Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 8 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments Plastic2Oil Marine, Inc., one of the Company’s subsidiaries, which currently not operating, entered into a consulting service contract in 2010 with a company owned by the Company’s chief executive officer. The contract provides the related company with a share of the operating income earned from Plastic2Oil technology installed on marine vessels which are owned by the related company. The contract provides a minimum future payment equal to fifty percent of the operating income generated from the operations of two of the most profitable marine vessel processors and 10% from all other marine vessel processors. At December 31, 2015, there were no currently installed marine vessel processors pursuant to the contract. As of December 31, 2015, the Company has committed to purchase certain pieces of key machinery from vendors related to the future expansion of its operations. In addition to the payments made to these vendors classified as deposits on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.. The Company will be required to pay approximately $495,000 upon the delivery of these assets which is expected occur with the delivery of processor #4 and processor #5. The Company leased premises in Thorold, Ontario, Canada which was previously used in the operation Plastic2Oil (Canada), Inc. doing business as Regional Recycling of Niagara (“RRON”). During the third quarter of 2013, the Company determined that it would shut down the operations of RRON (Note 16). The employees of RRON were given notice of the shut down in the first week of September, after which point the Company approached the landlord about terminating the lease; however, there was no formal termination as an agreement to terminate the lease was not reached. During September 2013, the Company was assessing its options with the facility, including potential sublease, but determined that a sublease of the facility was not permitted by the lease and officially decided to cease use of the premises as of September 30, 2013. Accordingly, the Company has applied September 30, 2013 as the cease-use-date in recognizing the liability for the contract termination costs. The total expense included in loss from discontinued operations in the consolidated statements of operations is $188,343 for the year ended December 31, 2015 (Note 16). The property was vacated on November 10, 2015. On January 15, 2016, the Company entered into a Surrender of Lease agreement which terminated its lease, dated December 1, 2010, between Avondale Store Limited Properties and JBI, (Canada) Inc. relating to the Company’s premises located at 1786 Allanport Road, Thorold, Canada. The effective date of the termination was October 31, 2015. The premises was the site of the Company’s Regional Recycling Center, which was part of a business line that was discontinued by the Company in 2013. The Company anticipates the termination will save approximately $1,161,360 in lease payments over the original life of the lease which had a term ending on December 1, 2030. The Company will remain liable for unpaid rent of approximately $49,180, covering the period from May 2016 to October 2016. Contingencies On August 9, 2013, a purported shareholder derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against John Bordynuik, former Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a former member of the Company’s Board of Directors, and Ronald C. Baldwin, former Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The Complaint was filed by Erwin Grampp, allegedly acting on behalf of the Company, and it names the Company as a nominal defendant. This is the second purported shareholder derivative suit that Mr. Grampp has filed in which the Company has been named as a nominal defendant. As previously reported, the first such suit by Mr. Grampp was dismissed by the court. This recent Complaint (“Grampp II”) alleges, inter alia, that defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company by causing the Company to erroneously book certain media credits in 2009. Grampp II alleges that this conduct resulted in two lawsuits against the Company, one an action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC Action”) and the other a purported class action by Ellisa Pancoe and Howard Howell (the “Class Action”). Grampp II alleges that the Company has settled the SEC Action, and that the Company is in the process of settling the Class Action, but that the Company has been damaged as a result of these two lawsuits. Grampp II seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Company from defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin in an unspecified amount. It also seeks unspecified equitable relief, and costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in the action. On October 11, 2013, defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin filed a motion to dismiss this action. Thereafter, the Court granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, and defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin renewed their motion to dismiss. On September 22, 2015, the Court issued its Order denying that motion without prejudice and ordering the parties to conduct limited discovery regarding the issue of whether plaintiff Grampp is an adequate shareholder representative. The Court further ordered that upon completion of that discovery, the parties were to report to the Court by December 10, 2015, whether they had reached an agreement to resolve the case, and if not, whether either party believed it had a basis for filing a meritorious motion for summary judgment regarding whether plaintiff Grampp is an adequate shareholder representative. On October 30, 2015, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the case, and on November 16, 2015, the court granted that motion and ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice. Thus, the matter is concluded. On August 14, 2013, John Bordynuik, Inc., a Company not affiliated with Mr. John Bordynuik, former Chief of Technology, brought suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging damages for breach of contract, conversion, fraud and fraud in the inducement in connection with an alleged 2009 Asset Purchase Agreement. In September 2013 and October 2013, the Company brought motions to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment. On January 13, 2015, the Court issued its Order denying those motions, and on January 30, 2015, the Company filed its Answer to the Complaint, denying the material allegations of the Complaint and raising a number of affirmative defenses. On December 7, 2015, the parties filed with the Court a stipulation to dismiss the case, and on or about December 8, 2015, the Court ordered the matter dismissed with prejudice. As of December 31, 2015, the Company is involved in litigation and claims in addition to the above mentioned legal claims, which arise from time to time in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, based upon the information and facts known to them, any liability that may arise from such contingencies would not have a material adverse effect on the audited consolidated financial statements of the Company.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 8 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

Plastic2Oil Marine, Inc., one of the Company’s subsidiaries, which currently not operating, entered into a consulting service contract in 2010 with a company owned by the Company’s chief executive officer. The contract provides the related company with a share of the operating income earned from Plastic2Oil technology installed on marine vessels which are owned by the related company. The contract provides a minimum future payment equal to fifty percent of the operating income generated from the operations of two of the most profitable marine vessel processors and 10% from all other marine vessel processors. At December 31, 2015, there were no currently installed marine vessel processors pursuant to the contract.

As of December 31, 2015, the Company has committed to purchase certain pieces of key machinery from vendors related to the future expansion of its operations. In addition to the payments made to these vendors classified as deposits on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.. The Company will be required to pay approximately $495,000 upon the delivery of these assets which is expected occur with the delivery of processor #4 and processor #5.

The Company leased premises in Thorold, Ontario, Canada which was previously used in the operation Plastic2Oil (Canada), Inc. doing business as Regional Recycling of Niagara (“RRON”). During the third quarter of 2013, the Company determined that it would shut down the operations of RRON (Note 16). The employees of RRON were given notice of the shut down in the first week of September, after which point the Company approached the landlord about terminating the lease; however, there was no formal termination as an agreement to terminate the lease was not reached. During September 2013, the Company was assessing its options with the facility, including potential sublease, but determined that a sublease of the facility was not permitted by the lease and officially decided to cease use of the premises as of September 30, 2013. Accordingly, the Company has applied September 30, 2013 as the cease-use-date in recognizing the liability for the contract termination costs. The total expense included in loss from discontinued operations in the consolidated statements of operations is $188,343 for the year ended December 31, 2015 (Note 16). The property was vacated on November 10, 2015. On January 15, 2016, the Company entered into a Surrender of Lease agreement which terminated its lease, dated December 1, 2010, between Avondale Store Limited Properties and JBI, (Canada) Inc. relating to the Company’s premises located at 1786 Allanport Road, Thorold, Canada. The effective date of the termination was October 31, 2015. The premises was the site of the Company’s Regional Recycling Center, which was part of a business line that was discontinued by the Company in 2013. The Company anticipates the termination will save approximately $1,161,360 in lease payments over the original life of the lease which had a term ending on December 1, 2030. The Company will remain liable for unpaid rent of approximately $49,180, covering the period from May 2016 to October 2016.

Contingencies

On August 9, 2013, a purported shareholder derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against John Bordynuik, former Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a former member of the Company’s Board of Directors, and Ronald C. Baldwin, former Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The Complaint was filed by Erwin Grampp, allegedly acting on behalf of the Company, and it names the Company as a nominal defendant. This is the second purported shareholder derivative suit that Mr. Grampp has filed in which the Company has been named as a nominal defendant. As previously reported, the first such suit by Mr. Grampp was dismissed by the court. This recent Complaint (“Grampp II”) alleges, inter alia, that defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company by causing the Company to erroneously book certain media credits in 2009. Grampp II alleges that this conduct resulted in two lawsuits against the Company, one an action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC Action”) and the other a purported class action by Ellisa Pancoe and Howard Howell (the “Class Action”). Grampp II alleges that the Company has settled the SEC Action, and that the Company is in the process of settling the Class Action, but that the Company has been damaged as a result of these two lawsuits. Grampp II seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Company from defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin in an unspecified amount. It also seeks unspecified equitable relief, and costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in the action. On October 11, 2013, defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin filed a motion to dismiss this action. Thereafter, the Court granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, and defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin renewed their motion to dismiss. On September 22, 2015, the Court issued its Order denying that motion without prejudice and ordering the parties to conduct limited discovery regarding the issue of whether plaintiff Grampp is an adequate shareholder representative. The Court further ordered that upon completion of that discovery, the parties were to report to the Court by December 10, 2015, whether they had reached an agreement to resolve the case, and if not, whether either party believed it had a basis for filing a meritorious motion for summary judgment regarding whether plaintiff Grampp is an adequate shareholder representative. On October 30, 2015, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the case, and on November 16, 2015, the court granted that motion and ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice. Thus, the matter is concluded.

On August 14, 2013, John Bordynuik, Inc., a Company not affiliated with Mr. John Bordynuik, former Chief of Technology, brought suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging damages for breach of contract, conversion, fraud and fraud in the inducement in connection with an alleged 2009 Asset Purchase Agreement. In September 2013 and October 2013, the Company brought motions to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment. On January 13, 2015, the Court issued its Order denying those motions, and on January 30, 2015, the Company filed its Answer to the Complaint, denying the material allegations of the Complaint and raising a number of affirmative defenses. On December 7, 2015, the parties filed with the Court a stipulation to dismiss the case, and on or about December 8, 2015, the Court ordered the matter dismissed with prejudice.

As of December 31, 2015, the Company is involved in litigation and claims in addition to the above mentioned legal claims, which arise from time to time in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, based upon the information and facts known to them, any liability that may arise from such contingencies would not have a material adverse effect on the audited consolidated financial statements of the Company.