On October 13, 2020, we released a report that challenged Loop Industries’ claims of having a “revolutionary” process for recycling PET plastic. Our report cited multiple former employee whistleblowers, as well as industry experts, competitors and an extensive document review.
In addition to presenting our research, our report also asked management 15 questions, ranging from why the company’s initial funding was facilitated through a convicted stock felon to why the company’s two top scientists were in their 20s with no post-graduate education in sciences.
The company failed to address any of the questions we asked, but yesterday, 2 months later, Loop released an “independent review” of its recycling technology by research center Kemitek. Loop claimed the review confirmed the “effectiveness” of its technology.
To the contrary, the review appears to have validated our original findings, as we will show. We remain short Loop’s stock with a price target of $0 and continue to believe that Loop’s claimed technological advantages do not exist.
As mentioned above, the company claimed as recently as October 7, 2020, to have a process that produces high yields and excellent purity at improving cost – what appears to be the holy grail of plastics recycling.
Loop’s Q2 2020 quarterly report spelled this out, describing the company’s new second generation process:
“Since June 2018, when we transitioned to this Generation II (“GEN II”) technology and our industrial pilot plant, we continue to see consistently high monomer yields, excellent purity, and improved conversion costs.”
Given the focus of our report and Loop’s claims about its GEN II process, we expected this “independent review” would attempt to affirm its prior claims about:
Rather than getting answers to these 3 critical questions, the review instead presented this glaring disclaimer:
“The verification was not intended to certify the yields or economic viability of the process” [Pg. 3]
The “review” repeatedly commented on the purity of the end product without regard for yield and cost efficiency:
As a hypothetical meant solely to illustrate this point, what if a company pays $1 trillion to process a warehouse full of PET to achieve an end product that’s “pure” but also the size of a dime? Such information on purity without cost and yield is incomplete to the point of being irrelevant.
Again, purity, cost efficiency and yield together are important to substantiate the claims the company has made to investors in the past – and most importantly, the viability and economic potential of Loop’s process.
Upon review of Kemitek’s report, a former Loop employee told us that given the absence of yield “…the results mean nothing, especially as a viable technology for commercialization.”
The employee also told us that the 98.2% to 98.9% MEG purity in the review was “far from” the 99.9% MEG purity that was expected while they were at the company.
When we consulted a 30-year expert chemist about the supposedly scientific “review” they called it “non-technical marketing information”.
A former Loop employee pointed out that the review said Loop would run 4 batches total; two batches at each size (“mini-pilot” size and “pilot” size).
Yet, when the Kemitek reports its “Product Quality” specifications (figures 5 and 6), it shows only 3 runs for its DMT final product analysis (only one of the two pilot-sized runs is shown) and it combines pilot-sized runs one and two into one set of data for its MEG final product analysis.
This raised questions from the former employee, who suggested the data could be reported in this fashion to hide non-reproducible, potentially “very different” results.
This is not the first time we’ve seen selective data mining by Loop. In our original report, we pointed out a similar type of selective disclosure relating to one of its patent applications in which the company showed only one of the two resultant PET base chemical yields after distillation (MEG). [Pg. 22]
The failure in this latest review to report an entire pilot run and the combining of pilot runs suggests the results may be inconsistent and that the company is facing operational challenges at the pilot scale.
This obviously bodes poorly for a commercial scale operation, the apparent premise of the company’s existence.
Among the key issues raised in our original report was the question of whether or not Loop’s process can scale:
“Experts we spoke with raised serious questions about the company’s ability to make its “unparalleled purity” end product, as claimed, at large scales with any cost efficiency.”
Kemitek’s independent report noted that Loop’s process already needed minor “interventions” at the pilot scale and that these issues “would have to be addressed at commercial scale”. They attributed the issues to “either the size or design of the equipment”:
A former Loop employee who reviewed Kemitek’s report told us that this section indicates “they are not ready for industrialization and scale up to a production level.”
A former Loop employee noted that the report’s comments about “In-Person Surveillance” of the process left “a lot of room for interventions on the process from LOOP’s team without Kemitek knowing about it”.
Specifically, we noticed one line that admitted it was “not possible” for someone from Kemitek to be in the production area 24/7 and additional color that seems to suggest Loop was on the honor system to consult Kemitek “before doing any intervention on the process”.
Quality of the feedstock (i.e., the “input”) plays a crucial role in the output of any final product in a chemical process. In the case of breaking down, purifying and reassembling PET, the more contaminated the feedstock, the more difficult it will be to create a purified end product.
Both our 30-year chemistry expert and a Loop former employee honed in on how Loop’s review appears to have not quantified exactly how contaminated its feedstock was:
“I don’t see how they would be able to quantify the components based on the information provided,” our chemistry expert told us. He also asked about the feedstock:
“While it was sent out to 3rd party and characterized, there are no results. The fact that there was ‘no tampering,’ so what? What were the results from the analysis?”
The only information about the feedstock was information that was obtained by internal testing at Loop, which we believe sullies its “independence”:
“The feedstock used throughout the verification consisted of pallets of post-consumer waste PET plastic. In appearance, it was a mix of clear, gray and colored flakes and fines with a PET content varying between 86% and 95%, as determined by a Loop-conducted analysis. Feedstock contaminants identified by external laboratories mandated by Kemitek include printed film, silicone elastomer and polystyrene.”
The former company employee also indicated to us that the feedstock used for the test may not have included items like rock and sand, which are common with PET and may have provided a more realistic test of the process.
Finally, our 30-year expert in chemistry characterized Kemitek’s review of Loop’s process as “very misleading” and told us:
“The issue is what is implied in their statements and conclusions reached in the testing that was ‘observed’ by Kemitek. It’s worded for non-technical people and very misleading.
Implying that [Loop’s process] is easy, inexpensive, and cost effective based on their released information is just wrong.”
We reached out to Kemitek on December 14, 2020, with a list of several preliminary questions we had about their review. We asked about the amount, in grams, of PET used at the beginning and end of the process (which could help determine a yield) and whether the PET feedstock used was “typical” for post-consumer waste.
We were told by the Executive Director of Kemitek to “address all your questions to Loop as we are not mandated to respond to inquiries”.
Among other things, at the end of our report in October we listed 15 questions for Loop to answer. The company has since answered zero of these questions – so, we will list them again here:
Maybe one day investors will get a response.
It appears the market may have already started to figure out what we reveal in this report, as Loop stock has fallen precipitously since the company released its review.
As we stated in our original report, we continue to believe that Loop’s claimed technological advantages do not exist and that the company does not have the science to back up the claims it has made on its website, in its investor decks and in its SEC filings, since its inception as a public company.
Legal Disclaimer: Use of Hindenburg Research’s research is at your own risk. In no event should Hindenburg Research or any affiliated party be liable for any direct or indirect trading losses caused by any information in this report. You further agree to do your own research and due diligence, consult your own financial, legal, and tax advisors before making any investment decision with respect to transacting in any securities covered herein. You should assume that as of the publication date of any short-biased report or letter, Hindenburg Research (possibly along with or through our members, partners, affiliates, employees, and/or consultants) along with our clients and/or investors has a short position in all stocks (and/or options of the stock) covered herein, and therefore stands to realize significant gains in the event that the price of any stock covered herein declines. Following publication of any report or letter, we intend to continue transacting in the securities covered herein, and we may be long, short, or neutral at any time hereafter regardless of our initial recommendation, conclusions, or opinions. This is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security, nor shall any security be offered or sold to any person, in any jurisdiction in which such offer would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction. Hindenburg Research is not registered as an investment advisor in the United States or have similar registration in any other jurisdiction. To the best of our ability and belief, all information contained herein is accurate and reliable, and has been obtained from public sources we believe to be accurate and reliable, and who are not insiders or connected persons of the stock covered herein or who may otherwise owe any fiduciary duty or duty of confidentiality to the issuer. However, such information is presented “as is,” without warranty of any kind – whether express or implied. Hindenburg Research makes no representation, express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any such information or with regard to the results to be obtained from its use. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice, and Hindenburg Research does not undertake to update or supplement this report or any of the information contained herein.
48 thoughts on “Loop’s “Independent Review” Of Its Technology Falls Flat”
Hi, can we have more information about your 30-year chemistry expert ? thanks
I’m also highly interested. I guess these Hindenburg crooks will never reply.
Excellent research as always. Thank you guys for the time put into this!
Ouch. Being a big proponent of recycling, this one hurts.
Hi can we have more information about your 30-year chemistry expert ?
How does loop’s process compare to Carbios ($COOSF)? This seems like an obvious industry comparison- they started in 2011, focus on chemical recycling, and are publicly traded. Is there yield or economic data from COOSF?
Not surprised given our forthcoming leadership.
I know the 30 year chemistry expert as I was asked about this process too.
He has a strong background in polymers and depolymerization. He has worked up chemical processes from concept to commercial scale.
Loops process cannot efficiently process PET economically. If they could they would produce process economics and sales of tankers of monomer.
Lastly, I noticed in their review a constant reference to Loop specifications. The rest of the industry in monikers do not utilize their homegrown specifications. A monster with 0.5% contaminates makes the entire product worthless.
Hope this helps.
Disclosure: I am not short or long loop. I habe no investments in the financial market and I scale chemical processes from concept to production.
I suspect that you have zero understanding in chemical engineering as the 0.5% contaminant percentage for PET simply seems too improbable. Usually the allowed contamination is up to 2%, where recycling companies struggle to keep that percentage 1.8% – 1.9%. If loop has a 0.5% contamination value, that’s an incredible number as no one requires 100% purity. It’s not practical or necessary. Please do not comment about topics that you are not qualified to talk about.
Sorry autocorrect on the term monomer became monster and moniker (lol likely a monster within loop)
Comments are closed.