Proof-of-Concept Plan — The First Dollar Spent
Proof-of-Concept Plan — The First Dollar Spent
> Status: Research complete > Last updated: 2026-03-04 > Core question: What does the $2-5M bench test look like, and what does it prove?
The Claw's entire $122M investment thesis rests on one unproven claim: plasma gasification works on wet, salty, biofouled ocean plastic and produces net energy. Nobody has ever tested this. Before spending $100M+ on a vessel, a focused proof-of-concept campaign must validate or kill this assumption. This document specifies exactly what that campaign looks like.
Table of Contents
1. What the PoC Must Prove 2. What the PoC Does NOT Need to Prove 3. Phase Structure — Three Stages 4. Stage 1: Feedstock Characterization ($50K-$120K, 2-3 months) 5. Stage 2: Bench-Scale Plasma Testing ($300K-$800K, 4-8 months) 6. Stage 3: Extended Pilot Campaign ($1-3M, 6-12 months) 7. Feedstock Sourcing — Getting Real GPGP Plastic 8. Where to Run the Tests 9. What Gets Measured 10. Kill Criteria — When to Walk Away 11. Parallel Workstreams During PoC 12. Budget Summary 13. Timeline 14. What Success Unlocks 15. Risk Register for the PoC Itself
1. What the PoC Must Prove
These are the existential questions. If any answer comes back negative with no engineering workaround, The Claw is dead.
| # | Question | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Does ocean plastic produce usable syngas in a plasma reactor? | If syngas yield or quality is too low, the energy loop fails |
| 2 | Is the energy balance net-positive? | If the reactor consumes more energy than the syngas produces, the vessel cannot self-sustain |
| 3 | What does salt contamination do to the reactor and syngas? | Salt could corrode equipment, poison catalysts, or produce toxic HCl at dangerous levels |
| 4 | Can biofouled, UV-degraded plastic be pre-processed into viable feedstock? | If pre-processing costs more energy than the feedstock contains, the economics collapse |
| 5 | What are the actual emissions? | If emissions exceed MARPOL Annex VI or London Protocol thresholds, the project has no regulatory pathway |
| 6 | What is the slag composition? | Must be inert and non-leaching for ocean disposal or port offloading |
2. What the PoC Does NOT Need to Prove
Equally important — keeping the PoC focused prevents scope creep and cost blowout.
| Not Required | Why Not |
|---|---|
| Marine operation (ship motion) | That's a Phase 2 engineering problem. Land-based testing is sufficient for PoC |
| Collection system design | The PoC tests processing, not collection. Feedstock arrives pre-collected |
| Full-scale throughput (100 TPD) | The PoC runs at 1-5 TPD. Scale-up engineering comes after validation |
| Methanol synthesis | A downstream optimization. Syngas quality data from the PoC informs methanol feasibility, but synthesis isn't tested here |
| Long-term reliability (10,000+ hours) | The PoC runs hundreds of hours, not thousands. Reliability is a Phase 2 concern |
| Commercial revenue generation | No credits are sold during PoC. Revenue model validation is separate |
| Regulatory approval | The PoC generates data FOR regulatory submissions, but doesn't seek approval itself |
3. Phase Structure — Three Stages
The PoC is deliberately staged so each gate validates the next investment. Money is spent incrementally — if Stage 1 reveals a showstopper, Stages 2 and 3 never happen.
Stage 1: Feedstock Characterization $50K-$120K 2-3 months
↓ GO/NO-GO gate
Stage 2: Bench-Scale Plasma Testing $300K-$800K 4-8 months
↓ GO/NO-GO gate
Stage 3: Extended Pilot Campaign $1M-$3M 6-12 months
↓ GO/NO-GO gate
→ Phase 2: Vessel acquisition & conversion engineering
Total PoC budget: $1.35M-$3.92M Total PoC timeline: 12-23 months
4. Stage 1: Feedstock Characterization
Purpose: Understand exactly what the reactor will be eating. Ocean plastic is not a uniform industrial feedstock — it's a heterogeneous mix of polymers, salt, marine organisms, UV-degraded fragments, fishing line, and mystery debris. Before firing a plasma torch, we need laboratory analysis of the actual material.
What Gets Tested
| Analysis | What It Tells Us | Method |
|---|---|---|
| Proximate analysis | Moisture, volatiles, fixed carbon, ash content | ASTM D3172 |
| Ultimate analysis | C, H, N, S, O, Cl elemental composition | ASTM D3176 |
| Calorific value | Energy content per kg (MJ/kg) — the fundamental input to energy balance | Bomb calorimetry (ASTM D5865) |
| Chlorine content | HCl risk in syngas — drives gas cleaning requirements | ASTM D4208 |
| Salt concentration | NaCl, MgCl₂, CaCl₂ levels after various rinse treatments | ICP-OES / ion chromatography |
| Heavy metals | Cd, Pb, Hg, Cr from marine absorption — affects slag and emissions | ICP-MS |
| Polymer identification | PE, PP, PS, PET, PVC, nylon ratios in the sample | FTIR spectroscopy |
| Biofouling mass fraction | How much of the "plastic" is actually barnacles, algae, biofilm | Manual sorting + gravimetric |
| Moisture retention | How much water remains after mechanical dewatering vs. thermal drying | Controlled drying experiments |
| Rinse effectiveness | Salt removal at various rinse durations and water temperatures | Conductivity testing of rinse water |
Feedstock Batches
Test at least three distinct batches representing different GPGP debris categories:
| Batch | Composition | Why |
|---|---|---|
| A: Hard fragments | PE/PP bottles, containers, rigid plastic pieces | Dominant by mass in GPGP macroplastic |
| B: Film and sheet | Bags, packaging film, degraded sheets | Dominant by count, low density, UV-degraded |
| C: Fishing gear | Nylon net, monofilament line, rope, buoys | ~46% of GPGP mass (Ocean Cleanup data), very different polymer chemistry |
Sample Requirements
- Minimum 500 kg total (150-200 kg per batch)
- Must be sourced from the actual GPGP or verifiably ocean-origin Pacific plastic
- Chain of custody documentation for credibility with future investors and regulators
- Stored in sealed containers to preserve moisture and salt content as-collected
Cost Breakdown
| Item | Cost |
|---|---|
| Sample procurement (see Section 7) | $15,000-$50,000 |
| Shipping and handling | $3,000-$8,000 |
| Laboratory analysis (commercial lab, all tests × 3 batches × 3 treatments) | $20,000-$40,000 |
| Data analysis and reporting | $10,000-$20,000 |
| Stage 1 Total | $48,000-$118,000 |
GO/NO-GO Gate
PROCEED if:
- Calorific value ≥ 25 MJ/kg (dry basis) for at least 2 of 3 batches
- Chlorine content manageable (< 2% by weight after rinse) — standard acid gas scrubbing handles this
- Salt reducible to < 0.5% by weight with practical rinse treatment
- No showstopper heavy metal concentrations that would make slag hazardous waste
- Calorific value < 20 MJ/kg across all batches (energy loop cannot close)
- Chlorine > 5% even after treatment (HCl destruction of downstream equipment)
- Salt irreducible below 2% (reactor corrosion and syngas contamination beyond engineering solutions)
5. Stage 2: Bench-Scale Plasma Testing
Purpose: Feed real ocean plastic into a real plasma reactor and measure everything. This is the core experiment — the one that validates or kills the entire project.
Test Facility
Primary option: PyroGenesis Montreal facility
PyroGenesis operates a 2 TPD prototype PRRS system at their Montreal headquarters. This is the same technology architecture planned for The Claw — graphite arc primary furnace + air plasma torch secondary gasifier. Using PyroGenesis's own facility provides:
- The actual reactor technology (not a proxy)
- Their engineering team operating the system (institutional knowledge)
- Direct comparison to Hurlburt Field MSW data
- Relationship building with the sole-source supplier
- PyroGenesis's recent EUR 379K (~$600K) contract for plastic waste "engineering and testing" with a European client (July 2025)
- Hurlburt Field's original $7.4M included construction; a test campaign at an existing facility is much cheaper
- Scope: engineering preparation ($50-100K) + test campaign ($150-400K) + analysis and reporting ($100-300K)
If PyroGenesis is unavailable or The Claw wants independent validation:
| Facility | Location | Capability | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraunhofer UMSICHT | Germany | Gasification testing infrastructure, commercial test campaigns | $500K-$1.5M |
| Advanced Plasma Power | UK | Gasplasma process, bench-to-pilot capability | $500K-$1M |
| InEnTec | Oregon, USA | PEM technology (different architecture but comparable data) | $400K-$1M |
| University partner (Southampton, McGill) | UK/Canada | Academic plasma labs, lower cost but slower | $200K-$500K |
Test Campaign Design
Duration: 4-8 months (including setup, calibration, testing, analysis)
Test matrix: Each feedstock batch (A, B, C from Stage 1) tested at three conditions:
| Parameter | Range | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Feedstock moisture | 5%, 15%, 30% | Bracketing the expected range after pre-processing |
| Feed rate | 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 TPD | Mapping throughput vs. efficiency curve |
| Torch power | 80%, 100%, 120% of nominal | Finding the optimal power/throughput ratio |
Instrumentation
Continuous monitoring during every test run:
| Measurement | Instrument | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Syngas composition (CO, H₂, CO₂, CH₄, N₂) | Online gas chromatograph | Every 5 minutes |
| Syngas flow rate | Mass flow meter | Continuous |
| Syngas calorific value | Calculated from composition | Continuous |
| Syngas temperature | Thermocouple array | Continuous |
| Acid gases (HCl, HF, SO₂) | FTIR continuous emissions monitor | Continuous |
| Particulate matter | Isokinetic sampling | Per test run |
| Dioxins/furans | EPA Method 23 sampling | 3 extended runs minimum |
| Heavy metals in emissions | EPA Method 29 | 3 extended runs minimum |
| Torch power consumption | Power meter | Continuous |
| Total facility power consumption | Power meter | Continuous |
| Feedstock mass flow | Belt scale | Continuous |
| Slag production rate | Gravimetric (weigh each tap) | Per tap event |
| Slag temperature | Optical pyrometer | Each tap |
| Electrode consumption | Measure before/after each campaign | Per batch |
| Reactor internal temperature | Multiple thermocouples + optical | Continuous |
| Sample | Analysis | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Slag | TCLP leaching test (EPA Method 1311) | Must pass to confirm inert disposal |
| Slag | Elemental composition (XRF) | Understand what's in the slag |
| Slag | Crystallography (XRD) | Confirm vitrification (glassy = inert) |
| Condensate water | Heavy metals, organics, pH | Wastewater characterization |
| Electrode stubs | Wear measurement, weight loss | Consumption rate calculation |
| Reactor interior | Visual inspection, photos, measurements | Corrosion/erosion assessment |
Key Data Products
At the end of Stage 2, The Claw will have:
1. Energy balance sheet — for each feedstock batch and condition: energy in (feedstock calorific value × mass) vs. energy out (syngas calorific value × volume) vs. energy consumed (torch + auxiliaries). The single most important number: net energy ratio.
2. Syngas quality profile — composition, calorific value, contaminant levels. This determines whether the syngas can run a gas engine directly or needs additional cleaning.
3. Emissions profile — complete stack test data meeting regulatory standards. This becomes the basis for MARPOL compliance arguments.
4. Slag characterization — leaching results, composition, vitrification confirmation. This determines disposal options (ocean-safe? construction aggregate? hazardous waste?).
5. Salt impact assessment — corrosion observations, acid gas levels vs. salt content, equipment condition after campaign.
6. Throughput-efficiency curves — how feed rate affects energy balance, syngas quality, and emissions. This informs optimal operating parameters for the vessel.
7. Electrode consumption rate — graphite electrode wear per tonne of ocean plastic processed. This is a major recurring cost and must be quantified.
Cost Breakdown
| Item | Cost |
|---|---|
| PyroGenesis engineering preparation | $50,000-$100,000 |
| Test campaign (facility time, operators, consumables) | $150,000-$400,000 |
| Instrumentation and monitoring | $30,000-$80,000 |
| Independent laboratory analysis (slag, emissions, condensate) | $40,000-$100,000 |
| Third-party verification of results | $20,000-$50,000 |
| Data analysis and reporting | $30,000-$70,000 |
| Stage 2 Total | $320,000-$800,000 |
GO/NO-GO Gate
PROCEED if:
- Net energy ratio > 1.0 (energy out > energy in) at ≥ 15% feedstock moisture for at least one batch
- Syngas calorific value ≥ 8 MJ/Nm³ (minimum for gas engine operation, after Hurlburt's proven 420 kW ICE)
- Dioxin/furan emissions < 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm³ (EU WID limit, 10× stricter than what PyroGenesis achieved with MSW)
- Slag passes TCLP leaching test (non-hazardous)
- No catastrophic equipment failure from salt or chlorine
- Net energy ratio < 0.7 across all conditions (even optimistic engineering improvements won't close the gap)
- HCl levels so high that gas cleaning costs exceed the value of the syngas
- Slag is classified hazardous waste (no ocean disposal, creates an intractable waste stream)
- Reactor shows severe corrosion after < 100 hours (salt destroying the system faster than it can process)
- Net energy ratio between 0.7-1.0 — the energy loop doesn't fully close but is close enough that diesel supplementation or pre-drying improvements could bridge the gap. Worth investigating but flags a risk for investor pitch.
6. Stage 3: Extended Pilot Campaign
Purpose: Move from "it works in a test" to "it works reliably." Stage 2 proves the chemistry; Stage 3 proves the engineering by running continuously for weeks at a time.
What Changes from Stage 2
| Stage 2 | Stage 3 |
|---|---|
| Short test runs (4-72 hours) | Extended continuous operation (2-4 weeks per campaign) |
| Manual feedstock preparation | Semi-automated pre-processing line |
| Focus on chemistry/thermodynamics | Focus on reliability/maintainability |
| Clean laboratory conditions | Simulated operational conditions |
| Individual test conditions | Optimized single operating point |
Test Campaign
Run three extended campaigns of 2-4 weeks continuous operation each:
| Campaign | Feedstock | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Campaign 1 | Best-performing batch from Stage 2 | Establish baseline reliability at optimal conditions |
| Campaign 2 | Worst-performing batch from Stage 2 | Stress test — understand lower bound of performance |
| Campaign 3 | Mixed feedstock (realistic GPGP blend) | Simulate real operations — variable feed composition |
What Gets Measured (in addition to Stage 2 instruments)
| Metric | Target | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Uptime | > 80% over 2-week campaign | Must demonstrate operational reliability |
| Mean time between failures | > 72 hours | Identifies weak points for marine engineering |
| Electrode consumption rate | < 2 kg per tonne feedstock | Drives recurring consumable costs |
| Slag tapping frequency | Characterize for marine operations design | Informs slag handling system design |
| Startup/shutdown time | < 4 hours cold start | Determines weather window utilization |
| Maintenance events | Log every intervention | Reliability engineering database |
| Thermal cycling tolerance | 3+ start/stop cycles per campaign | Simulates weather-forced shutdowns |
Pre-Processing Line Development
Stage 3 includes building and testing a basic pre-processing line:
Raw ocean plastic (as-collected)
→ Manual sorting (remove non-plastic: metal, glass, large marine organisms)
→ Freshwater rinse (2-stage, based on Stage 1 optimal rinse protocol)
→ Mechanical dewatering (centrifuge or press)
→ Size reduction (shredder → 50mm chips)
→ Thermal drying (waste heat from reactor exhaust)
→ Reactor feed hopper
The pre-processing line doesn't need to be marine-grade — it's a proof of concept for the process flow, not the final engineering. But it must demonstrate that raw ocean plastic can be converted to viable reactor feedstock with quantified energy and water inputs.
Cost Breakdown
| Item | Cost |
|---|---|
| Extended facility time (3 campaigns × 2-4 weeks) | $400,000-$1,200,000 |
| Pre-processing equipment (shredder, rinse station, dryer, centrifuge) | $200,000-$600,000 |
| Additional feedstock procurement (5-15 tonnes total) | $50,000-$200,000 |
| Continuous monitoring and instrumentation | $50,000-$150,000 |
| Reliability engineering analysis | $50,000-$100,000 |
| Independent emissions testing (certified stack tests) | $50,000-$150,000 |
| Comprehensive final report (investor-grade) | $50,000-$100,000 |
| Stage 3 Total | $850,000-$2,500,000 |
GO/NO-GO Gate
PROCEED to Phase 2 (vessel acquisition) if:
- Uptime > 80% across all three campaigns
- Net energy ratio confirmed > 1.0 at realistic moisture levels (15-25%)
- Emissions consistently within MARPOL Annex VI limits
- No equipment failure requiring > 48 hours repair
- Pre-processing line demonstrates viable feedstock preparation
- Electrode consumption rate quantified and economically acceptable
- Comprehensive dataset sufficient for DNV/Lloyd's AiP submission
- Uptime < 60% due to recurring equipment failures
- Energy balance only achievable with unrealistic feedstock preparation
- Emissions require gas cleaning equipment that doesn't fit on a ship
- Electrode or refractory consumption makes operating costs prohibitive
7. Feedstock Sourcing — Getting Real GPGP Plastic
The PoC must use actual ocean plastic, not virgin plastic or simulated waste. Investors and regulators will immediately discount results from proxy feedstock. Options:
Option A: Partner with The Ocean Cleanup ($15K-$50K)
The Ocean Cleanup regularly collects tonnes of GPGP plastic. They have established logistics for bringing it to shore (Long Beach, CA). While their collected material typically goes into commercial products (sunglasses, etc.), a research partnership to divert 500 kg-5 tonnes for laboratory testing is plausible.
Pros: Verified GPGP origin, chain of custody, established logistics, credibility by association. Cons: They may see The Claw as a competitor and refuse. Their material is already cleaned/processed for product use — may not represent raw conditions. Cost: Negotiable. Material itself has low commercial value as feedstock. Shipping from Long Beach to Montreal is the main cost.
Option B: Charter Collection Expedition ($30K-$80K)
Charter a research vessel from a Pacific coast port (Honolulu, San Francisco, San Diego) for a 1-2 week targeted collection trip to the GPGP periphery.
Pros: Freshly collected, unprocessed material preserving real moisture/salt/biofouling conditions. Custom sampling protocol. Documentary footage opportunity. Cons: Expensive, weather-dependent, logistically complex. Cost: Vessel charter $2,000-$4,000/day × 10-14 days = $20K-$56K, plus crew, fuel, and sampling equipment.
Option C: Oceanworks Commercial Supply ($10K-$30K)
Oceanworks (oceanworks.co) operates the largest commercial ocean plastic marketplace with 15,000 MT/month capacity. They offer a paid sampling program in 10-250 kg increments from verified ocean-origin sources.
Pros: Simple procurement, established supplier, various origins available. Cons: Material may be pre-processed (washed, sorted), reducing representativeness. Not necessarily from GPGP specifically — often coastal/near-shore collection. Cost: $2-$10/kg for raw uncertified material × 500 kg = $1K-$5K for material, plus shipping.
Option D: 5 Gyres Institute Partnership ($5K-$20K)
The 5 Gyres Institute conducts regular research expeditions to ocean garbage patches and collects samples for scientific analysis. A research partnership could provide characterized samples with existing analytical data.
Pros: Scientific credibility, samples with provenance data, potential co-publication. Cons: Small quantities (kg scale, not tonnes). Better suited for Stage 1 characterization than Stage 2/3 testing.
Recommendation
Stage 1: Use Options C + D for initial 500 kg of characterized samples. Fast, cheap, sufficient for laboratory analysis.
Stage 2-3: Use Option A (preferred) or Option B. Need 5-15 tonnes total, and GPGP origin matters for credibility. Approach The Ocean Cleanup first — frame it as "your collected plastic validates a new destruction technology" rather than competition. If they decline, charter a collection trip and document everything.
8. Where to Run the Tests
Primary: PyroGenesis Montreal
Address: 1744 William St, Suite 200, Montreal, QC H3J 1R4, Canada
Facility: PRRS prototype system, 2 TPD capacity, fully instrumented. The same graphite arc + APT two-step process planned for The Claw.
Why this is the right choice: 1. The actual technology — not a proxy reactor 2. PyroGenesis engineering team operates it — they know the system 3. Direct comparison to Hurlburt Field data (same technology, different feedstock) 4. Builds the supplier relationship critical for Phase 2 5. Montreal is accessible (international airport, university talent pool) 6. Canadian government funding (NRC IRAP, SIF) may subsidize the test campaign if structured as a PyroGenesis partnership 7. PyroGenesis is already doing plastic feedstock testing (EUR 379K European contract, 2025) — the capability exists
Risk: PyroGenesis's financial fragility. If the company enters creditor protection during the test campaign, work could be interrupted. Mitigation: structure the contract with milestone payments, and secure data rights to all results regardless of company status.
Backup: Independent Academic Facility
If PyroGenesis is unavailable:
| University | Lab | Capability | Country |
|---|---|---|---|
| McGill University | Plasma Processing Lab | DC plasma torches, waste treatment research | Canada (Montreal) |
| University of Southampton | Microwave Plasma Lab | Non-equilibrium plasma gasification | UK |
| TU Delft | Large-Scale Energy Lab | Gasification and pyrolysis testing | Netherlands |
| University of British Columbia | Clean Energy Research Centre | Gasification, waste-to-energy | Canada |
9. What Gets Measured
The Six Critical Numbers
Everything in the PoC campaign distills to six numbers that determine The Claw's viability:
| # | Metric | Target | Deal-Breaker |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Net energy ratio (energy out ÷ energy in) | > 1.5 | < 0.7 |
| 2 | Syngas LHV (MJ/Nm³) | > 10 | < 6 |
| 3 | Dioxin/furan emissions (ng TEQ/Nm³) | < 0.05 | > 0.1 |
| 4 | Slag TCLP leaching | Pass (non-hazardous) | Fail |
| 5 | Electrode consumption (kg/tonne feedstock) | < 1.5 | > 5.0 |
| 6 | Operational uptime (Stage 3) | > 85% | < 60% |
Secondary Metrics (Important but Not Existential)
| Metric | Purpose |
|---|---|
| HCl in syngas (ppm) | Gas cleaning system sizing |
| Slag production rate (kg slag / tonne feedstock) | Storage and disposal logistics |
| Water consumption (L / tonne feedstock) | Freshwater requirements on vessel |
| Pre-processing energy (kWh / tonne raw plastic) | Energy balance completeness |
| Startup time (cold start to steady state) | Weather window utilization |
| Noise levels (dB at various distances) | Marine wildlife impact assessment |
| CO₂ emissions per tonne plastic processed | Carbon credit calculation basis |
| Syngas H₂:CO ratio | Methanol synthesis feasibility (Phase 1.5) |
10. Kill Criteria — When to Walk Away
The PoC exists as much to kill bad ideas as to validate good ones. Intellectual honesty about failure modes is essential — investors respect rigorous go/no-go discipline.
Hard Kills (Abandon the project)
| Finding | Why It's Fatal |
|---|---|
| Ocean plastic syngas LHV < 6 MJ/Nm³ | Cannot run a gas engine. No energy recovery possible |
| Net energy ratio < 0.5 at all conditions | Even with perfect engineering, the physics doesn't work |
| Slag classified as hazardous waste | Creates a waste disposal problem worse than the original plastic |
| Emissions contain persistent organic pollutants above regulatory limits | No regulatory pathway. The solution is worse than the problem |
Soft Kills (Pivot or redesign)
| Finding | Implication |
|---|---|
| Net energy ratio 0.7-1.0 | Energy loop doesn't fully close. Vessel needs supplemental power (diesel, solar, wind). Changes economics but not fatal |
| Salt causes accelerated corrosion | Need saltwater-grade materials throughout. Adds $5-15M to CAPEX. Not fatal but changes cost model |
| Fishing net nylon performs poorly | May need to exclude nylon from plasma feed and handle separately (pyrolysis, mechanical recycling). Reduces feedstock flexibility |
| Electrode consumption > 3 kg/tonne | Graphite electrode cost becomes a significant OPEX driver ($500K-$1M/year). Not fatal but erodes economics |
Proceed with Caution
| Finding | Action |
|---|---|
| Net energy ratio 1.0-1.5 | Works but thin margin. Optimize pre-processing, investigate enriched oxygen gasification, consider ORC waste heat recovery to improve ratio |
| HCl > 1000 ppm in syngas | Standard acid gas scrubbing handles this, but adds equipment cost and complexity |
| Uptime 60-80% | Reliability needs work but not a fundamental barrier. Identifies specific components for marine-grade engineering |
11. Parallel Workstreams During PoC
While the plasma testing runs, other critical path items can advance simultaneously:
11A: Legal Opinion on London Protocol ($50K-$100K, 3-6 months)
Commission a formal legal opinion from a specialist maritime environmental law firm on whether plasma gasification at sea constitutes "incineration" (prohibited by the London Protocol) or "processing" (not addressed). This is a critical regulatory question that cannot wait for PoC completion.
Recommended firms: Ince (London), HFW (London/Singapore), Norton Rose Fulbright (maritime practice), Reed Smith (maritime).
Deliverable: Written legal opinion suitable for submission to flag state authorities and classification societies.
11B: Classification Society Pre-Engagement ($10K-$30K, 2-3 months)
Initiate informal discussions with DNV or Lloyd's Register about an Approval in Principle for a plasma gasification vessel concept. Classification societies offer pre-engagement consultations to identify major concerns before formal AiP submission.
Purpose: Identify any classification showstoppers early. Get guidance on what data the PoC needs to produce for a successful AiP application.
11C: Verra Methodology Scoping ($20K-$50K, 3-6 months)
Engage Verra's Plastic Program team to discuss methodology pathways for ocean-based plasma destruction credits. Determine whether existing methodologies (PWRM0001 for collection, PWRM0002 for recycling/recovery) can be extended, or whether a new methodology is required.
Timeline reality: A genuinely new Verra methodology takes 2-5 years. Starting the conversation during the PoC phase ensures the methodology is progressing when The Claw needs it.
11D: PyroGenesis Licensing Negotiation (Ongoing)
If Stage 2 runs at PyroGenesis Montreal, the relationship is already established. Begin licensing discussions in parallel:
- Perpetual, irrevocable license to PRRS technology for marine applications
- Full engineering documentation, manufacturing drawings, operating procedures
- IP escrow provisions (auto-transfer if PyroGenesis enters creditor protection)
- Right to sublicense for fleet expansion
- Spare parts supply agreement with pre-negotiated pricing
11E: Team Assembly
During the PoC, recruit the core team for Phase 2:
| Role | Why Now |
|---|---|
| Naval architect (vessel conversion specialist) | Needed to begin hull selection and conversion design |
| Marine engineer (shipboard systems) | Translates PoC results into marine engineering requirements |
| Environmental consultant (MARPOL, London Protocol) | Integrates legal opinion into regulatory strategy |
| Financial modeler | Updates economics with real PoC data |
| Communications director | Begins media strategy, documentary partnerships |
12. Budget Summary
Conservative Estimate
| Stage | Cost | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1: Feedstock Characterization | $50,000 | 2 months |
| Stage 2: Bench-Scale Plasma Testing | $320,000 | 5 months |
| Stage 3: Extended Pilot Campaign | $850,000 | 7 months |
| Parallel: Legal opinion | $50,000 | 3 months |
| Parallel: Classification pre-engagement | $10,000 | 2 months |
| Parallel: Verra scoping | $20,000 | 3 months |
| Contingency (15%) | $195,000 | — |
| Total Conservative | $1,495,000 | 14 months |
Mid-Range Estimate
| Stage | Cost | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1: Feedstock Characterization | $85,000 | 3 months |
| Stage 2: Bench-Scale Plasma Testing | $550,000 | 6 months |
| Stage 3: Extended Pilot Campaign | $1,500,000 | 9 months |
| Parallel: Legal opinion | $75,000 | 4 months |
| Parallel: Classification pre-engagement | $20,000 | 3 months |
| Parallel: Verra scoping | $35,000 | 4 months |
| Contingency (20%) | $453,000 | — |
| Total Mid-Range | $2,718,000 | 18 months |
High Estimate
| Stage | Cost | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1: Feedstock Characterization | $120,000 | 3 months |
| Stage 2: Bench-Scale Plasma Testing | $800,000 | 8 months |
| Stage 3: Extended Pilot Campaign | $2,500,000 | 12 months |
| Parallel: Legal opinion | $100,000 | 6 months |
| Parallel: Classification pre-engagement | $30,000 | 3 months |
| Parallel: Verra scoping | $50,000 | 6 months |
| Contingency (25%) | $900,000 | — |
| Total High | $4,500,000 | 23 months |
Budget vs. Funding Sources
| Source | Realistic Amount | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| Founder + angels | $200K-$500K | High |
| ARPA-E or DOE BETO grant | $500K-$2M | Medium |
| Canada NRC IRAP (via PyroGenesis partner) | $200K-$500K | Medium-High |
| Schmidt Marine Technology Partners | $100K-$300K | Medium |
| NOAA Marine Debris Program | $500K-$2M | Medium |
| Crowdfunding campaign | $200K-$1M | Medium |
| Total Reachable | $1.7M-$6.3M | — |
13. Timeline
Month 0-1: Secure funding, sign contracts
Month 1-3: Stage 1 — Feedstock procurement and characterization
Month 2-3: GO/NO-GO Gate 1 (feedstock viable?)
Begin parallel workstreams (legal, classification, Verra)
Month 3-9: Stage 2 — Bench-scale plasma testing at PyroGenesis Montreal
Month 9-10: GO/NO-GO Gate 2 (plasma processing viable?)
Publish preliminary results (investor deck, technical paper)
Month 10-20: Stage 3 — Extended pilot campaigns
Month 20-22: Final analysis, investor-grade reporting
Month 22-23: GO/NO-GO Gate 3 (operational viability confirmed?)
→ Phase 2 fundraising begins with hard data
Critical Path
The longest sequential chain is: feedstock procurement → Stage 1 → Stage 2 → Stage 3. Everything else runs in parallel.
Fastest possible timeline: 12 months (all stages compressed, no delays). Realistic timeline: 18 months (includes procurement delays, equipment issues, weather windows for ocean collection). Worst case: 24 months (including PyroGenesis scheduling conflicts, feedstock sourcing delays, facility modifications).
14. What Success Unlocks
A successful PoC produces a package of hard data that transforms The Claw from a concept into a fundable project:
For Investors
| Data Product | What It Proves |
|---|---|
| Energy balance sheet | The physics works — the vessel can self-power from ocean plastic |
| Emissions profile | The project is environmentally sound, not just removing one pollutant to create another |
| Uptime data | The technology is reliable enough for continuous ocean operations |
| Cost per tonne data | Unit economics are knowable and favorable |
| Independent verification | Results are trustworthy, not just proponent claims |
For Regulators
| Data Product | What It Enables |
|---|---|
| Emissions data vs. MARPOL limits | Flag state and IMO engagement with evidence |
| Slag TCLP results | Waste disposal pathway classification |
| Process description with operational data | Classification society AiP submission |
| Legal opinion + technical evidence | London Protocol compliance argument |
For Partners
| Data Product | Who Cares |
|---|---|
| Syngas quality and H₂:CO ratio | Methanol synthesis partners |
| Plastic destruction verification | Verra, plastic credit buyers |
| Electrode and consumable data | PyroGenesis (supply planning), alternative suppliers |
| Pre-processing requirements | Collection system designers, vessel naval architects |
| Total carbon balance | Carbon credit methodology developers |
Specifically, Success Enables:
1. Series A fundraising ($15-30M) with credible technical backing 2. DNV/Lloyd's AiP submission with required data package 3. PyroGenesis technology license negotiation from a position of knowledge 4. Corporate sponsor recruitment with a proven technology narrative 5. Verra methodology development with real emissions and destruction data 6. Media campaign launch — "We proved it works" is a powerful story
15. Risk Register for the PoC Itself
The PoC is a project with its own risks, separate from The Claw's overall risk profile.
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyroGenesis refuses to participate | Low | High | Alternative facilities identified (Section 8). Their financial need makes refusal unlikely |
| PyroGenesis enters creditor protection during campaign | Medium | High | Contract with data rights clause. IP escrow. Maintain relationship with key engineers |
| GPGP plastic samples unavailable | Low | Medium | Multiple sourcing options (Section 7). Pacific coastal plastic is an acceptable proxy for early stages |
| Stage 1 reveals showstopper in feedstock | Low | High | This is the POINT of Stage 1 — better to know at $50K than at $50M |
| Stage 2 shows negative energy balance | Low-Medium | Critical | The math strongly suggests positive, but this is unproven. If it fails, The Claw concept needs fundamental redesign (supplemental power, different technology) |
| Funding delayed or insufficient | Medium | High | Staged approach means partial funding can still run Stage 1 + Stage 2. Stage 3 can be deferred. Minimum viable PoC: $500K |
| Results are ambiguous (neither clear pass nor clear fail) | Medium | Medium | Pre-defined GO/NO-GO criteria prevent endless "maybe." Extend testing within budget if warranted, but don't chase marginal results indefinitely |
| IP dispute with PyroGenesis over PoC data | Low | Medium | Clear data ownership clause in contract. The Claw owns all data generated from its feedstock |
| Key personnel departure at PyroGenesis | Medium | Medium | Pierre Carabin leaving would be a blow. Build direct relationship. Independent verification reduces dependency on any one person |
| PoC succeeds but funding environment changes | Medium | Medium | External risk. Mitigation: maintain investor relationships throughout PoC. Publish results in technical journals for credibility that persists regardless of market timing |
Sources
Plasma Gasification Pilot Costs
- GS Platech 10 TPD plant: $3.9M construction (ResearchGate)
- Hurlburt Field PRRS: $7.4M turnkey (PyroGenesis official)
- PyroGenesis EUR 379K plastic waste contract (July 2025, GlobeNewsWire)
- ResearchGate construction cost scaling curves for plasma treatment plants
Feedstock Sourcing
- Oceanworks commercial ocean plastic marketplace (oceanworks.co)
- Ocean Legacy Foundation plastic testing laboratory
- The Ocean Cleanup Mega Expedition data
- 5 Gyres Institute research programs
Classification Society AiP
- Lloyd's Register AiP service description (lr.org)
- RINA Innovative Projects AiP (rina.org)
- ClassNK AiP service (classnk.or.jp)
- DNV AiP news releases (dnv.com)
Verra Plastic Credits
- Verra Plastic Program Fee Schedule v1.2 (verra.org)
- PWRM0001 Plastic Waste Collection Methodology v1.1
- PWRM0002 Plastic Waste Recycling Methodology
Energy Balance Reference Data
- ACS Omega 2024 — Plasma gasification of plastic waste
- Utashinai plant operational data (54% energy export ratio)
- PRRS Deep Dive — Hurlburt Field 420 kW output
- Energy Balance document — existing knowledge base entry
Bench-Scale Plasma Testing Precedents
- FFP2 mask plasma gasification (MDPI Sustainability, 2023)
- RDF CO₂-thermal plasma gasification (ScienceDirect, 2023)
- Mixed plastic pilot scale 15 kg/h (ACS Omega, 2024)
- Marine vessel plasma gasification model (MDPI Designs, 2020)
Research compiled March 2026. This document is the specification for The Claw's first major capital deployment. Every number should be challenged, every assumption tested. The point of the PoC is to turn these estimates into measurements.