Continued Misrepresentations of Larry Shultz, David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings

As many of you know I follow a lot of the internet chatter relating to the chemical scam being perpetrated by David Feuerborn, Thomas Jennings, Larry Shultz, ESS and their co-conspirators.  I have noticed that David, Tom and Larry have taken to the internet to promulgate their lies about the solvent, and defame those that have uncovered their fraud.  This is the standard modus operandi of their scam.  They claim that the California Department of Corporations is corrupt, they claim that the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office is corrupt, they claim that the IRS and United States Attorney’s Office is corrupt, they claim that the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office is corrupt, they claim that they Texas State Securities Board is corrupt, they claim that Petro-Sog is corrupt, they claim that the Utah Partners are corrupt, and now they claim that Freestone is corrupt.  Are we beginning to see a pattern develop?   

(Personal Note: I will not give David, Tom and Larry another forum (aka this Blog) to spew their misrepresentations and lies, but I want to acknowledge some of the recent information they have been posting on the internet, and on certain government documents.  That said, out of respect to those that have been damaged by this scam I will not publish links to their posts unless they are published by the parties they have defamed.) 

Mr. Larry Shultz filed a certain document with a government agency under penalty of federal criminal violations if misstatements or omissions of facts are contained within the government document (“Government Document”).  Mr. Shultz signed the Government Document and filed it of record so he can’t retract it.  In the Government Document he claims that Freestone is corrupt. (Remember that pattern I mentioned above?)  In the Government Document he claims that he (Shultz) is now a “whistleblower” because of the amended lawsuit that Freestone recently filed against him, David, and Tom.  (The amended complaint shows additional securities violations perpetrated by Shultz.)  Shultz also states that he wants his day in court to clear his name.  He claims that rights were given to Freestone by himself, David and Tom, and that they eventually took away those rights from Freestone.  He claims that the chemical is “non-toxic” and safe, and that it can be used for EOR (pumped into the ground to extract oil).  He also claims that Freestone let “billion dollar rights” slip away.      

1) To begin, I can’t imagine that their attorney (Neil Evans) advised Larry Shultz to file this Government Document that outlined their potential argument/strategy in the Civil Case.  More importantly I am sure that their attorney knows that judges do not appreciate defendants and plaintiffs trying to argue the merits of a lawsuit outside their courtrooms.  According to my attorney, the defamation that occurred in the Government Document is also very much frowned upon by the Courts (to say the least).  In the Government Document, Shultz claims that he is some kind of “whistleblower”, and that he is using that as a pretext to defame Freestone and its management.  This is the same tactic David and Tom have used against government agencies that have uncovered their massive fraud.  They claim that these government agencies are corrupt or have corrupt officials working for them.  They claim that the multiple government agencies and the companies that have indicted/sued them are involved with a vast conspiracy against them.

2) Mr. Shultz also stated that he wants his day in court to clear his name.  Thus, I ask you, Mr. Shultz, why do you keep trying to get the Civil Case dismissed on claims that jurisdiction does not exist?  Why haven’t you answered the lawsuit?  Your actions speak louder than your words.

3) Next, Larry Shultz claims that he gave Freestone certain “rights” and then took those “rights” away because Freestone didn’t fulfill some obligation.  Let’s see, you cannot pump toxic, chlorinated chemicals into the ground (EOR) so that is a “right” that didn’t exist in the first place.  More importantly, who wants to own rights to a toxic chemical?  If these “rights” are so precious and you have the ability to grant them or take them away, and you truly care about the company that is suing you, then why are you taking rights away from them?  In one breath you say that you are trying to help and protect this company, but in the next breath you say that you took rights away from the company and you won’t give them back unless new management renegotiates with you!  This makes no sense, unless you want to take away these fictitious “rights” as an excuse to sell them to another party in order to continue the con.  This seems to be what they did to ESS investors, because the ESS “rights” seem to overlap with Freestone “rights”.  Hmmmm.  I am beginning to see another pattern develop.

4) If you are going to continue the claim under penalty of federal criminal violation (which has been refuted by multiple scientists at various state agencies and private companies) that your chemical is non-toxic and that it works, then produce your “bona fide” chemists willing to vouch for it.  I didn’t see an expert witness with a chemistry background listed on the motion in the Criminal Case.  I only saw an introducer and an investor that have a vested interest in the toxic chemical.  If your chemical is so amazing then why don’t you take the chemical to Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, etc.?  In the Civil Case Freestone states they wish to rescind the Agreement you signed with them.  Forgive my ignorance, but doesn’t that mean you can get all your “rights” back?  As is the case with most ESS investors I don’t think Freestone or anyone wants your “rights”.  The current actions of David, Tom and Larry don’t make any sense unless it was a scam to begin with.

**Criminal Case Update** 

The Criminal Case has been postponed until February 22, 2011.  The Government agreed to give Feuerborn and Jennings one last continuance with their agreement that they would not request any more continuances in this case.   

-ESS Investor                    

“If you drink much from a bottle marked `poison,' it is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later.”

Happy New Year Blog World!  Let’s pray that David and Tom will be spending 2011 behind bars so they cannot scam any more innocent victims, and hopefully this new guy, Lawrence Shultz, will be following in their footsteps.  

Over the holidays I read a comment posted on the VRI Board.  I thought it was a great idea.  According to the claims of David, Tom and now Lawrence, the chemical solvent is completely “non-toxic”.  ESS investors were all sold on this idea, and Freestone has shown emails, a fake MSDS and other documentation from David, Tom and Lawrence where they continue to make this claim.  If that is the case then they should be willing to let their family and friends that have assisted in the marketing and sale of this product drink a litre of it.  Then David, Tom and Lawrence should all drink a litre of it.  What better way to prove that it is not toxic!?!?

I hope the people at Freestone read this post and pass it on to their legal counsel.  If David, Tom and Lawrence say that they will not drink the product, nor will they let their friends and family drink the product, then that is definitive proof that it’s toxic stuff - case won!  Obviously you will have to watch them closely to make sure they don’t engage in anymore Parlor Tricks, and try to swap out the toxic chemical after the experiment with water or something of the like.

Only 15 days until their trial!

- ESS Investor

Courtroom Drama

I put a phone call in to Freestone’s office to ask if anyone from the company attended the hearing on Wednesday.  I spoke to an individual at the company that attended the hearing, and he gave me a play-by-play of what occurred.  I will keep his identity anonymous out of respect for his privacy.  I have no ill will towards their company, because they have been hurt by this scam just as all the ESS investors have been hurt.    

Usually federal court hearings are pretty bland, but I am told that this one had a little excitement.  To begin, David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings did not show up.  Neil Evans (David Feuerborn’s criminal attorney) was present as well as the new third partner, Larry Shultz. 

It sounds as if this hearing was more exciting than an episode of Law & Order.  I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at this hearing, because according to my source at the company Larry Shultz was thrown out of the courtroom by Judge O’Connor for speaking out of turn while in the gallery.  Now I am more inclined than ever to get a transcript of the proceedings so I can find out exactly what was said that angered the Judge.  Shultz wasn’t just warned.  He was thrown out!  Not the best first impression on a Judge that will be presiding over your case if you ask me.  I wonder if the Judge knows about the criminal charges that have been brought against Feuerborn and Jennings by the U.S. Attorney's Office.  It looks as if this guy Shultz is now completely intertwined in their chemical scam, and if he has been involved in raising money for them he might be involved in their criminal activities which include defrauding the federal government, and tax fraud.  I hope someone investigates and follows the recent money transactions.    

   

(Note: The Judge allowed Shultz to come back in to testify as a witness in the hearing.  While on the stand Shultz apologized for his outburst.  It will be interesting to see what he said on the stand, and if it conflicts with any information that is known about the chemical scam.)

After the discovery of this news I am going to order a complete transcript of the proceedings.  I will update everyone when I get it. 

-ESS Investor

Bench Warrant Issued for David Feuerborn

This blog post will have nothing to do with the chemical scam perpetrated by David Feuerborn, Thomas Jennings, Larry Shultz and others, but instead I will focus on some past legal documentation I found during an internet search on David Feuerborn.  While this case has no direct connection with the chemical scam, it does give some insight into the behavior of David.  The subsequent events that occurred after the divorce might have a direct connection with his legal battles on the chemical scam.       

I discovered a very messy divorce proceeding and child custody battle.  It looks as if a bench warrant was issued due to his contempt of court:

5/28/2003

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST DAVID JOHN FEUERBORN FILED BY COUNTY OF VENTURA

BENCH WARRANT ISSUED

 

According to this documentation he had some cash flow issues that related to his payment of child support.  I wonder if that is why he went on the road to Louisiana and other states in order to raise money with the chemical scam.  Maybe these seemingly unrelated events are very much related.

Maybe David didn’t want to file a tax return so that he looked destitute and would not have to pay child support. 

It looks as if David has always had money issues, and instead of making money through hard work and a normal job he decided to take the easy way out and use his parlor tricks to scam investors into investing into the chemical scam.  Very interesting how this is all finally coming together.  

- ESS Investor

Death and Taxes

“In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.” – Benjamin Franklin

How true this quote must ring to David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings.  I have been asked why the United States would indict David and Tom for tax fraud rather than indict them for their chemical fraud scheme.  If you talk to David and Tom I am sure you will hear responses such as, “these are trumped up charges” and, “they are only going after us on tax fraud because they can’t prove our chemical business was a scam.”  One should ignore those biased responses.

Instead it is well known that tax fraud is very easy to prove.  Take for instance the criminal case that brought down the infamous mobster Alphonse Gabriel “Al” Capone.  Al Capone was a ruthless gangster, but the tax evasion charges are what finally put him away for good.  The tax fraud might be the best way for ESS investors to finally get justice.  So the government will need to prove the following in the Criminal Case against David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings:

1.        Did David file a tax return in the past five years?  If he did it should be on file with the IRS.  If he didn’t then it won’t be on file.  That is very easy for the Government to prove.  I don’t think the excuse “it got lost in the mail” will work this time.

2.       Did Thomas Jennings file his tax returns incorrectly over the past five years?  All the Government needs to show is that he misstated his income based on the forensic accounting of their bank accounts. 

3.       Did Feuerborn and Jennings open a bank account with the name “Ecologic”?  (This is spelled deceivingly similar to a company that built a machine that is currently who-knows-where.  The real company is spelled “Eco-Logic” with a hyphen.)  The government is alleging that they created this “bogus” bank account in order to divert money into their personal accounts without investor knowledge. 

4.          Did Dave and Tom ask their CFO to classify the ESS money paid to them as “loans” so they wouldn’t have to record it as regular income?  I am sure they have sworn testimony of the CFO to validate this allegation.  The IRS doesn’t take kindly to loans that have no term or interest rate.

5.       Did Tom pay for interior decorating at Interiors by KC, Inc. with investor money?  That should be easy to prove.

6.       Did Dave by motorcycles and/or cars at Hahm Motorsports with investor money?  That should be easy to prove.  (Grand Jury Indictment, Page 1-25; Case: CR 10-00346)

Do you see how easy it is to prove tax fraud?

The U.S. Attorney had indicted them for tax fraud, but I am sure he will use a broad brush to paint a picture that includes the chemical fraud as well.  The U.S. Attorney has already used the Civil Case in his motions, and he can continue to use it.  He can also use the sworn testimony and additional discovery gathered in the Civil Case.  Additionally, one has to ask if they paid taxes on the money paid to them by Freestone.  I doubt it.  This shows a continued effort to defraud the U.S. Government.      

Thus, there is little gray area when it comes to tax fraud.  If convicted, one might assume that they will go back to their chemical scam after they get out of prison because that is all they know.  Here is my analysis of that scenario.  If Dave and Tom go to prison they are looking at terms of up to 20-30 years.  If they get the minimum sentence or a decreased sentence and they return to their chemical scam then the Civil Case might be the answer.  Freestone can ask certain questions in their interrogatories and discovery portion of the litigation that can prove that criminal acts took place and even bring the new guy, Larry Shultz, into the mix.  If they try to perpetrate the chemical scam again, then the U.S. Attorney can go after another indictment based on the sworn testimony gathered in the Civil Case.  This may happen anyway if enough evidence is amassed.  Only time will tell.   

- ESS Investor 

Arrogance is Bliss

I've decided to use this blog post to analyze the mindset of David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings as it relates to the chemical scam and the problems they have encountered in the 20+ years they have been at it. 

Arrogance:

I can attest that David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings are extremely arrogant individuals.  Take for instance Dave’s arrogance towards the Internal Revenue Agency.  He hasn’t filed a tax return in the last 5 years and he thinks he can get away with it!  That’s arrogance. 

Dave and Tom know there are hazardous chlorinated chemicals in their “solvent” yet they think they can forge Material Data Safety Sheets and other government regulated documentation so that everyone thinks it’s as safe as water.  This is a federal offense!  That’s arrogance. 

Dave and Tom also get people to front for them so that due diligence research doesn’t reveal their identities and past scams.  In Louisiana they used paid actors to pitch the solvent to would-be investors, and they used an individual named Larry Shultz to sell the “solvent” to Freestone.  That’s arrogance.

They set up bogus bank accounts at Wells Fargo with names almost identical to the vendors building their “machines” so they could funnel money to their personal bank accounts and investors would think the money was going to the machine manufacturers.  That’s arrogance. 

They are still trying to sell their “solvent” under different names and different corporations even though they have been criminally indicted by the state of Louisiana, criminally indicted by the U.S. Federal Government, successfully sued by Petro-Sog, civilly sued by Freestone Resources (ongoing), and issued a Desist and Refrain order from selling securities by both Texas and California.  That’s arrogance. 

How do they get away with it?:

If you talk to Dave and Tom then you hear the excuse that they have been through all this trouble because “people are trying to steal their ‘solvent’”, or that “people are just jealous of their miracle cleaner.”  Let’s take a look at that argument:

Petro-Sog only wanted to recover money that they paid to Feuerborn when they found out that Feuerborn had made multiple misrepresentations about the chemical and its toxicity.  They wanted nothing to do with the “solvent” when they discovered it had carcinogenic, chlorinated chemicals contained in it. 

Freestone just wants to recover their stock and money that they paid to Feuerborn, Jennings, Shultz and Environmental Services and Support, Inc.  They are asking for a rescission of their Agreement because they made the same discoveries made by Petro-Sog, which indicates that they want nothing to do with this hazardous “solvent” either. 

Then one must ask if the Internal Revenue Service, the state of Louisiana, the California Department of Corporations or the Texas Securities Commission wanted to steal their “solvent”.  This is the most laughable of them all.  I know Dave and Tom blame their Louisiana prosecution on corrupt local officials, but the fact still remains that many investors lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on this scam.  It sounds to me as if they people they scammed were just well connected.  None of the documentation or disclosures they made to Louisiana investors discussed the carcinogenic chemicals that are contained within the “solvent”.  

These guys think they are above the law.  They don’t care if people get hurt because they don’t make the proper disclosures about their “solvent's" toxicity.  The only thing on the minds of Feuerborn and Jennings is how they can make some quick cash without working for it.  It looks as if the chickens are finally coming home to roost.      

- ESS Investor

The Eyes of Texas are Upon You

It looks as if we have some life in the Civil Case.  Judge Reed O’connor has ordered both parties (Plaintiff and Defendants) to appear for a hearing on November 17, 2010 to hear verbal arguments on the jurisdiction challenge submitted by Neil Evans, the attorney for David Feuerborn, Thomas Jennings, Larry Shultz, and Environmental Services and Support, Inc. (“Defendants”). 

On November 17^th Freestone will argue that the Defendants had the minimal contact needed in the state of Texas to keep the jurisdiction in the Northern District Court in Texas.  According to my research, minimal contact is usually all one needs to prove in order to keep the original jurisdiction in which the complaint was originally filed.  According to Freestone’s response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants had minimal contact with Texas in that they originally solicited a Freestone consultant and resident of Texas while he was in Texas, made multiple phone calls to Freestone’s Texas office, sent multiple emails to Freestone’s Texas office, visited Freestone’s office in Texas on multiple occasions where they gave misrepresentations during demonstrations of the solvent, a demonstration trip in Houston, and the Petro-Sog case indicating that at least one of the Defendants (David Feuerborn) has previously directed this scam at the state of Texas.

Neil Evans, the attorney for Feuerborn in the Criminal Case, argued that he didn’t have enough time to prepare a proper defense for his client, and requested a continuance multiple times in the Criminal Case.  Now, how are we supposed to believe that he has time to travel to Texas to represent all of the Defendants in the Civil Case?  What are the odds that he will come up with some obtuse reason to postpone the jurisdiction hearing in the Civil Case?  But then again the Judge must to approve his reason before he will allow the hearing to be postponed.  I have a feeling that Judge O’connor will not have a lot of patience for these guys if they attempt delay tactics when he hears about their criminal indictment. 

So now the Defendants’ attorney is going to fly back and forth between California and Texas on ESS investors’ funds.  This is the biggest travesty of them all.  On a phone conference with ESS investors David Feuerborn claimed he was looking for a joint venture partner, and that construction was underway on another machine.  Instead, it looks like any new money that might come into this venture will be spent on defending David Feuerborn and Thomas Jennings.    

Personally, I would like both cases to move forward as quickly as possible.  My goal is to collect any and all evidence in the Criminal Case and Civil Case that proves that Feuerborn and Jennings used fraud in their chemical scam in the hopes that an ESS class action can be put together.  If there is evidence that criminal actions have occurred then the authorities might even get involved and stop them once and for all!  No one else needs to get hurt by these guys and their scam. 

-          ESS Investor    

Lawrence Shultz

I decided to dedicate this blog entry to Lawrence Shultz.  According to some documentation I have discovered he self identifies as Larry Shultz.

I was very interested in doing some due diligence on Mr. Shultz, because he was not around when I was introduced to ESS.  He first appeared in the Civil Case as a third partner to Thomas Jennings and David Feuerborn.   From reading the documentation on PACER (mostly email exhibits) it looks as if most of the sales job to Freestone was done by Mr. Shultz.  I am not sure if this was a tactic to hide the identities of Feuerborn and Jennings, but one can assume that his role was a front man in order to mask their previous dealings.

I have found quite a bit of information on Larry Shultz on the internet that relates directly to the chemical, as well as information of his dealings with other companies.  To begin I will focus on his chemical blogging.  A simple search of tar sands and Larry Shultz was conducted in Google to find the following:

Tar Sand Blogging:

Larry Shultz commented on a Blog written by Susan Casey.  He uses his real name in the "Comment Section" of the Blog to discuss R6000.  He makes all sorts of environmental claims about the product that resemble the rhetoric of Feuerborn and Jennings during ESS.  He also gives his email address on the Blog as "larry411@gmail.com".  (Note: "Larry411" is the handle that the current demonstration videos are listed under on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/Larry411)

Other Companies:

According to LinkedIn Mr. Shultz is currently an owner of a company called Larson Tech Ventures.  I can't really find too much information on Larsen Tech so I assume it is a shell company.  It could be the new company they are operating under for Cleansal.  (Note:  A cached version of Larry's LinkedIn page lists him as a Director at Freestone.  It goes on to state that he, "[w]rote EncapSol business plan and created company's Energy Bond equipment financing business model."  I am not sure what any of that means, but I haven't been able to find any corporate documentation issued by Freestone that supports his claim that he is, or ever was, a Director with the company.)  I plan on calling Freestone this week to ask if (a) Mr. Shultz was ever an employee or Director of the company, and (b) if they can disclose the beneficial owners of the stock in the ESS deal.  I will post my findings after that discussion. 

CryoTherm and Encore Clean Energy:

I found information on a company called Cryotherm where it states that Lawrence Mitchell Shultz is a Director.  This small bio is listed on Bloomberg Businessweek.  After reading this information I did a simple search including Mr. Shultz's name on these two companies.  Here are some links I found.

http://www.secinfo.com/dUqRq.3ed.htm
This link provides a more detailed bio on Larry Shultz and it also lists what I am assuming is a sibling or wife named Sally J. Shultz.   (Note: The bio claims that Sally went to UCLA School of Law, but I have searched the state bar of California and I could not find any record that she is a licensed attorney in the state of California.)  I cross referenced her name with the Civil Case and discovered a document pertaining to Larry Shultz that listed an individual named Sally Masserat.  This document was a Proof of Service Document.  At the bottom of this document it states, "Sally Masserat a.k.a Monica Ramirez first identified herself as Defendant's sister, then claimed to be his live-in maid when I advised her as to the nature of the documents" (Civil Case, Page 84).  I have to assume this is the same Sally.  I am not sure if she is further involved in the chemical business, but according to the SEC documentation she has worked with Mr. Shultz before.

Here is a copy of the Encore Clean Energy 13D filed on behalf of Mr. Shultz.

*UPDATE*

It looks like Mr. Shultz has had a run in with the SEC!  Check out this link: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/s72804/s72804-18.htm

Happy Election day!  Do your civic duty and go vote!

-ESS Investor

Parlor Tricks

Happy Monday everyone!  I decided to devote this blog entry to explaining how David Feuerborn, Thomas Jennings and Larry Shultz have been so successful at this con.   I deem it a successful con because according to the Criminal Case they have raised a substantial sum of money with this "chemical".

To begin, Feuerborn discovered one very hazardous and chlorinated chemical has the ability to separate hydrocarbons from solids.  We derive this information based on the California Department of Corporations Desist and Refrain Order and the Petro-Sog Case.  We have to assume that this discovery was made in the early 1990s according to the information discovered in the Petro-Sog Case.   Due to the extreme toxicity of the chemical, and the fact that only one chemical comprised Feuerborn's "solvent", it was necessary to create some mystique and, most importantly, fake documentation.

So What is the Sales Pitch?:

When I purchased ESS stock I was told that there was a special blending method and a multitude of chemicals were used to create R6000 (the name of the solvent when it was sold to ESS investors).  From my discussions with other ESS investors I have been apprised of stories that they tell to non-chemists.  These stories range from shocking the chemical in order to change its polarity to the utilization of a special "black box" that blends the chemicals in a certain order to remove toxicity.  This is all garbage.  While I am a Bio-Engineer, I have a background in rudimentary chemistry.  I can tell you that shocking an organic substance will not change its polarity and blending multiple organic chemicals together will not make a toxic chemical non-toxic.  If this had been Feuerborn's sales pitch when I purchased the ESS stock I would have walked out of the room immediately.  (I almost did walk out of the room because Tom was so arrogant at the meeting.)  If the two organic chemicals are miscible in one another then they might alter the main chemical's properties (flash point, boiling point, etc.), but that is it.

Feuerborn and Jennings also boasted that the chemical passed an aquatic toxicity test.  This is my favorite con of them all.  Let's assume that they really used R6000 in the test.  (I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even use it to conduct the test.)  If you have a toxic chemical that is not soluble in water and has a specific gravity that is heavier than water then it can pass this misleading test.  The chemical will rest on the bottom of the fish tank and the fish are not exposed to the chemical's toxicity.   This doesn't mean that the chemical is non-toxic.  Personally I think this was a forged test, but even if it wasn't there is a way that a toxic chemical can successfully pass the aquatic minnow test.

I believe Feuerborn began learning from his mistakes and altered the con accordingly.  In the Petro-Sog Case one of David's partners told a Petro-Sog employee what was in the "solvent".   Thus, Petro-Sog sued Feuerborn because it is extremely toxic stuff.   They have learned that no matter how deep a company gets involved with them that they cannot disclose the chemical's makeup, because the fraud will be immediately uncovered.  Also, how would the EPA allow a machine to operate anywhere in the U.S. if there is a risk that carcinogenic chemicals will escape into the atmosphere. 

Next, when I purchased my ESS stock I was told that the solvent was patent pending.  Others have been told that it's held in a trade secret.  The patent pending claim was a complete lie.  If Feuerborn patented the solvent then the toxicity would be revealed.   Also, I was told it was patent pending in the early 2000s and  there is still nothing posted on the USPTO website.  The California Department of Corporations Desist and Refrain Order also states that this was a lie told to investors.  According to the Civil Case Complaint this same lie was told to Freestone by David Feuerborn.  Personally, I am shocked at the audacity of Feuerborn, Jennings and Shultz by perpetuating this lie as recently as last year!

That's all for today folks.  I will be back with more information soon!

-ESS Investor

   

New Promotion of ESS Solvent

We uncovered a blog post that was made on a site called The Eco Eye.  I believe David Feuerborn is the individual in the demonstration video and Larry 411 is Lawrence Shultz. Here is the text from the YouTube video:

"This close-up chemical demonstration shows the basic process steps that are inherent to any continuous flow Oil Extraction Machine using the EncapSol chemicals: (1) Insert the feedstock Tar Sands (2) Add EncapSol liquids in the reactor (3) Gravity-separate the water, the heavier EncapSol liquids encapsulating the oil and the even heavier sands and solids, (4) Dry out the sands with low-temperature process waste-heat, (5) Evaporate the EncapSol liquids to recover the hydrocarbon/oil for sale, and (6) Condense the evaporated gaseous EncapSol back into a liquid to start the whole closed-loop process all over again in a continuous flow reaction that can extract oil from oil-infused rocks and sands.

With the push for Arctic drilling, the fact that oil normally congeals in cold and freezing temperatures tis a big problem that is very costly because it consumes too much fuel energy in the process just to get the oil flowing.

However, as EncapSol demonstrates in this video -- unlike any other oil industry solvent being used, EncapSol can uniquely and cost-effectively break hydrocarbon molecular bonds so as to make heavy, immobile, 8-API gravity oil flow like water for easier extraction, even in freezing temperatures.

Whether it is TAR SANDS from Utah or OIL SHALE from Colorado or waste-oil sludge pits, oil spills or storage tank bottom sludge -- EncapSol literally can cleanly dissolve the liquid hydrocarbons from the solids that strand it.

Please note that in the process, the EncapSol solvent is fully recovered with greater than 99% efficiency -- which recovered solvent is re-used in the next cycle.

All separated water, sand, gravel, clay and rocks are delivered clean, free of any remaining oil or residual solvent.

This is a closed-loop zero-discharge system."

http://theecoeye.com/?p=6740