:04:19 AM PDT

  •  good info, thanks

    figured I'd throw up the story, I mean post the story, seems that they're throwing up from the stench in Carthage, Missouri

    by Glickman on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 02:15:56 AM PDT

  •  so are these guys just con-men?

    are buffet and conagra involved or was that part just made up as part of the con?

    why are they making up shit like this?

    by mindtrafficcontrol on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 02:30:27 AM PDT

    •  Buffet too ?

      I wouldn't go as far as say it is a con job.

      It seems the main reason CWT is losing money is because Bush refuses to put Mad Cow prevention measures in effect (hence the turkey waste costs CWT $45 per pound instead of being free) and giving sensible tax cuts for energy alternatives (hence their planed move to Ireland with gives said breaks and forbids any turkey meat in animal feed).

      IMHO it is a cool process, but I'm told it is not that new - it was called pyrolisys and exists since the 1920's.. And it certainly can not turn all garbage into oil.

      But when I put my tinfoil hat with turkey baster antenna ;-) the fact that the first pilot plant was developed in a Navy lab, that they do NOT seek any IPO or investors and that ex-CIA James Woosley is among the top investors makes me wonder if this is not a sofisticated front company built to deny Peak Oil will be a problem...

      by lawnorder on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 02:41:51 AM PDT

      •  oooh. nice deductive line split.

        you could very well be right. you have links to woosley investing in the technology? would love to waste some time reading about it.

        damn, anymore you have to see in five dimensions to drive through this shitstorm.  

        by Back in the Cave on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 03:23:09 AM PDT

        •  Here

          I think it comes from the Discovery article

          Anything Into Oil: From Turkey Parts to Crude Oil! - The Spirit of Maat 8jun03

          James Woolsey, former CIA director and an adviser to Changing World Technologies, maintains that this technology offers the beginning of a way out of the United States' dependence on foreign oil.

          
          But lo and behold, I had also this on my blog, mentioning Woolsey and Oil:

          Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections - Simulated oil meltdown shows US economy's vulnerability

           Former CIA Director Robert Gates sighs deeply as he pores over reports of growing unrest in Nigeria. Many Americans can't find the African nation on a map, but Gates knows that it's America's fifth-largest oil supplier and one that provides the light, sweet crude that US refiners prefer.
          It's 11 days before Christmas 2005, and the turmoil is preventing about 600,000 bpd from reaching the world oil market, which was already drum-tight. Gates, functioning as the top national security adviser to the president, convenes the Cabinet to discuss the implications of Nigeria's spreading religious and ethnic unrest for America's economy.

          Should US troops be sent to restore order? Should America draw down its strategic oil reserves to stabilize soaring gasoline prices? Cabinet officials agree that drawing down the reserves might signal weakness. They recommend that the president simply announce his willingness to do so if necessary.
          The economic effects of unrest in faraway Nigeria are immediate. Crude oil prices soar above $ 80 a barrel. June's then-record $ 60 a barrel is a distant memory. A gallon of unleaded gas now costs $ 3.31. Americans shell out $ 75 to fill a midsized SUV.

          If all this sounds like a Hollywood drama, it's not. These scenarios unfolded in a simulated oil shock wave held in Washington. Two former CIA directors and several other former top policy-makers participated to draw attention to America's need to reduce its dependence on oil, especially foreign oil.
          Fast-forward to Jan. 19, 2006. A blast rips through Saudi Arabia's Haradh natural-gas plant. Simultaneously, al Qaeda terrorists seize a tanker at Alaska's Port of Valdez and crash it, igniting a massive fire that sweeps across oil terminals. Crude oil spikes to $ 120 a barrel, and the US economy reels. Gasoline prices hit $ 4.74 a gallon.

          Gates convenes the Cabinet again. Members still disagree on whether America should draw down its strategic oil reserves. Homeland Security chief James Woolsey, who ran the CIA from 1993 to 1995, argues that a special energy czar is needed with broad powers to bypass the bureaucracy and impose offshore oil drilling and construction of refineries

          Former CIA chief Woolsey described as "relatively mild" the scenarios that the National Commission on Energy Policy and the advocacy group Securing America's Future Energy simulated. Both groups are pushing for reduced dependence on conventional oil.
          "It was striking that by taking such small amounts off the market, you could have such dramatic impact" on world oil prices, said Robbie Diamond, the president of Securing America's Future Energy.

          Richard Haass was a top adviser to former Secretary of State Colin Powell until 2003. The simulation taught him how little influence policy-makers would have in reversing an oil shock wave.
          "I think where most of the work has to happen now, both intellectually and politically, is on demand" reduction, Haass said.

          by lawnorder on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 05:18:41 PM PDT

      •  I would also suspect...

        Frank Carlucci and the nice folks over at The Carlyle Group having a share in something like this, too.

        by rgilly on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 05:15:45 AM PDT

  •  Not debunked

    I'm confused: the Kansas City article doesn't debunk the technology at all. The first two sentences strongly support it:

    CARTHAGE, Mo. -- The eyes of the world have been on this Missouri town for several years to see if a New York businessman can really turn turkey leftovers into oil.

    The answer: A resounding yes. In fact, a revolutionary plant is turning 270 tons of poultry waste into 300 barrels of crude oil every day.

    The article does support the "disappointing," though - on the economic and community-relations side.

    On the plus side, organic wastes are some of the nastiest environmental problems on a local level. Even if the method only broke down organic wastes, without producing excess oil, it would still be beneficial - the constituent elements and small molecules of Turkey guts have far less environmental impact than Turkey guts. If they can fix the stench.

    There is a risk buried in Paul Palmer's commentaries that seems very real; but it's not about the viability of the chemistry. It's societal. There is a risk that garbage-into-more-benign-forms-including-oil might take on the role for recycling that Hydrogen technology has taken on for automotive efficiency. It could become the "distant technology solution" that anti-environmental lawmakers latch on to in order to avoid environmental legislation needed in the here-and-now. "Sure, we're environmentalists - it's just that instead of regulation, we're investing in this stuff with a  15-20 year time horizon"

    by HeyThereItsEric on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 06:22:21 AM PDT

    •  Not the Kansas City article

      That one is under the "dissapointing" heading.

      Debunking is done by the 3rd link by a PhD in chemistry:
      

      • According to the article CWT boasts of a 100% conversion rate: 100 tons of turkey guts yield 100 tons of oil
        
      • Also, on the initial Discovery article it boasted that the process could convert metal to Oil to what the chemistry guy just joked: "Are you familiar with the centuries old quest for the philosophers stone ? This process cand outdo it, according to the article"

      by lawnorder on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 05:00:28 PM PDT

•  An old article

  But the company that owns the patent, renewable environmental solutions, LLC was in the news back in may. according to a company press release, picked up and published in pure energy systems news, they opened up a plant in Carthage, MO that is producing all of 100-200 bbl/day (500 bbl peak) of a kind of crude oil used for heating.  they call it "crude oil no. 4," whatever that means. on top of the oil, they are making fertilizer, natural gas, and solid carbon.

  according to the press release:

  TCP (Thermal Conversion Process) is more than 80% energy efficient. In addition, it generates its own energy to power the plant, and uses the steam naturally created by the process to heat incoming feedstock, In addition, TCP produces no emissions and no secondary hazardous waste streams.

  
  

  doesn't look like it's going to wean us off our saudi oil nipple anytime soon, but at least they're out pushing a renewable. i'd be interested to see how cost effective building a plant that can only produce 500 bbl/day is.
  
  

  by Back in the Cave on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 02:32:48 AM PDT

  •  19 patents filed

    http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/1999/01/patents-by-or-referring-to-baskis-1976.html

    by lawnorder on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 02:45:22 AM PDT

    •  hahaha

      i just read that mindfully.org copy of the old kansas city star article about the stench.  

      it answered my question above about the yield. how they were counting on the feds making it illegal to feed dead animals to live ones, making them have to pay $52 per ton for the guts instead of getting paid $24 to haul it to carthage.  that and the congress snubbed kit bond and conagra by excluding this product from the list of biofuels in bill they passed, which screwed them out of $42/barrel in subsidy.  now, it costs $80/bbl to make and they're selling it for $40/bbl.

      amazing though, they're the only missourians that can smell that bad and still get screwed on a regular basis. (sorry, it's expected for old jayhawks to take random pot shots at our ol' slave state pals)
      
      

      by Back in the Cave on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 03:08:33 AM PDT

•  Soylent Green

  is PEOPLE!!!  (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.  Diary title made me think of that.)

  by beemerr90s on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 03:34:45 AM PDT

•  One of these?

  

  by House on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 06:18:25 AM PDT