'Pioneering' fuel product had been around for 40 years

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

The insolvency of Borders-based Omega Infinite, the company which claimed to be producing an environmentally clean fuel for all forms of transport means development of the 'Avocet' brand of additive will have to be abandoned for a second time.

Far from being a new idea, the 'green' fuel being promoted by Omega's directors over the last five years was a resurrection of the chemical technology first invented in South Africa in the 1980s, and taken on a stage by the mighty Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) Corporation.

Even ICI could not make 'Avocet' financially sustainable, and the patents and trademarks held by the conglomerate in the USA and the UK were ultimately surrendered more than 20 years ago.

Investors in Omega Infinite (previously known as Avocet Infinite) clearly thought the additive would prove to be a winner second time around. But as we have been reporting, the company has had liquidators appointed by 'The Secretary of State'.

Dr Bob Jennings, one of Omega's directors, has been party to a number of patent applications linked to the fuel together with Glyn Short, an alternative energy consultant based in Hockessin, Delaware. The two inventors also submitted plans for an alcohol-fuelled combustion engine using an ignition-improver additive in 2014.

However, 'Avocet' had its roots in Johannesburg in 1979-80 when four scientists from AECI Ltd., a subsidiary of ICI, lodged a patent application in the United States.

The story of 'Avocet' is told in a 2001 scientific paper entitled Avocet: Not For The Want of Trying.

According to the paper:"The additive is an 'ignition improver' which allows methanol to be used as a fuel in existing diesel engines with a minimum of modifications. AECI were motivated to increase local consumption of methanol made from coal feedstock; coal-derived methanol was being promoted as a fuel in response to the difficulties South Africa then had (as a pariah state) in guaranteeing supplies of imported oil for fuels."

Authors of the paper, Lloyd Dale, Philip Gamlen, Ken Green and P. Groenewegen described how the world-wide patents were licensed to AECI's parent company, ICI (UK), who took on the product development in the mid-1980s.

"The main market for the product was seen to be in those parts of the world, such as Los Angeles, Sweden and Hong Kong, which were thought likely to be introducing tighter emission regulations to control air pollution. In these places, it was thought that there would be a growing demand for cleaner fuels for use in Public Service Vehicles, like buses.

"Apart from being a cleaner fuel, methanol was estimated to reduce the costs of engine maintenance (though there would be the extra initial cost of modifying the engine). To test the fuel, ICI set up trials with bus fleets and lobbied relevant politicians and regulators."

To test the fuel, ICI set up trials with bus fleets and lobbied relevant politicians and regulators.

"However, in 1993, the Avocet project was disbanded and the licenses were passed on to another part of ICI, Nobel Explosives, who have subsequently withdrawn from the business. The pressure on ICI of the early 90s recession was a strong factor in the withdrawal of the product and the abandonment of the development project."

Avocet: Not For The Want Of Trying continues: "In order to innovate successfully it is necessary for a firm to know how to manage a product development project against a background of uncertainty, in regulatory and other matters.

"However, even if a firm's motives are of the highest - to respond positively to perceived environmental problems – there is no guarantee that it will be able to develop the market. This case is an example of how difficult it can be for a company to seek to take the lead in green innovation."

The scientific publication claims in conclusion that Avocet was a prime example of an innovation which needed to create demand in order to succeed. Not only did ICI create a new product, but they had to create a market for it.

"Despite their best intention, this proved to be a difficult task for ICI due to the players involved and the nature of the industry. Avocet failed because the innovation was not sufficiently backed.

"It shows how difficult it is to disrupt 'lock-in; individual company responses - even if motivated by green credentials - are insufficient without other, more systemic changes".