Procurement Paths Analysis — Who Builds the Reactor?
Waste-to-Energy Processing System Procurement — All Viable Paths
Prepared for: The Claw Ocean Cleanup Project Date: 2026-03-04 Classification: Critical Procurement Decision Analysis Requirement: 10 tonnes per day (TPD) of mixed, contaminated, salt-encrusted ocean plastic, shipboard installation, operating from Honolulu targeting the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Table of Contents
1. Decision Context 2. Path 1: PyroGenesis with Contractual Protection 3. Path 2: License the PRRS Design, Build Elsewhere 4. Path 3: Westinghouse Plasma Torches + Custom Reactor 5. Path 4: Other Plasma Gasification Companies 6. Path 5: Non-Plasma Gasification 7. Path 6: Pyrolysis Instead of Gasification 8. Path 7: Hybrid/Staged Approach 9. Ocean Plastic: The Feedstock Challenge 10. Comparative Summary Table 11. Recommendation 12. Sources
1. Decision Context
The Problem
The Claw project requires a waste processing system that can:
- Process 10 TPD of mixed ocean plastic (PE, PP, PS, PET, PVC, nylon, plus biofouling, salt, sand, seawater)
- Operate on a moving vessel (Aframax-class tanker, moderate sea states)
- Produce useful outputs (syngas for power, pyrolysis oil for fuel, or inert slag)
- Fit within the vessel's available space and power budget
- Be maintained at sea with limited shore support
Current Baseline: PyroGenesis PRRS
The current plan centers on PyroGenesis Canada (TSX: PYR) providing their Plasma Resource Recovery System (PRRS). Their technology is real — it powers waste destruction on every US Navy Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier (PAWDS system). But the company is in severe financial distress:
| Risk Indicator | Status |
|---|---|
| Cash on hand | $0.1M CAD |
| Working capital deficiency | $15.3M CAD |
| Stock price decline from peak | ~98% (from $9.43 to ~$0.25) |
| CEO fraud proceedings | Active — AMF (Quebec securities regulator) alleging fraud under s.199.1(2) |
| Going concern risk | Auditors have flagged material uncertainty |
| Revenue (TTM) | ~$10.6M — but consistently unprofitable |
2. Path 1: PyroGenesis with Contractual Protection
2.1 Available Contractual Mechanisms
Milestone-Based Payments with Escrow
- Structure: 10-20% deposit, remainder in 4-6 milestone payments tied to design review, component procurement, factory acceptance test (FAT), delivery, commissioning
- Use a third-party escrow agent to hold funds until milestone verification by an independent inspector
- PyroGenesis only draws funds as they demonstrate progress
- Problem: Even with milestones, they need working capital to START building. With $0.1M cash, they cannot fund procurement of raw materials, subcomponents, or labor to reach the first milestone
- A surety company guarantees the supplier's performance. If the supplier defaults, the surety pays the buyer to complete the project elsewhere
- Typical cost: 1-3% of contract value for healthy companies
- Critical problem: A surety company underwrites bonds based on the principal's financial strength, payment history, credit lines, and operating track record. A company with $0.1M cash, $15.3M working capital deficiency, and active fraud proceedings from the securities regulator would be rated as uninsurable by any major surety. No legitimate surety company would issue a performance bond for PyroGenesis in its current condition.
- PyroGenesis almost certainly cannot obtain a performance bond. If they claim they can, verify the surety company's AM Best rating independently
- Deposit all PRRS design documents, engineering drawings, manufacturing specs, software, and process know-how with a neutral escrow agent (e.g., Iron Mountain, EscrowTech)
- Trigger events: bankruptcy filing, insolvency, failure to deliver, cessation of operations
- On trigger, The Claw gets access to all IP needed to complete the build elsewhere
- Legal complexity: Under US Bankruptcy Code Section 365(n), IP licensees have some protection — they can elect to retain their rights to use licensed IP even if the licensor (PyroGenesis) rejects the license in bankruptcy. However, Canada's Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) does not have an equivalent provision. Since PyroGenesis is Canadian, a Canadian insolvency proceeding would govern, and the escrow trigger clauses may be challenged by the bankruptcy trustee as the IP would be an asset the creditors want to liquidate
- Practical limitation: Even if you get the blueprints, how much tacit knowledge (welding procedures, plasma torch calibration, refractory lining curing protocols, control system tuning) is NOT in the documents?
- PyroGenesis has no parent company — it IS the parent
- Personal guarantee from CEO Peter Pascali would be nearly worthless given fraud proceedings
- No meaningful guarantee structure available
- The supplier's bank issues a guarantee that the advance payment will be refunded if they default
- Requires the supplier to have a banking relationship with available credit lines
- Problem: With $0.1M cash and $15.3M working capital deficiency, no bank would issue this guarantee for PyroGenesis
2.2 Real-World Precedents
There are examples of buyers purchasing from distressed suppliers, but they almost always involve one of: 1. Government backing — the buyer is a government entity that can absorb losses (e.g., US Navy continuing PAWDS orders because national security justifies the risk) 2. Acquisition of the supplier — the buyer acquires the supplier or its assets pre-emptively to ensure delivery 3. Pre-bankruptcy IP acquisition — the buyer licenses or buys the IP before insolvency proceedings begin, while the company still has authority to sell
The US Navy's continued relationship with PyroGenesis for PAWDS is instructive — they accepted the supplier risk because (a) the systems are relatively small/simple compared to PRRS, (b) they have sovereign procurement protections, and (c) the contract values (~$5.75M per pair) are manageable within defense budgets.
2.3 Risk Assessment for Path 1
| Factor | Rating | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Technology risk | LOW | PRRS technology is proven. PAWDS (a smaller cousin) operates at sea |
| Financial risk | EXTREME | Company cannot post bonds, cannot self-fund production, could collapse mid-build |
| IP risk | HIGH | Canadian bankruptcy law does not protect licensees the way US Section 365(n) does |
| Schedule risk | VERY HIGH | Even if they don't collapse, cash constraints will cause delays |
| Total risk | EXTREME | Realistic probability of losing a significant portion of any advance payment: 30-50% |
2.4 Path 1 Verdict
Not recommended as the primary path. The contractual protections that exist in theory (escrow, performance bonds, guarantees) are largely unavailable for a company in PyroGenesis's financial condition. The only contractual structure that might work is a deeply back-loaded milestone payment schedule combined with an IP escrow — but even then, you are betting the entire project on a company with $100K in the bank.
If pursued at all, it should be as a secondary option with the following non-negotiable conditions:
- IP escrow executed BEFORE any money changes hands
- No payment exceeding $500K until factory acceptance test of a prototype reactor module
- Independent engineer (not PyroGenesis employee) verifying every milestone
- Contractual right to step in and complete fabrication using subcontractors if PyroGenesis misses any two consecutive milestones
- Maximum 30% of contract value at risk at any point
3. Path 2: License the PRRS Design, Build Elsewhere
3.1 Can You License the Design?
PyroGenesis has precedent for selling IP. They sold PUREVAP NSiR intellectual property rights to HPQ Silicon for $2.4M in 2020 (later reacquired it when HPQ abandoned development). This proves they are willing to transact IP separately from hardware.
For the PRRS, a license deal would involve:
- License fee: Likely $1-3M for a single-unit, single-application license
- Technical data package: Engineering drawings, BOM, process flow diagrams, control logic, welding procedures
- Technical assistance: Engineering support hours (100-500 hours) for the third-party fabricator
- Right to manufacture: One unit for The Claw's specific application
3.2 The Tacit Knowledge Problem
This is the biggest risk with Path 2. A plasma gasification reactor is not a commodity pressure vessel. Critical knowledge that may NOT be fully captured in drawings includes:
- Plasma torch integration: How the torch is mounted, the arc starting sequence, the cathode/anode replacement schedule
- Refractory lining: Specific refractory materials, curing procedures, thermal cycling limits. Refractory failure is the #1 cause of plasma gasification system downtime
- Slag behavior: How the molten slag pool behaves during operation, tapping procedures, what happens when unexpected feedstock (metals, glass, PVC) enters
- Control system tuning: The PLC/SCADA logic that manages torch power, oxygen injection, temperature profiles. The documented setpoints may not capture the operational "feel" that experienced operators develop
- Commissioning and startup: The sequence for bringing a reactor from cold to operating temperature without cracking the refractory or destabilizing the arc
3.3 Who Could Fabricate It?
If you obtained the design package, these types of firms could fabricate the reactor vessel and ancillary equipment:
Pressure Vessel Fabricators (ASME-certified)
- Tech Fab (Houston, TX) — specializes in custom reactor vessels, serves marine/offshore
- Samuel Pressure Vessel Group — 5 locations in North America, large custom vessels
- Bendel (Tulsa, OK) — stainless and carbon steel reactors
- Savannah Tank (Savannah, GA) — custom reactor vessels in exotic alloys
- Huntington Ingalls Industries — they built the Ford-class carriers and installed PAWDS. They have direct experience with plasma systems on ships
- General Dynamics NASSCO — San Diego shipyard, naval/commercial vessel construction
- Vigor Industrial (Portland, OR) — ship repair and marine fabrication on the US West Coast
- Harper International (Lancaster, NY) — custom thermal processing equipment, kilns, furnaces
- ANDRITZ (Austria/global) — industrial thermal processing systems
- Outotec/Metso (Finland) — smelting and high-temperature metallurgical equipment
3.4 Cost Comparison
| Component | License + Third-Party | Turnkey from PyroGenesis |
|---|---|---|
| IP license fee | $1-3M | Included |
| Technical assistance | $0.5-1M | Included |
| Third-party fabrication | $5-10M | N/A |
| Integration engineering | $1-3M | Included |
| Commissioning support | $0.5-1M | Included |
| Total | $8-18M | $8-18M |
| Risk of supplier collapse | LOW (fabricator is solvent) | EXTREME |
3.5 Can PyroGenesis Even Sell a License Right Now?
Possibly yes, and they might be motivated to do so. A company in severe financial distress may prefer $2-3M in immediate license revenue over an $8-18M contract they cannot fund the production for. The license fee is cash they can use to keep the lights on. Counter-argument: their board/creditors may block IP sales as asset-stripping in anticipation of insolvency.
3.6 Risk Assessment for Path 2
| Factor | Rating | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Technology risk | MEDIUM | Design is proven, but tacit knowledge gaps could cause commissioning issues |
| Financial risk | LOW | The fabrication risk is on a solvent third party |
| IP risk | MEDIUM | Must secure license before any insolvency proceeding. Canadian law adds complexity |
| Schedule risk | MEDIUM-HIGH | 24-36 months — time to negotiate license + fabrication + commissioning |
| Tacit knowledge risk | HIGH | The most significant risk. Refractory, controls, and plasma torch integration require expertise that may not transfer fully through documents |
3.7 Path 2 Verdict
A strong secondary option, but dependent on securing the IP license quickly. If PyroGenesis enters creditor protection before the license is executed, this path closes. The tacit knowledge problem is real but potentially solvable by hiring 2-3 former PyroGenesis engineers as consultants (they have ~107 employees; some may be looking for exits given the company's trajectory).
Estimated CAPEX: $8-18M Timeline: 24-36 months TRL: 6-7 (proven design, unproven in third-party fabrication)
4. Path 3: Westinghouse Plasma Torches + Custom Reactor
4.1 Westinghouse Plasma Company — Current Status
Westinghouse Plasma Corporation (WPC) has a complex history. Originally a division of Westinghouse Electric, it was acquired by Alter NRG in 2007. After Alter NRG's collapse (receivership in 2021), the plasma torch business continued operating. As of 2026, Westinghouse Plasma Company operates from Madison, PA and continues to sell plasma torches commercially.
Available Torch Models:
| Model | Power Range | Max Arc Current | Application |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPCT2400H | 860-2,400 kW | 2,000 A | High-power gasification, waste treatment |
| WPCT2400L | 350-800 kW | 2,000 A | Lower-power applications |
| WPCT540 / MARC 4.5 | 280-530 kW | 650 A | Smaller-scale applications |
Torch cost estimate: $500K-$1.5M per torch (based on historical pricing for industrial plasma torches of this class), plus power supplies, cooling systems, and control electronics.
4.2 The Custom Reactor Challenge
Buying torches is the easy part. You still need:
1. Reactor vessel design — A refractory-lined chamber that withstands 1,200-1,600 degC continuously, with proper feedstock injection, gas offtake, and slag tapping 2. Gas cleanup system — Syngas from plastic will contain HCl (from PVC), H2S, particulates, tars, and alkali metals. This requires a multi-stage cleanup train (cyclone, scrubber, acid gas removal, particulate filter) 3. Syngas utilization — Gas engine, turbine, or flare system 4. Control system — PLC/SCADA to manage torch power, oxygen/steam injection, temperature monitoring, emergency shutdown 5. Feed system — Shredder, dryer, metering system to deliver consistent feedstock to the reactor 6. Marine adaptation — Shock mounting, motion compensation for slag tapping, marine-grade electrical systems
4.3 Engineering Firms with Gasification Design Experience
| Firm | Location | Experience | Could They Design a Custom Reactor? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hatch Ltd. | Toronto/global | Process engineering, smelting, gasification. Designed plasma systems for mining | Yes — strong candidate |
| Fluor Corporation | Irving, TX | Major EPC firm with gasification experience (IGCC plants) | Yes — but may be too large for this project |
| Black & Veatch | Overland Park, KS | Gasification, waste-to-energy design | Yes |
| KBR | Houston, TX | Recently partnered with Klean Industries for pyrolysis technology rollout | Yes — and has marine engineering capability |
| Wood PLC | Aberdeen, UK | EPC for waste-to-energy, designed Mura Technology's Hydro-PRT facility | Yes |
| Worley | Sydney/Houston | Process engineering, gasification design | Yes |
| DNV | Oslo/Houston | Could provide classification and design review for marine installation | Advisory role, not design |
4.4 Has Anyone Done This Before?
Yes, partially. The Utashinai facility in Japan (operational 2003-2013) was essentially this approach: Westinghouse plasma torches installed in a gasification reactor designed and built by Hitachi Metals. The reactor processed 300 TPD of MSW and generated 7.9 MW of electricity. Hitachi designed the reactor around Westinghouse's torches.
The SMSIL facility in Pune, India (commissioned 2009) also used Westinghouse torches in a custom reactor for 72 TPD of hazardous waste.
So the "buy torches, design reactor around them" approach has been done at commercial scale — but by large industrial corporations (Hitachi, SMSIL) with deep engineering resources, not by startups.
4.5 Cost Estimate
| Component | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Plasma torches (2x WPCT2400H) + power supplies | $1.5-3M |
| Reactor vessel design engineering (FEED study) | $1-2M |
| Reactor vessel fabrication | $2-4M |
| Gas cleanup system | $1-2M |
| Control system and instrumentation | $0.5-1M |
| Feed system (shredder, dryer, conveyor) | $0.5-1M |
| Marine integration engineering | $1-2M |
| Installation and commissioning | $1-2M |
| Contingency (30%) | $2.5-5M |
| Total | $10-22M |
4.6 Risk Assessment for Path 3
| Factor | Rating | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Technology risk | HIGH | Proven components, but custom integration is first-of-its-kind |
| Financial risk | LOW | Using solvent suppliers (WPC, engineering firms, fabricators) |
| Engineering risk | HIGH | No single firm has done "plasma gasification on a ship" from scratch |
| Schedule risk | HIGH | 30-48 months — FEED study, detailed design, fabrication, testing, installation |
| Cost overrun risk | HIGH | Custom engineering projects routinely exceed initial estimates by 50-100% |
4.7 Path 3 Verdict
Technically viable but high-risk on schedule and budget. This is essentially a bespoke engineering project. The individual components (torches, pressure vessels, gas cleanup) are proven technology, but integrating them into a working gasification system on a ship has never been done from scratch by anyone. The Utashinai and Pune precedents used Westinghouse torches successfully, but those were land-based and designed by major industrial corporations.
Best suited as a long-term option if PyroGenesis collapses and no alternative plasma gasification company can supply a system. The torches will be available regardless of what happens to PyroGenesis.
Estimated CAPEX: $10-22M (wide range reflects uncertainty in custom engineering) Timeline: 30-48 months TRL: 5-6 (proven components, unproven system integration)
5. Path 4: Other Plasma Gasification Companies
5.1 Company-by-Company Assessment
InEnTec (Richland, Oregon, USA) -- STRONG CANDIDATE
Technology: Plasma Enhanced Melter (PEM) — combines plasma arc technology with a molten glass bath. The molten glass acts as both a heat transfer medium and a containment for inorganic contaminants.
Track Record: 11-13 PEM systems deployed worldwide over 20+ years. Originally spun out of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Founded 1995.
Scale: PEM systems have operated at various scales. The SeaChange Ocean Solutions project planned to containerize a PEM system into 5 shipping containers for shipboard deployment (though SeaChange itself stalled — see seachange-inentec.md).
Financial Health: Private company. Partnered with Waste Management (now WM) via S4 Energy Solutions joint venture (2009). NASA spinoff technology. Appears financially stable but private so limited public financial data.
Strengths for The Claw:
- PEM's molten glass bath helps with mixed contaminated feedstock — exactly what ocean plastic is
- Containerized form factor was already explored for SeaChange's shipboard concept
- US-based, subject to US contract law (better IP protections in bankruptcy)
- Proven on hazardous waste streams including medical and industrial waste
- SeaChange collaboration never materialized — unclear if InEnTec is still interested in marine applications
- PEM systems have primarily processed hazardous/medical waste, not bulk plastic
- No known system exceeding 50 TPD
- Private company — harder to assess financial health
Estimated CAPEX: $8-15M (based on PEM system costs for similar scale) Timeline: 18-30 months TRL: 7 (proven technology, but marine application is new)
Tetronics Technologies (Swindon, UK) -- STRONG CANDIDATE
Technology: DC plasma torches (transferred arc and TwinTorch systems) with Gasplasma two-stage process (gasification + plasma conversion). Produces high-quality syngas and vitrified slag (Plasmarok).
Track Record: 50+ years in plasma technology. More than 90 installations worldwide. Partnership with Advanced Plasma Power (APP) for waste-to-energy.
Financial Health: Private company, backed by institutional investors. Appears stable. Has ongoing UK government-funded projects (BioSNG demonstration plant).
Scale: Custom-designed to client requirements — no catalogue sizes. Demonstration BioSNG plant processes 10,000 tonnes of waste per year (~27 TPD). Multiple smaller systems deployed.
Strengths for The Claw:
- Gasplasma process specifically designed for mixed waste streams
- Vitrified slag output (Plasmarok) is an inert, useful byproduct
- Custom design approach means they would engineer for marine requirements
- UK-based with strong engineering pedigree
- 50+ years of plasma operating experience
- No marine/shipboard experience
- UK-based adds logistics complexity for Honolulu operations
- The APP/Gasplasma JV had its own challenges (Tees Valley project involved Air Products debacle, though that was Alter NRG's gasifier, not Tetronics')
- Custom design = longer timeline and cost uncertainty
Estimated CAPEX: $8-15M Timeline: 24-36 months TRL: 7-8 (proven technology, marine application is new)
PLAZARIUM (Moscow/Technopolis Moscow, Russia) -- NOT VIABLE
Technology: Steam plasma torches for gasification, hydrocracking, and melting. 25+ systems built. Uses various plasma-forming media including water steam.
Why not viable: Russian company. International sanctions, payment restrictions, export controls, and extreme geopolitical risk make procurement from a Russian company effectively impossible for a US-based project operating from Honolulu. Equipment would face import restrictions, spare parts supply would be unreliable, and any government funding for The Claw would be jeopardized.
Verdict: Technically interesting technology, geopolitically impossible.
Steel MC Corporation (Venezuela/international) -- HIGH RISK
Technology: Plasmatronic AC plasma gasification — unique in using alternating current (AC) torches instead of DC. Claims 94% torch efficiency. Temperatures up to 20,000 degC. Partnership with Russian Academy of Sciences (IEE RAS).
Why high risk: Based in Venezuela, R&D partnership with Russia. Same sanctions and geopolitical issues as PLAZARIUM. Additionally, Venezuela's economic instability makes long-term supplier relationships extremely risky.
Verdict: Unique technology, but geopolitical/sanctions risk makes it non-viable.
Europlasma / CHO Power (Bordeaux, France) -- UNCERTAIN
Technology: Plasma torch-enhanced gasification of waste and biomass. Built 11 MWe plant in Morcenx, France. Second plant (CHO Tiper, 10 MW) in Thouars with EUR 30M EIB financing.
Current Status: Europlasma had severe financial difficulties historically. The Morcenx plant had a troubled commissioning but eventually passed performance tests. Most available information is from 2014-2018 — recent status is unclear. The company may have been restructured.
Strengths: European company with EIB backing. Demonstrated technology at commercial scale.
Weaknesses: Financial history mirrors the plasma gasification industry's general pattern of distress. No known marine applications. Focus is on biomass/MSW, not plastic. Recent operational status unclear.
Could they build a 10 TPD marine system? Possibly, but their own financial stability needs verification.
Estimated CAPEX: $8-15M (speculative) Timeline: 24-36 months TRL: 6-7
Boson Energy (Luxembourg) -- EMERGING, WATCH CLOSELY
Technology: HPAG (Hydrogen by Plasma Assisted Gasification). Integrated reactor combining drying, slow pyrolysis, gasification, and vitrification in a gravity-driven process with no moving parts. Plasma assists gasification (used for ash vitrification and heat input) rather than driving it directly. Temperatures 3,500-4,000 degC.
Financial Health: Backed by Siemens AG as of 2024. This is a very significant strategic partner. Luxembourg-based, EU regulatory framework.
Scale: Commercial reactor targets 1-2 tonnes per hour (24-48 TPD). A standard Boson Energy Unit has 3 reactor lines, totaling ~100 TPD capacity. The Claw could use a single reactor line.
Strengths:
- Siemens backing provides financial and engineering credibility
- "No moving parts" reactor design is ideal for marine applications (less sensitive to ship motion)
- Hydrogen output is high-value and could power fuel cells
- Gravity-driven process simplifies marine adaptation
- Targeting distributed deployment (300+ plants) — suggesting modular, repeatable design
- Vitrification of ash included
- Still pre-commercial (targeting 2030 for full scale-up)
- No marine experience
- Startup — even with Siemens backing, technology may not yet be fully proven at commercial scale
- Luxembourg company, limited track record of major equipment delivery
Estimated CAPEX: Unknown — likely $5-12M for a single reactor line based on comparable systems Timeline: 30-48 months (technology maturation + fabrication) TRL: 5-6 (demonstrated in R&D, pre-commercial)
S.W.H. Group SE (Prague, Czech Republic) -- SMALL PLAYER
Technology: Plasma gasification of organic matter for electricity and heat. Projects in Czech Republic, Serbia, Poland, and Africa.
Scale: 2.5 MWe output with 0.5 MWe internal consumption. Appears to be small-scale.
Assessment: Small European company with limited track record. Not a strong candidate for a bespoke marine application. Could potentially supply plasma torches or subsystems.
Verdict: Too small and unproven for The Claw's needs.
NTPC NETRA (India) -- GOVERNMENT R&D
India's NTPC (power utility) R&D wing NETRA is building a plasma gasification-based green hydrogen plant at Greater Noida, processing MSW-RDF and agricultural waste for 1 tonne of hydrogen per day. This is a government R&D initiative, not a commercial supplier.
Verdict: Watch for technology developments, but not a viable procurement path.
Hitachi Metals / Hitachi Zosen (Japan) -- HISTORICAL, POTENTIALLY REVIVABLE
History: Built the Utashinai plasma gasification plant (300 TPD, operational 2003) and the Mihama-Mikata plant using Westinghouse torches. Deep experience in plasma gasification reactor design and construction.
Current Status: Hitachi Metals was absorbed into Proterial Ltd. (renamed 2023). Hitachi Zosen continues in environmental engineering. It is unclear whether either entity is currently pursuing plasma gasification projects.
Assessment: If Hitachi Zosen could be engaged, they have possibly the deepest commercial experience in the world with plasma gasification reactor design. They built the largest working plasma gasification plant ever. However, engaging a major Japanese corporation for a custom marine project would require significant corporate development effort.
Verdict: Worth investigating through direct outreach. If they are willing, they could be the strongest engineering partner for Path 3 or a standalone supplier.
5.2 Path 4 Summary
Best candidates: InEnTec and Tetronics. Both have proven technology, decades of operating experience, and the engineering capability to design a 10 TPD system. Neither has marine experience, but both have the technical depth to adapt their designs. Boson Energy is a longer-term watch candidate with strong backing from Siemens.
6. Path 5: Non-Plasma Gasification
6.1 What You Lose Without Plasma
| Capability | Plasma Gasification | Non-Plasma Gasification |
|---|---|---|
| Peak temperature | 2,000-14,000 degC | 800-1,200 degC |
| Slag vitrification | Yes — inorganic residue melts into inert glass | No — bottom ash is not vitrified, may leach |
| Feedstock flexibility | Very high — can handle mixed, contaminated, variable waste | Moderate — more sensitive to feedstock consistency |
| Syngas quality | High — high temperatures crack tars completely | Lower — tars are a persistent problem requiring cleanup |
| PVC handling | Good — HCl is released but managed at extreme temperatures | More problematic — lower temperatures leave more chlorinated compounds |
| Energy input | High — plasma torches consume 10-20% of system energy | Lower — uses partial combustion of feedstock for heat |
| Equipment complexity | Very high | Moderate |
| Cost | Very high | Lower |
6.2 Viable Non-Plasma Gasification Technologies
Sierra Energy FastOx Gasification -- PROMISING
Technology: Blast furnace-derived gasification using oxygen and steam injection at 2,200 degC. This is notably close to plasma temperatures but achieved through oxygen-blown partial combustion rather than electric arc.
Scale: 20 TPD gasifier tested at Fort Hunter Liggett (US Army base) since 2020. Designed to scale to 100+ TPD.
Financial Health: Raised $33M Series A from Breakthrough Energy Ventures (Bill Gates) and others in 2019. Private company.
Strengths:
- 2,200 degC is hot enough for slag vitrification and complete tar destruction — approaching plasma performance
- Can handle mixed, unsorted waste including hazardous materials
- No external energy input for the torch (uses oxygen/steam instead)
- Military testing ground provides credibility
- Backed by serious investors (Breakthrough Energy Ventures)
- Still in demonstration phase, not yet commercially proven at scale
- Requires consistent oxygen supply (cryogenic air separation unit or LOX storage on ship)
- Blast furnace design may not translate well to marine motion
- Company status after 2020 testing is unclear — limited public updates
Estimated CAPEX: $5-12M for a 10-20 TPD system (based on land-based estimates) Timeline: 24-36 months TRL: 6-7
Sumitomo SHI FW / Valmet — Fluidized Bed Gasification -- PROVEN BUT PROBLEMATIC AT SEA
Technology: Circulating fluidized bed (CFB) gasification using air, steam, or oxygen. Feedstock is suspended in a bed of hot sand/ash by upward-flowing gas. Temperatures 800-1,000 degC.
Scale: Commercial scale. Valmet and Sumitomo SHI FW have deployed multiple large-scale units (50-500 TPD) for waste and biomass.
Financial Health: Both are large, publicly traded industrial corporations. No financial risk.
Strengths:
- Proven technology at commercial scale — the most deployed gasification type globally
- Major industrial suppliers with long-term support capability
- Handles mixed waste streams including non-recyclable plastics
- Sumitomo SHI FW's oxy-steam gasification produces hydrogen-rich syngas suitable for fuel synthesis
- Fluidized beds are extremely sensitive to motion. The bed relies on precise gas distribution and gravity. Ship roll and pitch would disrupt fluidization, causing hot spots, dead zones, and potential bed collapse. This is a fundamental physics problem, not easily solved by engineering
- Lower temperatures (800-1,000 degC) mean incomplete tar destruction and no slag vitrification
- Requires consistent feedstock sizing (shredded to uniform particle size)
- Large physical footprint for the gas distribution and cyclone systems
Verdict: Excellent technology for land-based applications. Poor fit for shipboard use due to motion sensitivity.
Aries Clean Technologies — Fluidized Bed Gasification -- LAND-ONLY
Technology: Fluidized bed gasification primarily for biosolids (sewage sludge), proven to destroy PFAS at 97% efficiency. Linden, NJ plant processes 400 TPD.
Assessment: Impressive technology but focused on biosolids, not plastic. Same marine motion problems as any fluidized bed. Not a viable path for The Claw.
Independence Energy Company (IEC) — ePod -- INTERESTING MODULAR OPTION
Technology: Containerized gasification system. Each ePod is roughly shipping-container sized, processing ~30 TPD and producing up to 4 MW of power. Pre-assembled, minimal site prep.
Strengths:
- Container-sized modular form factor is ideal for shipboard installation
- 30 TPD capacity exceeds The Claw's 10 TPD requirement (can run at partial capacity)
- Deployed in months rather than years
- Grid-connected or island mode operation
- Very new company with limited track record
- Unclear what gasification technology is inside the "ePod" — marketing-heavy, details-light
- No marine experience
- Processing MSW, not specifically ocean plastic
- Limited technical specifications publicly available
Worth investigating directly. If the core technology is a fixed-bed or downdraft gasifier (rather than fluidized bed), it could be more motion-tolerant.
Estimated CAPEX: Unknown — contact IEC directly Timeline: Potentially 6-12 months if a standard ePod can be adapted TRL: 4-6 (claimed commercial, but limited public verification)
6.3 Path 5 Summary
Sierra Energy's FastOx is the most promising non-plasma option due to its high operating temperature (2,200 degC) achieving near-plasma performance without the electric arc. However, it is still in demonstration phase and marine adaptation is unproven. Fluidized bed gasification, while commercially proven, is fundamentally ill-suited for shipboard operation due to motion sensitivity.
7. Path 6: Pyrolysis Instead of Gasification
7.1 Technology Overview
Pyrolysis thermally decomposes material in the absence of oxygen at 400-700 degC, producing:
- Pyrolysis oil (liquid): 45-75% by mass — a crude oil analog that can be used as fuel or feedstock
- Syngas (gas): 15-25% — combustible gas, often used to heat the reactor itself
- Char/residue (solid): 5-20% — carbonaceous residue plus inorganic contaminants
7.2 Pyrolysis vs. Gasification for Ocean Plastic
| Factor | Pyrolysis (400-700 degC) | Plasma Gasification (2,000-14,000 degC) |
|---|---|---|
| Temperature | Much lower | Much higher |
| Equipment complexity | Simpler — no plasma torches, no refractory at extreme temp | Very complex |
| CAPEX | $0.5-5M for 10 TPD | $8-18M for 10 TPD |
| Power requirement | Low — can be self-sustaining using produced syngas | High — plasma torches draw 1-4 MW |
| Motion sensitivity | Low — rotary kiln or batch reactor designs tolerate motion well | Medium — slag tapping and arc stability affected by motion |
| PVC handling | POOR — produces HCl that corrodes equipment at lower temperatures where it is not fully managed | Better — extreme temperatures help manage chlorine |
| Mixed feedstock tolerance | Moderate — needs preprocessing to remove metals, excessive moisture, PVC | High — handles nearly anything |
| Output quality | Pyrolysis oil requires further refining | Syngas is immediately usable for power generation |
| Slag vitrification | No — produces char and ash, not vitrified | Yes — inert glass slag |
| Ship-based precedent | YES — Plastic Odyssey vessel | YES — PAWDS on US Navy carriers |
7.3 The Plastic Odyssey Precedent
This is critical: Plastic Odyssey has already put a pyrolysis system on a ship and operated it.
The MV Plastic Odyssey is a converted 39m oceanographic research vessel carrying:
- Onboard pyrolysis machine producing 30-40 liters of fuel per hour from non-recyclable plastics
- Operating at 450 degC
- 70-80% mass conversion to liquid fuel
- 5-10% solid residue, 15-20% gas (used to heat reactor)
7.4 Companies and Commercial Systems
Plastic Energy (Sevilla, Spain / London, UK) -- ESTABLISHED LEADER
Technology: Proprietary TAC (Thermal Anaerobic Conversion) process producing TACOIL — a hydrocarbon feedstock suitable for virgin-quality polymer production.
Scale: Two commercial plants operating in Spain. 20,000 TPD planned facility in Teesside with SABIC.
Financial Health: Partnerships with SABIC, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil. Well-funded.
Marine potential: Their technology is land-based at large scale. A dedicated marine-adapted unit is not their business model, but the underlying technology could potentially be miniaturized/adapted.
Estimated CAPEX for 10 TPD: $3-8M (speculative, based on their commercial facility economics)
Brightmark (San Francisco, CA) -- LARGE SCALE, LAND-FOCUSED
Technology: Pyrolysis converting plastic to ultra-low sulfur diesel, naphtha, and wax. Flagship 100,000+ TPD facility in Ashley, Indiana. Claims 93% process efficiency.
Financial Health: Closed $260M financing for Indiana facility. Well-capitalized.
Marine potential: Very large-scale, land-based systems. Not suited for direct marine adaptation. However, their process chemistry knowledge could inform a marine system design.
Klean Industries (Vancouver, Canada) -- MODULAR POTENTIAL
Technology: Modular and scalable pyrolysis platforms converting plastic to hydrogen, fuel oil, and chemicals. Partnership with KBR Inc. for global technology rollout.
Scale: Modular design suitable for municipalities and ports.
Strengths for The Claw:
- "Modular and scalable" design philosophy aligns with containerized ship installation
- Canadian company — favorable timezone and business environment
- KBR partnership brings major EPC engineering credibility
- Explicitly mentions port installations as a market
Estimated CAPEX for 10 TPD: $2-5M (based on modular pyrolysis system pricing)
EcoCreation (South Korea) -- MARINE-FOCUSED
Technology: Pyrolysis converting plastic waste to marine fuel (pyrolysis oil as Bunker C substitute/blendstock). Partnership with Carbon Neutral LLC for cruise ship plastic waste processing at Caribbean ports.
Scale: Planning up to 120 port-based facilities processing 300,000 metric tonnes annually.
Marine relevance: Specifically designed for the marine fuel market. Pyrolysis oil output is intended as marine fuel — directly usable by The Claw's vessel.
Strengths for The Claw:
- Marine fuel application is core business — they understand the maritime context
- South Korean engineering base has strong shipbuilding/marine industry connections
- The cruise ship waste processing application is conceptually similar to ocean plastic processing
- Output (marine fuel) is directly useful for ship operations
- Port-based, not shipboard — would need adaptation for at-sea operation
- Limited public information on the pyrolysis units themselves
Nexus Circular (Atlanta, GA) -- ESTABLISHED
Technology: Pyrolysis converting mixed plastics to liquid hydrocarbons and chemical feedstocks. Multi-year supply agreement with Shell Chemical.
Financial Health: Major oil company partnerships suggest financial stability.
Marine potential: Land-based, but modular technology could potentially be adapted.
New Hope Energy (Tyler, TX) -- LARGE SCALE
Technology: Pyrolysis co-developed with Lummus Technology. Tyler, Texas facility operational, expanding to 420+ MTPD by 2026. Partnership with TotalEnergies.
Scale: Very large — 420 MTPD is 420 tonnes per day. This is industrial-scale chemical recycling.
Marine potential: Too large and land-focused for marine adaptation. Not suitable.
7.5 The PVC Problem
Ocean plastic from the GPGP contains 3-7% PVC by mass. PVC releases hydrochloric acid (HCl) when heated. At pyrolysis temperatures (400-700 degC), this HCl:
- Corrodes reactor internals and downstream piping
- Contaminates the pyrolysis oil with chlorine (limits use as fuel or feedstock)
- Requires acid gas scrubbing equipment
- Preprocessing to remove PVC before pyrolysis (sorting by density — PVC sinks in water while PE/PP float)
- Two-stage approach: low-temperature dehydrochlorination (250-350 degC) first to drive off HCl, then pyrolysis at higher temperature
- Calcium oxide (lime) injection in the reactor to neutralize HCl
7.6 Could Pyrolysis Be BETTER for This Application?
Arguments for pyrolysis being better: 1. 10x-20x lower CAPEX ($1-5M vs $8-18M for plasma) 2. Much simpler equipment — fewer failure modes, easier maintenance at sea 3. Lower power requirements — can be self-sustaining using produced syngas 4. Ship-proven — Plastic Odyssey has done it (small scale, but proven) 5. Output (pyrolysis oil) is directly usable as ship fuel — reduces bunkering needs 6. More suppliers available — larger market, more competition, better pricing 7. Faster deployment — modular systems can be delivered in 6-12 months vs 18-36 for plasma
Arguments against: 1. PVC handling is more problematic 2. No slag vitrification — solid residue is not inert 3. Requires more feedstock preprocessing (drying, sorting, shredding to consistent size) 4. Pyrolysis oil needs further processing to meet fuel standards 5. Cannot handle as much contamination (sand, salt, biofouling, metals)
7.7 Risk Assessment for Path 6
| Factor | Rating | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Technology risk | LOW | Pyrolysis of plastic is well-proven at commercial scale |
| Financial risk | LOW | Multiple solvent suppliers competing for business |
| Marine adaptation risk | LOW-MEDIUM | Plastic Odyssey precedent. Rotary kiln designs tolerate motion |
| Feedstock risk | MEDIUM | Ocean plastic needs preprocessing (washing, sorting, PVC removal) |
| Output quality risk | MEDIUM | Pyrolysis oil contains contaminants, needs further processing |
| Schedule risk | LOW | Modular systems available in 6-18 months |
| Cost overrun risk | LOW | Established technology, competitive market |
7.8 Path 6 Verdict
Pyrolysis is the strongest alternative to plasma gasification, and may be the best overall path for Phase 1. The massive reduction in CAPEX, complexity, and deployment time is hard to ignore. The trade-offs (more preprocessing needed, PVC issues, less feedstock flexibility) are manageable engineering challenges, not fundamental barriers.
The Plastic Odyssey ship proves it can work at sea. The output (pyrolysis oil) can power the vessel itself, creating a partially self-sustaining system.
Estimated CAPEX: $1-5M for equipment, plus $1-3M for marine integration Timeline: 6-18 months for equipment delivery, plus 3-6 months for installation TRL: 8-9 (commercially proven on land, demonstrated at sea)
8. Path 7: Hybrid/Staged Approach
8.1 The Case for Phased Deployment
Rather than betting everything on one technology, a phased approach reduces risk dramatically:
Phase 1 (Year 1-2): Pyrolysis Proof of Concept
- Install a 5-10 TPD containerized pyrolysis system on the vessel
- Process the easiest fraction of ocean plastic (PE, PP — which comprises ~80% of GPGP plastic)
- Produce pyrolysis oil for ship fuel and sale
- Prove the collection-to-processing pipeline works at sea
- Demonstrate the concept to funders, regulators, and partners
- CAPEX: $2-5M all-in
- Using operational data from Phase 1, design the full processing system
- Options: PyroGenesis PRRS (if they survive), InEnTec PEM, Tetronics Gasplasma, custom Westinghouse-torch reactor, or Sierra Energy FastOx
- Process the remaining fraction (PVC, heavily contaminated material, mixed plastics)
- Produce syngas for power generation and slag for safe disposal
- CAPEX: $8-18M additional
- Pyrolysis as preprocessing stage feeding gasification
- Or side-by-side parallel processing lines
- Optimize based on actual feedstock composition
8.2 Containerized/Modular Systems for Phase 1
| Company | System | Capacity | Form Factor | Marine Potential |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terragon MAGS | Micro Auto Gasification System | 1 TPD | Compact (55-gallon drum reactor) | PROVEN AT SEA — installed on Regal Princess cruise ship, tested by US Navy/Marine Corps, designed for ships and offshore platforms |
| IEC ePod | Modular gasification | 30 TPD | Shipping container | Unknown — needs evaluation |
| Klean Industries | Modular pyrolysis | Scalable | Modular | Port-based, adaptable |
| EcoCreation | Plastic pyrolysis | Various | Port-based | Marine fuel output |
| GEMCO | Mobile gasification station | Various | Multiple modules | Designed for mobility |
| United Earth Energy UNI Box | Containerized pyrolysis | Various | Container | Designed for remote deployment |
8.3 Terragon MAGS — The Most Marine-Proven Option
Terragon's MAGS system deserves special attention because it is the only waste processing system specifically designed and proven for marine use (aside from PyroGenesis PAWDS):
- Developed with support from the US Office of Naval Research and Canadian Navy
- Installed on Princess Cruises' Regal Princess
- Tested by US Marine Corps at Camp Smith, Hawaii (notably close to The Claw's Honolulu base)
- Processes all combustible shipboard waste: plastics, paper, food, oily rags, oils and sludges
- 95% volume reduction
- Meets EPA and EU emission standards
- Self-sustaining (syngas fuels the process after startup)
8.4 Why This Is Probably the Right Answer
The hybrid/staged approach is the right answer because:
1. It reduces the catastrophic risk of the PyroGenesis dependency — you are not waiting 2-3 years for a bankrupt company to deliver before you can prove anything 2. It generates operational data — real feedstock analysis, real throughput numbers, real maintenance data from sea operations 3. It generates revenue and impact from Day 1 — pyrolysis oil, plastic credits, media attention, funder confidence 4. It preserves optionality — by the time Phase 2 arrives, the plasma gasification landscape may have changed (Boson Energy maturing, PyroGenesis acquired, new entrants) 5. It is fundable — $2-5M for Phase 1 is dramatically more fundable than $15-25M for a turnkey plasma system 6. It proves the hard part first — collection and preprocessing at sea is arguably harder than the thermal processing itself. Phase 1 proves that pipeline.
8.5 Risk Assessment for Path 7
| Factor | Rating | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Technology risk | LOW | Pyrolysis for Phase 1 is proven, plasma for Phase 2 has multiple paths |
| Financial risk | LOW | Phase 1 CAPEX is manageable, Phase 2 is funded by Phase 1 results |
| Schedule risk | LOW | Phase 1 can deploy in 6-12 months |
| Total project risk | LOW-MEDIUM | Phased approach with built-in decision gates |
9. Ocean Plastic: The Feedstock Challenge
Any processing technology must handle what actually comes out of the ocean. This section applies to all paths.
9.1 What Ocean Plastic Actually Is
GPGP plastic is NOT clean, sorted plastic from a recycling bin. It is:
- Mixed polymer types: ~46% fishing nets/ropes (HDPE, PP, nylon), ~27% rigid plastics (HDPE, PP, PS), ~15% films (LDPE, LLDPE), ~3-7% PVC, remainder mixed/degraded
- Contaminated: Biofouled (barnacles, algae, microorganisms), salt-encrusted, UV-degraded, waterlogged
- Variable density: Some floats, some is neutrally buoyant, some sinks
- Contains non-plastic: Fishing hooks, lead weights, metal clips, rope, trapped organic matter (dead marine life)
- Microplastic fraction: Significant portion is fragments <5mm that cannot be individually processed
9.2 Preprocessing Requirements by Technology
| Step | Pyrolysis | Non-Plasma Gasification | Plasma Gasification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Desalination/washing | Required | Required | Helpful but not critical |
| Drying | Required (moisture <5-10%) | Required (moisture <15-20%) | Required (moisture <20-30%) |
| Shredding | Required (consistent sizing) | Required | Helpful but tolerates larger pieces |
| Metal removal | Required (magnets + eddy current) | Required | Can handle some metals |
| PVC sorting/removal | Strongly recommended | Recommended | Can process PVC directly |
| Sand/sediment removal | Required | Required | Can vitrify into slag |
| Biofouling removal | Helpful | Helpful | Not needed — organic matter gasifies |
10. Comparative Summary Table
| Path | CAPEX | Timeline | TRL | Technology Risk | Financial Risk | Marine Feasibility | Feedstock Flexibility | Overall Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. PyroGenesis w/ protection | $8-18M | 18-30 mo | 7-8 | Low | EXTREME | Proven (PAWDS) | Excellent | HIGH RISK |
| 2. License PRRS, build elsewhere | $8-18M | 24-36 mo | 6-7 | Medium | Low | Unproven at sea | Excellent | MEDIUM RISK |
| 3. WPC torches + custom reactor | $10-22M | 30-48 mo | 5-6 | High | Low | Unproven at sea | Excellent | HIGH RISK (cost/schedule) |
| 4a. InEnTec PEM | $8-15M | 18-30 mo | 7 | Low-Med | Low | Containerized concept exists | Excellent | PROMISING |
| 4b. Tetronics Gasplasma | $8-15M | 24-36 mo | 7-8 | Low-Med | Low | Unproven at sea | Excellent | PROMISING |
| 4c. Boson Energy HPAG | $5-12M | 30-48 mo | 5-6 | Medium | Low (Siemens) | Gravity-driven = good fit | Good | WATCH (not ready) |
| 5. Sierra Energy FastOx | $5-12M | 24-36 mo | 6-7 | Medium | Low (BEV) | Needs evaluation | Good | MODERATE |
| 6. Pyrolysis (various) | $2-5M | 6-18 mo | 8-9 | Low | Low | Proven (Plastic Odyssey) | Moderate | STRONG |
| 7. Hybrid: Pyrolysis then Plasma | $2-5M + $8-18M | 12-48 mo | 8-9 / 6-8 | Low then Med | Low | Proven then TBD | Moderate then Excellent | STRONGEST |
11. Recommendation
Primary Path: Hybrid/Staged (Path 7)
Phase 1: Ship-based pyrolysis (12-18 months)
1. Engage Terragon Technologies for MAGS units (proven naval/marine) as the fastest, lowest-risk starting point. Supplement with a 5-10 TPD pyrolysis unit from Klean Industries or EcoCreation for higher throughput 2. Install a preprocessing line (washing, drying, shredding, magnetic separation) — this is needed regardless of downstream technology 3. Begin processing the easy 80% of ocean plastic (PE, PP, fishing nets) 4. Use pyrolysis oil to offset vessel fuel costs 5. Generate operational data, media coverage, carbon/plastic credits, and funder confidence
Phase 2: Plasma gasification upgrade (24-48 months)
1. During Phase 1, pursue PRRS IP license from PyroGenesis (Path 2) while they still exist as a going concern. Execute the license agreement with IP escrow provisions ASAP 2. Simultaneously engage InEnTec and Tetronics for competitive proposals for a 10 TPD plasma gasification system 3. Use Phase 1 operational data (actual feedstock composition, preprocessing performance, throughput rates) to specify the Phase 2 system accurately 4. By the time Phase 2 procurement begins, the market will be clearer — PyroGenesis may have been acquired, Boson Energy may be commercial, new entrants may have appeared
Immediate Action Items
1. Contact InEnTec — explore whether their PEM containerized concept (originally designed for SeaChange) is still available and what a 10 TPD marine system would cost 2. Contact Tetronics — request a feasibility study for a 10 TPD Gasplasma system adapted for marine installation 3. Contact Terragon Technologies — discuss multiple MAGS units for Phase 1 proof of concept. Note their Camp Smith Hawaii testing = local knowledge 4. Contact Klean Industries — their modular pyrolysis platform plus KBR partnership could deliver a Phase 1 system quickly 5. Approach PyroGenesis for IP license — before they collapse. A $2-3M license deal might be attractive to a cash-starved company. Include IP escrow as a non-negotiable term 6. Contact Hitachi Zosen — explore whether they would consider a plasma gasification reactor design project. Their Utashinai experience is unmatched 7. Engage Boson Energy — register interest for their HPAG system. Siemens backing makes them the most likely next-generation plasma gasification winner
12. Sources
PyroGenesis Financial and Legal Status
- PyroGenesis Financial Reports
- PYR.TO Probability of Bankruptcy
- AMF Proceedings Against PyroGenesis and CEO
- Globe and Mail: Family Transaction and Fraud Allegations
- PAWDS on USS Gerald R. Ford
- PRRS Product Page
Westinghouse Plasma
- Westinghouse Plasma Torches — Specifications
- Westinghouse Plasma Company
- Alter NRG History and Receivership
- Tees Valley / Air Products $1B Write-Down
- NETL Westinghouse Plasma Gasification Overview
Alternative Plasma Companies
- InEnTec — PEM Technology
- Tetronics Technologies
- Tetronics BioSNG Feasibility Report
- Boson Energy — HPAG Technology
- Siemens Backs Boson Energy
- PLAZARIUM Plasma Gasification
- Steel MC Plasmatronic
- S.W.H. Group Plasma Gasification
- Europlasma / CHO Power
- Plasma Gasification Commercialization — Wikipedia
Non-Plasma Gasification
- Sierra Energy FastOx
- Sumitomo SHI FW Gasification
- Valmet CFB Gasification
- Aries Clean Technologies
- Independence Energy Company ePod
Pyrolysis Companies and Technology
- Plastic Energy — TACOIL
- Brightmark Energy
- Klean Industries
- EcoCreation / Carbon Neutral Partnership
- Nexus Circular
- New Hope Energy
- Pyrolysis Plant Cost Guide 2026
- Top 10 Plastic-to-Fuel Companies (2025)
- Marine Plastic Pyrolysis Oil Review
Marine/Shipboard Waste Processing
- Terragon MAGS
- Terragon MAGS Marine Applications
- MAGS on Regal Princess
- MAGS Camp Smith Hawaii Testing
- Plastic Odyssey Vessel
- Plastic Odyssey Pyrolysis Technology
- Marship Engineering — MAGS Integration
Honolulu/Hawaii Specific
IP and Contractual Protection
- IP Escrow Sample Clauses — Law Insider
- IP Rights in Bankruptcy — FindLaw
- Section 365(n) and IP Licenses in Bankruptcy
- IP Escrow Enforceability