READ THE DOCUMENTATION. In particular the opinion of the WIPO examiner.
Claim 8-20 lack novelty under PCT33(2). Page 4 Claim 1-7 lack an inventive step under PCT 33(3). Page 5 Claims 1-20 have industrial applicability as defined by PCT Article 33(4) page 6.
And it is nothing more than an application where the classification has been designated for the categories it applies to.
Do we need to go the route of seeing the difference with an application that actually resulted in a patent ?
>>>>>>>>> WIPO and patents What role does WIPO play with regards to patents? WIPO works to develop a balanced and effective international intellectual property (IP) system, a key part of which is dedicated to patents. WIPO’s member states collaborate in various areas, including on agreeing the treaties and conventions that underpin the international IP system and that make the global exchange of creativity and innovation possible. The IP services that WIPO offers, such as the facilitation of international patent protection under the PCT System, complement services available at the national and/or regional level. It’s important to remember that WIPO does not actually grant patents per se; the grant or refusal of a patent still rests with the relevant national or regional patent office. <<<<<<<<< https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/faq_patents.html#:~:text=WIPO%20and%20patents&text=WIPO%20works%20to%20develop%20a,which%20is%20dedicated%20to%20patents.
So please do show which countries have granted a patent to Fueltek. I.e. not ECSL or Cyberfuels.
Market Data 
Markets 
