WM:a) it was loosing about $1.5m a yearb) it is a very lumpy...

WM:
a) it was loosing about $1.5m a year
b) it is a very lumpy business
c) it is very difficult to get a potential client to commit to a clean-up with bound waste. The client doesn't get a certificate of destruction, which means that they are forever liable should the material that is disposed of in a landfill site leech out then they may well still be liable for that contamination. That is the advantage of the TDU and Plascon processes - the waste is detroyed and the disposal company can issue the client with a certificate that allows the client to write-off the liability that they had on their books. Now Dolocrete could well be a sound process, but it's not a terminal destructive event. So a client's going to be pretty sure that they're not going to get bitten back by using it somewhere down the track.
d) It's not all that "smart". Okay, it's got "smarts" in it, but it's not much more than using portland cement to turn the waste into a type of concrete.

However:
a) I've only had 15 mins on the phone with the company todday and so I still need to understand the full process,
b) now that DMX can offer their clients a "total" solution perhaps there's a place for Dolocrete, and
c) if the South African company is prepared to accept it then perhaps it's good enough....

I still need to get on top of it...but my primary interest is the BCD process. I place no value on the Dolocrete business at this stage (e.g. until I find out what the margins on the SA contract are).