TARBLASTER MARKET SEGMENTATION

Interim Report

Prepared for Tarblaster A/S

27th April 2009

INTRODUCTION

OTM understands that Tarblaster is planning to hold a market segmentation and planning

one-day workshop with EPI-V, in May 2009. This has been moved tentative to 03.06.09.

OTM has been asked to carry out an initial market segmentation and verification exercise in

advance of the workshop, and also participate in this workshop as a presenter of this

information and as an independent participant.

OTM market analyses generally have three levels of detail as follows:

Level 1 – Market segmentation and verification

Level 2 – Segment market demand and revenue analysis

Level 3 – Commercialisation planning/ roadmapping

This work represents level 1analysis and the accompanying slides review the 5 different

segments and verification of the market for each segment

Following this interim report we plan to conduct interviews to probe and validate the initial

conclusions of this report

2

Segments investigated

1. Oil sands refining

2. Drill cuttings disposal (Onshore and Offshore)

3. Algae refining

4. Oil shale refining

5. Land reclamation

3

Topics investigated for each segment

Market Drivers

Geography

Value Chain

Competing Technologies

Summary

4

1.Oil sands refining

5

Oil sands refining: Market Drivers

6

Drivers Examples

Depleting conventional oil Roadmap by U.S. DOE to develop oil sands in America

Anticipated demand from developing countries Petroleum demand in Asia to increase by 40% (2015)

Environmental challenge Most governments have policies to reduce GHG emissions (Kyoto protocol)

Preservation of fresh water • Push to reduce fresh water usage (Canada)• Lack of availability of fresh water in Middle East• Lack of water in remote areas

Energy Intensive process Extraction and upgrading processes requires steam generated from natural gas – prone to price and availability fluctuations

Rapid development of new production technologies

THAI, VAPEX, electrical heating recovery technologies in pilot stage. Successful development will increase demand for upgrading

Oil sands refining: Geography & Clients

7

2390 bbl

2260

430

347

46

17

10.5

4.46

0.0015

Canada – Global technology leader.• Suncor, Syncrude, Petro-

Canada, Shell, ExxonMobil• Husky, EnCana, Talisman,

Statoil Hydro, TotalUnited States – renewed interest by

the government to develop bitumen deposits

• Shell. Chevron, Murphy, Marathon, ConocoPhillips

Mexico – traditionally the major supplier of heavy oil to US. Assets decreasing.

• PEMEX

Brazil – offshore heavy oil (not a market for Tarblaster)

Venezuela – large scale implementation of upgrading technologies

• PDVSA, StatoilHydroEcuador – heavy oil under

environmentally sensitive area (UN Biosphere reserve site)

Kuwait – Keen to ramp-up production. Steam Injection is preferred. Lack of freshwater

• KOCCongo, Madagascar – smaller capacities needed, lack

of fresh water• Total, Eni

Egypt , Nigeria and Angola– Large bitumen onshore deposits. No plans to develop yet

• Total

North Sea – Offshore heavy oil. Grane (Norway)- not a market for Tarblaster

Russia – Current focus light oil. Major heavy oil projects expected in coming years (Tatarstan and Timon-Peshora basin)

Oil sands refining: Value Chain (Mining & in-situ)

8

1 Extraction Bitumen

API ~8

RefineryMining

Diluents

Dilbit / Synbit

API ~ 24

3 Bitumen RefineryIn-Situ

Diluents

Dilbit / Synbit

4Partial Upgrading

Bitumen RefineryIn-Situ SCO**

API ~25

2 Extraction SCO

API ~34

RefineryMining Upgrading

Full UpgradingBitumen RefineryIn-Situ5

ValueCreatedCost

Extraction(Mining)

Partial Upgrading

Full Upgrading(Mining and In-situ)

*SCO – Synthetic Crude oil; **SCO – partially upgraded

(Non – Integrated)

Integrated

(Non – Integrated)

Partial Upgrading

Full Upgrading

High Medium

Low

Tarblaster’s Market

2

4

5

4 and 5 is related to Ellycrack, not Tarblaster

Oil sands refining: Competing Technologies

9

Chattanooga group

ETX

HTL - Ivanhoe

Fluid Coking

Delayed Coking

Flexi Coking

Hydro-RetortingGHU - Genoil

Technology Maturity

Basic Research Lab Testing Applied Research andDemonstration

Commercial

HYDROCRACKINGHydrogen Addition –Mature technology

Several projects are operational (e.g., Scotford -Shell)

Carbon Removal (Mature) – several

companies involved in technology development.

Several projects are operational (e.g. Syncrude, Suncor)

Deasphalting technology.

Utilized in Long Lake, Canada –

Opti Inc./ NEXEN

First projects are coming online

now

Fixed Bed H+

Ebulated bed H+

Fixed Bed H+

OrCrudeTM Process

Supercritical- KBR (ROSE)

TOTAL –IFP Catalytic Development

Uses propriety pyrolysis technique. Developed for Heartland upgrader

BA Energy

Membrane

Selective Separations

TARblaster technology

Most of these pro-cesses are related to Upgrading especially Ivanhoe

10

Oil sands refining: Summary

The demand for extraction and upgrading technology is uncertain in the current climate – most new projects

need crude-oil prices of around $80 a barrel to turn a profit

Near term growth for Tarblaster technology may not come from North America because most of these

projects are large and have already committed to infrastructure

Oil sand reserves in Madagascar, Congo and Egypt, where fresh water availability is a problem and projects

are expected to be small scale may offer niche growth opportunity

Tarblaster is ideally suited for smaller scale mining and in-situ operations because of its scalability, avoiding

infrastructure costs required in full upgrading (such as sulfur and nitrogen handling facilities) to produce a

higher value product

For large scale mining projects (> 150K bpd) the main competitors will be Coking and Hydrocracking that

offer a higher value product (higher API0). However, Tarblaster has advantages (lower GHG footprint, lower

requirement of energy, lower capital intensity and scalability). Cooking and Hydrocracking is related to

upgrading, not extraction

For small scale (10K-30K bpd) projects, Ivanhoe(HTLTM), ETX systems, BA energy, GHU & Chattanooga group

will be the main competition. Ivanhoe is the furthest up the commercialization curve and others are catching

up. These are not competitors and especially not Ivanhoe, this is related to Ellycrack’s technology.

2.Drill cuttings disposal (onshore and

offshore)

11

Drill cuttings disposal: Market Drivers

12

Drivers Examples

Stringent environmental / ecological regulations • Ecological dangers, land pollution• US EPA regulations on drilling waste discharge• OSPAR regulations in the EU

Economic Incentives • Cost of disposal is high (energy, maintenance, labour, equipment, transportation)

• Maximizing oil recovery from cuttings• Recycling drilling fluids

Operational issues • Process bottleneck: Weather uncertainty – waiting on weather and availability of ships to transport

• Skip footprint on expensive rigs

Need for Innovation • Portability of unit(s)

Health & Safety • Human health issues/chemical exposure

Drill cuttings disposal: Geography & Clients

13

• Azerbaijan – No standards for these have been set• China - Government encouraging the use of low toxicity

fluid• Denmark – Considered on a case-by-case basis• France – Under OSPAR 2002/3, cuttings contaminated

with synthetic fluids may only be discharged in exceptional circumstances. Expected that authorities will not grant any more discharge permits for the Northeast Atlantic or Mediterranean Sea

• Italy – Not considered under current regulations• Netherlands – Under OSPAR 2002/3 cuttings

contaminated with synthetic fluids may only be discharged in exceptional circumstances

• Norway – OSPAR decision 2002/3 permits Group III cuttings discharge only under exceptional circumstances. Applications for approval require testing according to OSPAR format

• Russia (Sakhalin Island) - Not yet discussed with regulators

• Spain - Under OSPAR 2002/3, cuttings contaminated with synthetic fluids may only be discharged in exceptional circumstances.

• United Kingdom – Although OSPAR 2002/3 decision permits Group III cuttings discharge only under exceptional circumstances, the UK government has made it clear that there will be no exceptional circumstances arising that would lead to discharge of SBM cuttings

• Canada – (2002 draft guidelines allow cuttings to be discharged if treated prior to discharge – provided that reinjection is not economically or technically feasible. Target oil on cuttings retention limit of 6.9% wet weight

• United States – Discharges not allowed. Alaska: Discharges allowed except for coastal Cook inlet, subject to restrictions.

• Brazil – Discharge approved on a case-by- case basis by IBAMA

• Trinidad - No specific restrictions against offshore discharge and has historically been allowed.

• Angola – Cuttings discharge allowed• Bahrain – Not addressed• Congo – No specific requirements• Equatorial Guinea – Discharge allowed• Gabon – No specific requirements• Iran – Not addressed• Kuwait – Not addressed• Malaysia – Discharge allowed• Nigeria - Cuttings limited to 5% drilling fluid or

less for discharge (except for esters)• Oman – Not addressed• Qatar – Not addressed• Saudi Arabia – Not addressed• Thailand – No specific restrictions• UAE – Not addressed• Vietnam – No stipulations

• Australia – Cuttings discharge assessed on case-by-case basis

Oil companies under pressure to conform to regulatory requirements , such as in Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, and Australia. Opportunity for new technologies to facilitate achieving regulatory requirements

Oil companies under pressure to conform to regulatory requirements , such as in Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, and Australia. Opportunity for new technologies to facilitate achieving regulatory requirements

Drill cuttings disposal: Value Chain

14

Untreated Landfill

Treated Landfill

Onshore Landfarm

OnshoreInjection

IncinerationTreatment

Cost(incremental cost / well)

Onshore ThermalTreatment

OffshoreInjection

OffshoreThermal Treatment

Drillcuttings

Value Created

Cost Parameter Value Units

Thermal Treatment (UK) 251 $/t

Incineration Treatment (UK) 111 $/t

Landfarm (UK) 37 $/t

Untreated Landfill (UK) 74 $/t

Treated Landfill (UK, Norway , USA ) 208 $/t

Onshore Injection ( UK, USA) 130 $/t

*WBM- water based mud; OBM / SBM – Oil / Synthetic based mud

*Gulf of Mexico

Drill cuttings disposal: Competing Technologies

15

Technology Maturity

Basic Research Lab Testing Applied Research andDemonstration

Commercial

Onshore Disposal Methods

•Landfills, Landfarm, Injection, Thermal treatment

Offshore Injection

Offshore Thermal treatment (TWMA –

Rotomill method)

Microwave technology(Global Resources

Corporation)

TARblaster technology

MI Swaco Thermal treatment

technology

Rotomill is my invention which I sold to Swedish investor in 1995.

16

Drill cutting disposal: Summary

The demand to meet the energy Industry’s increasing need to comply with strict environmental

regulations will drive the growth in this sector. Both North Sea and Gulf of Mexico are strictly

monitored for ecological and environmental footprint and may be the near term market for

Tarblaster

Offshore and onshore treatment of drill cuttings and offshore re-injection are suited for

Tarblaster’s technology. We do not know at present if Tarblaster can be used offshore.

Offshore treatment of drill cuttings offers excellent opportunity for growth. TWMA –Rotomill as

the only company that processes drill cuttings offshore and will be the main competition. It has

recently won major contracts from Shell & BP worth £ 10 Million

Tarblaster is ideally suited for onshore treatment of drill cuttings, where its low energy

requirement, portability and no ground water usage will be advantageous. However, there are

many companies working in this space

Offshore re-injection may also offer an opportunity for Tarblaster, where drill cuttings need to

have <1% oil content before injection. Is this correct? If they need to clean to less than 1 w%,

then they could dispose of the cuttings without re-injection.

3.Algae refining

17

Algae refining: Market Drivers

18

Drivers Examples

Political • EU has biofuel target of 5.75% (2010); 10% (2020)• America, energy mandate for renewable; 25% (2025).

Growing interest by end users • Big push by automotive industry to use clean technology

• Pratt & Whitney, Air France-KLM, Airbus, Boeing interested in Jet fuel from Algae (investing heavily)

Oil company diversification Chevron & Shell investing actively in algae refining technologies

Non competition with food • Higher yield for acetate compared with traditional biofuel feedstocks (corn, soyabean, oil palm)

• Algae can be grown on marginal land• Doesn’t compete with food crops

First mover advantage • Algae production is still a challenge• Industry offers excellent advantage to partner with

Algae production companies

Utilize large waste CO2 resources Coal fired plants – Algae consumes CO2 producing O2.

Explosion ion biotechnology Advances in metabolic engineering and systems biology

USA• Chevron –NREL alliance

(algal oil to transportation fuel)

• Shell – Pilot facility under construction in Hawaii

• ConocoPhillips - $5 million in research

• Boeing: algae expected to be primary feedstock for aviation biofuels within 10-15 years.

• Other players: Livefuels, Petrosun, Solix, Greenfuel Tech, Petroalgae, Valcent)

Algae refining: Geography and clients

19

New Zealand• Aquaflow Bio

Netherlands• Air France-KLM: agreement

with Algae-Link to procure algae oil to be blended with conventional jet fuel. Algae-Link

UK• SeagreenFrance• Shamask • FermentalgGermany• NovagreenSpain• Biofuel SystemsItaly• ENI - for GHG Abatement

IsraelSeambiotic

Canada• Pratt &Whitney:

Investigating biofuels from algae

Algae refining: Value Chain

20

PhotobioreactorRefineAlgae

Biomass

Open Ponds

Extraction Algae Oil

Harvest

Algal paste

Biocrude after Pyrolysis

Algal oil and dilapidated algalcake

Algal oil and Ethanol

Biodiesel and jet Fuel

Algae Oil & Animal Feed and Ethanol Solid Fuel

NutrientsSunlight

CO2

1 Metric Ton *

* Calculation based on 1 metric Ton of CO2

~540 kg

Dry equivalent

(20% oil)

~54 kg oil

~$20 /bbl is expected with a production of 150K gallons of biomass / year

200 kg ground water

61 kg Nitrogen

Algae refining: Competing Technologies

21

Technology Maturity

Basic Research Lab Testing Applied Research andDemonstration

Commercial

Aurora Biofuels (USA)•Algae to biodiesel

Petrosun (U.S.)

Produce:•4.4 million gallons of Algae oil•11 million pounds of biomass

Enhanced Biotechs and Technologies (UK)•CO2 Abatement

Infinifuel Biodiesel (USA)•Algae to Biodielsel

Solix Biofuels ( USA)•Algae to biodiesel

Algaelink (Netherland)

•Algae to Jet Fuel

PetroAlgae(USA)•Algae to transportation fuel and heating oil

Origin Oil (USA)•Algae to fuel

HR BioPetroleum (USA) •Shell JV•Algae to Ethanol and solid fuel

GreenShift (USA)

•Algae to fuel

Sapphire Energy (USA)

•Algae to gasoline

TARblaster technology

22

Algae Refining: Summary

Research to produce oil from algae – potential to yield 30 times more energy per acre than

crops such as soyabean – to produce diesel, gasoline, jet fuel and solvents is actively being

pursued

Near term growth for Tarblaster technology may come from North America, where most R&D

into producing algae strains for oil is focussed at the moment

Currently the industry is focussing on growing suitable strains of algae, maximizing algae

yield whilst minimizing production costs and not focussing so much on the conversion to oil

It is hard to predict the suitability of Tarblaster technology for this segment as there is lack of

data for the peer group. Although there is uncertainty, Tarblaster’s growth strategy could

focus on forging strong partnerships with algae producers

Some companies have started to develop technologies for extraction of oil from algae, such

as OriginOil, PetroSun Inc., Greenstar Products Inc. However, most of these companies are

in early-development stage and years away from generating revenues

4.Oil shale refining

23

Oil Shale refining: Market Drivers

24

Drivers Examples

Declining conventional production and increasing demand

• ~2.8 trillion bbl of Oil shale resources• Successful exploitation will result in 400 years of

additional oil at current consumption

Government funding • Government funding for leasing and technology R&D

Water Intensive • Current technologies have huge water demands• Present technologies unable to prevent leaching and

protect ground water

GHG Emissions • Extracting hydrocarbons from oil shale produces carbon dioxide, which must be captured, used, or stored

Energy Intensive • Most technologies require using so much energy to extract the oil that the amount of energy expended is greater than the energy produced

Poor recovery • Existing technology can convert 15% shale into oil• 40% of the energy recovered is consumed in the process• Approximately 6% of shale is converted at the end of the

process

Oil Shale refining: Geography and clients

25

USA• Largest reserves• Pilot plants only• Chevron; ExxonMobil,

Anadarko, Shell,• Syntec Inc, Natural Soda Inc,

millennium synthetic fuels Australia• Pilot plants only• Queensland Energy Resources Ltd

Brazil• 1 Operational plant –

Petrobras

China• China projected

to be the largest producer

• 1 Operational Plant -Fushun Mining Group

Russia• Keen to develop

shale• One plant in

collaboration with Estonia (currently in standby)

Estonia• Active shale industry• 95% electric power from

shale• 3 operational plants• Companies: Eesti Energia,

VKG Oil, Keviali

Canada• Looking into

developing

Africa• No plans yet

USA: 620 BbblBrazil: 300Russia: 40Congo: 40Australia: 15Canada: 15Europe: 15China: 10Rest 5

Only 5 operational plants in the world:Estonia – 3 Eesti Energia, VKG Oil and KevialiChina – FushunBrazil – Petrobras

Oil shale refining: Value Chain

26

Mining and crushing

RefinerySurfaceMining

Surfaceretorting

facility

Mining (under ground)Underground

mining

Shale Fragments (Kerogen)

Synthetic crude oil[$43/bbl]

Shale

oil

Upgrading

[$52/bbl] Refinery

Surfaceretorting

facility

Kerogen Synthetic crude oil

Shale

oilUpgrading

Pre refining costs*

MiningModified insitu

[$57/bbl]In situ

retortingKerogen

In-situTrue insitu[$25/bbl] upgradingShale oil RefinerySynthetic

crude oil

* Estimates, US Department of Energy (2004)

1

2

3

4

RefinerySynthetic crude oil

Shale

oilUpgrading

ValueCreatedCost

Mining

OrePreparation

Retorting

Upgrading

Mining ValueCreatedCost

In-Situ

Steam Generation

Upgrading

In-situ

Oil shale refining: Competitors (Retorting Technologies)

27

Technology Maturity

Basic Research Testing Pilot Plant andDemonstration

Commercial

Modified In-Situ

True In-Situ

EGL Process (USA)

Fuel Cell Process (USA)

IGE Process (USA)

ExxonMobil Electrofac Process (USA)

Chevron CRUSH Process (USA)

Shell ICP Process (USA)

Internal Combustion

Paraho Process (USA, AUS)

Conduction Through Wall (In-

situ)

OilTech Process (USA)

Fushun Process (CHINA)

Kiviter Process (ESTONIA)

Externally Generated Hot Gas (mined)

Hot Recycled Solids (mined)

Petrosix Process (Brazil)

Galoter Process (Estonia)

TARblaster technology

Microwave technology

Global Resource Corporation (USA)

28

Oil shale refining: Summary

Oil shale is a very large resource of energy. However, Oil shale lacks the lower boiling-range

hydrocarbons that make up natural gasoline, and the heavier hydrocarbons that refineries

crack to make gasoline. It does yield hydrocarbons in the middle-distillate fuels boiling range

— naphtha, kerosene, jet fuel, and diesel fuel

Inspite of this vast resource there are only 5 operational plants in the world (Estonia, Brazil

and China). The high recovery cost (Mining process can cost ~ $70 to $80 / bbl) is holding the

industry back. Is this reallly the case? I would think that it is a bit higher than oil sand mining.

The true in-situ –Shell‘s ICP process (Mahogany Project) –is still in early-development stage

Department of Energy, USA predicts commercial production of oil from shale in 2030

Existing methods are limited by high energy requirements and very low oil yield . Do you

have any numbers? If the Tarblaster process can transform the kerogens to soluble oil and

upgrade it in one operation then it will be a disruptive technology.

Global Resource Corporations (Microwave technology) has reported pilot oil yields of around

70% compared with 15% from existing technologies and will present significant challenge to

Tarblaster. What about the energy consumption with micro waves?

5.Land Reclamation

29

Land Reclamation: Market Drivers

30

Drivers Examples

Political • Legal frame work, legislation and regulations for Contaminated Land Remediation (CLR):

• N. America, W. Europe - in place• Asia, Africa, E. Europe. S. America – limited

• Health concerns and risks

Economical • Real estate requirements• Landfill tax exemption policies• Losses caused by contamination• Fines imposed by authorities

Environmental • Cross contamination• Consequential crop yield degradation• Secondary land erosion

Implementation barriers • Progress hampered by ambiguous legislation/regulations• Uncertainty over waste status (waste definition)

Land Reclamation: Potential Market

31

Soil Contamination Common Causes Contaminants

Rupture of underground storage tanks Fuels, Solvents

Application of pesticides Pesticides

Percolation of contaminated surface water to subsurface strata

Effluents, heavy metals pesticides

Land farming Drill cuttings, effluents

Leaching of waste from landfills Waste water

Direct discharge of industrial waste Textile waste

Mining waste and slurry dams Oil spillage (blowout), drilling fluid, coal-tar

Established Markets

Potential Markets

Future Markets

Land Reclamation: Geography

32

UKTI strategy outlook (08/09):

CHINA• Considered most serious

contamination situation.• Little or no legislation in

place.• Over 123,000 km2 or one-

tenth of cultivatable land contaminated

• Estimated annual grain loss (heavy metals): US$ 2.6 bn

USA• Leader in remediation

execution.• Full legislation and

regulations in place.• Over 200,000

Contaminated Land Remediation (CLR) sites identified

BRAZIL• Little legislation in place.• Over 15,000 CLR sites

identified• Companies (local and

foreign) looking for new solutions to comply with local legislation

UK• Full legislation and

regulations in place.• Estimated market

size (2007) £1 bn• Over 228

companies actively involved in land remediation industry

CANADA• All mining companies must remediate land after

activities in Alberta• As of 2005: 42,000 hectares of land disturbed by oil

sands mining, $356 million held by Alberta Gov. as security to ensure reclamation obligations met.

Land Reclamation: Value Chain

33

Excavation (dig and dump)

Ex-situIn-situ

Bioremediation

Vapour extraction system (excavated

soil bank)

Thermal desorption plant (rotary kiln)

Soil washing

Contaminated site

Cover and barrier

Bioremediation

Vapour extraction system (sparging

and slurping)

Electrical resistance heating

Chemical oxidation (introduce reactive

materials)

Contaminated site

Cost Value Cost Value

Land Reclamation: Competing Technologies

34

Technology Maturity

Basic Research Lab Testing Applied Research andDemonstration

Commercial

Ex-situ dig and dump

•High degree of confidence•Very rapid but expensive

Bioremediation•Used for: Petroleum Hydrocarbons and coal tar contaminated sites

Vapour extraction•Atmospheric losses a concern.•Used for petroleum hydrocarbon contaminations

Thermal desorption

•Very effective• Remediated soil needs further processing

Soil washing•High degree of confidence•Post treatment required

Cover and barrier

•Expensive •Requires long term monitoring

Bioremediation•Minimal site disturbance•Used for: Petroleum Hydrocarbons and coal tar contaminated sites

Vapour extraction

•Well proven•Used for: volatile hydrocarbons, soil gas, ground water

Chemical oxidation

•Treatment of organic contaminants.

Electrical resistance

heating•Rapid but with high power requirements

TARblaster technology

Ex-situIn-situ

35

Land Reclamation: Summary

European and US industries undergoing sustained development in (CLR) technology

advances, legislation implementation and reclamation execution

Potential near-future market foreseen in developing countries which is driven by: growing

awareness of the relative contamination scale, development of legal frame works,

consequential health effects and indirect losses attributed to contamination

Numerous reclamation technologies exist which are well understood and have been

implemented at a commercial level for a large period of time

Technology selection for CLR is heavily influenced by reclamation costs versus project time

requirements

Summary

36

High

Low

High

Ease of segment entrySegment is dynamic and open to new

entrants

Low

Co

mp

etit

ive

stre

ng

th o

f T

arb

last

erD

isti

nct

iven

ess

Attractiveness of industry segment

Early opportunities for Tarblaster

In-situ partial upgrading of oil sands

Small scale (~30K bpd) oil sands mining projects

Example Congo, Egypt)

Onshore treatment of drill cuttings (compared with

thermal, incineration treatment technologies)

Land reclamation for mining projects such as tar

sands projects

Land reclamation for

onshore oil spillage

References

To be added later

37

Supporting slides

38

Oil sands refining: Competitor Analysis

39

Tarblaster

Coking

Hydrocracking

HTLTM - Ivanhoe

ETX Systems

OrCrude(Opti / Nexen)

BA Energy

CompetingTechnology

Scalability GHG*

EmissionsProcess

API value Capital

Cost Energy

Efficiency

GHU (Genoil)

Feed conversion rate

* Based on point source emissions only not lifecycle

Best

Medium

Worst Most of these are not competitors to Tarblaster, but to Ellycrack