Ocean Polymers & InEnTec — Deep Dive
Ocean Polymers & InEnTec — Deep Research Dossier
WARNING: OffshoreAlert investigation linked this company to Richard Fagan, a convicted investment fraudster fined GBP 62M. The company has operated 8+ years with zero operational infrastructure.
Ocean Polymers Limited
| Detail | Value |
|---|---|
| Company Number | 10736198 (UK Companies House) |
| Incorporated | 24 April 2017 |
| Registered Office | Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 9DL |
| SIC Code | 38320 — Recovery of sorted materials |
| Status | Active (private limited company) |
| Founder/CEO | Paul Rodger — property developer, no engineering/science background |
| Fleet | ZERO vessels. None ever built, purchased, or sailed. |
Richard Fagan Connection
OffshoreAlert identified Ocean Polymers as "Richard Fagan-linked." Fagan is a Dubai-based British/Irish national fined GBP 62M by a Gibraltar court for swindling investors in the Kijani Commodity Fund ($123M from pension funds). OffshoreAlert described Ocean Polymers as "a seemingly fraudulent British company that has raised GBP 1.4 million from investors."Vessel Designs (All Conceptual — None Built)
OP1 — River Mouth Prototype
- Converted tanker, ~60m, 10 tonnes/day via 2-feed PEM. Never built.
OP2 — Mid-Range
- Almost no public information. Likely exists only as a pitch deck slide. Never built.
OP3 — "The Super Solution"
- Recommissioned supertanker, ~300m, 125–200 tonnes/day. Never built.
InEnTec PEM Technology (Separate, Legitimate Company)
InEnTec Inc. — MIT spinout (1995), Richland, Washington. ~$230M raised from Waste Management Inc., Lakeside Energy, American Securities. Founded by Daniel R. Cohn (MIT Plasma Science), Jeffrey E. Surma (PNNL), Charles H. Titus (GE).
How the PEM Works
Combines DC Plasma Arc (10,000°C+) with AC Joule-Heated Molten Glass Bath. Pregasifier converts ~80% of organic content to syngas; remaining material enters main chamber at 1,200–5,000°C. Inorganics melt into non-leachable Synglass.Output (per 1 ton/hr MSW input)
| Output | Quantity |
|---|---|
| Hydrogen | 12,500–25,000 ft³/hr |
| Methanol | 90–110 gal/hr |
| Ethanol/mixed alcohols | 60–100 gal/hr |
| Gasoline | 30–40 gal/hr |
| Synglass | ~2 ft³ |
| Net electrical power | 1.0–1.4 MW |
Real Deployments (InEnTec, NOT Ocean Polymers)
- Technology Center — Richland, WA (operational since 1997)
- Columbia Ridge — Arlington, Oregon. $8M hydrogen plant expansion completed Oct 2025. Producing 600–1,500 kg hydrogen/day.
Key Patent
US6570906B2 — "Arc furnace with DC arc and AC joule heating" (InEnTec's IP, NOT Ocean Polymers')The OP–InEnTec Relationship
Non-binding MoU signed August 2018. Not a partnership, not a joint venture, not a technology license. Ocean Polymers has a separate US patent pending (May 2019) covering the concept of ship-borne plasma processing — not the PEM technology itself.CMG Cleantech Acquisition & Divestment
| Event | Date | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Acquisition | Nov 2022 | CMG Cleantech (Euronext Paris) acquired 99.73% for EUR 100M |
| Deal structure | — | Entirely convertible notes — NO cash changed hands |
| Divestment | Oct 2024 | Unwound. OP returned to private. Zero value created. |
Funding History
| Date | Amount | Details |
|---|---|---|
| 2017–2018 | ~GBP 1.4M | Private investors |
| 2018 | Seeking GBP 750K | 5% equity (implies GBP 15M self-valuation) |
| Nov 2022 | EUR 100M | CMG acquisition — paper transaction |
| Oct 2024 | N/A | CMG divestment |
| 2025+ | Seeking | "Substantial" capital for Trinidad & Tobago |
Serial Pivots — Promises vs. Reality
| Date | Promise | Delivered? |
|---|---|---|
| 2017 | Company incorporated | Yes |
| 2018 | MoU with InEnTec | MoU only (non-binding) |
| 2018 | MoU with Saudi institution | Nothing followed |
| 2019 H2 | "Get up and running" | Did not happen |
| 2021 | Nearly struck off Companies House | Filed accounts 2 months late |
| 2022 | CMG acquisition (EUR 100M paper) | Unwound 2 years later |
| 2024 | Trinidad & Tobago waste-to-energy | No construction reported |
| Jul 2025 | Pivoted to solar farms + patent advancement | Ongoing |
| Mar 2026 | Current | No vessels, no facilities, no waste processed |
The Gap: Mobile Vessel vs. Stationary Platform
Ocean Polymers' failure illuminates why the mobile approach doesn't work:
1. Energy parasitism — vessel propulsion ON TOP of running a PEM at 5,000°C 2. Feedstock density — GPGP plastic is extraordinarily dilute. Vessel must traverse enormous distances 3. Marine hostility — molten glass bath + ship motion = safety nightmare 4. Collection method never resolved — never published how to actually gather dispersed plastic 5. No classification society has ever certified a shipboard plasma facility
What a Stationary Platform Solves
- Zero propulsion energy — all power to processing
- Fixed at convergence zone — currents bring material to you
- Stable industrial platform — no wave-induced motion
- Established regulatory frameworks for offshore structures
- Scalable without building new vessels
Assessment
The technology (plasma gasification via InEnTec PEM) is valid and proven on land. Ocean Polymers proves the mobile vessel approach is the wrong delivery mechanism. InEnTec itself remains a potential technology partner — through direct engagement, not through Ocean Polymers.