New Low Sulfer Diesel in 2006 -PROBLEMS?

SkyPup · Oct 7, 2004

It really does not make any difference, the USA and Canada are going to ULSD in 2006 no matter what anyones opinion is. As are Europe, India, China, Brazil, etc. That represents over 3/4 of the entire human population of the world that will be using ULSD. The majority of the backward countries still using rot-gut high sulfur diesel fuels are third world countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

The facts are simply that diesels would have no future whatsoever in North America without ULSD. ULSD is an enabler that allows diesels to continue working on through the future.

Those that are afraid that the government has taken the sulfur out of their diesel fuel can always just add 100 milliters of 10 Molar concentrated Sulfuric Acid to each tank at fillup to bring the sulfur level back up.

BTW, the compounds removed by the severe hydrotreating of ULSD that causes the reduction in lubricity are NOT sulfur, they instead are nitrogen and oxygen.

SkyPup · Oct 7, 2004

Don't believe me?

Read what Chevron-Texaco--Oronite has to say about it then:

http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/diesel/L2_2_5_rf.htm

"Many diesel fuels are good boundary lubricants. This is not due to the hydrocarbons that constitute the bulk of the fuel. Instead it is attributed to trace amounts of oxygen- and nitrogen-containing compounds and certain classes of aromatic compounds. Evidence for the role of trace quantities is the fact that the lubricity of a fuel can be restored with the addition of as little as 10 ppm of an additive."

"Lubricity enhancing compounds are naturally present in diesel fuel derived from petroleum crude by distillation. They can be altered or changed by hydrotreating, the process used to reduce sulfur and aromatic contents. However, lowering sulfur or aromatics, per se, does not necessarily lower fuel lubricity"

bandit67 · Oct 7, 2004

( Don't believe me?

Read what Chevron-Texaco--Oronite has to say about it then:

http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/diesel/L2_2_5_rf.htm

"Many diesel fuels are good boundary lubricants. This is not due to the hydrocarbons that constitute the bulk of the fuel. Instead it is attributed to trace amounts of oxygen- and nitrogen-containing compounds and certain classes of aromatic compounds. Evidence for the role of trace quantities is the fact that the lubricity of a fuel can be restored with the addition of as little as 10 ppm of an additive."

"Lubricity enhancing compounds are naturally present in diesel fuel derived from petroleum crude by distillation. They can be altered or changed by hydrotreating, the process used to reduce sulfur and aromatic contents. However, lowering sulfur or aromatics, per se, does not necessarily lower fuel lubricity" )

What about the following 2 paragraphs that followed that excerpt you quoted:

( The use of fuels with poor lubricity can increase fuel pump and injector wear and, at the extreme, cause catastrophic failure. Such failures occurred in Sweden in 1991, when two classes of "city" diesel with very low sulfur and aromatics contents were mandated. Heavy hydrotreating was necessary to make these fuels. The problem was solved by treating the fuel with a lubricity additive. )

As many have been saying, the lubricity additive may need to be added to the new 2007 fuels, either by the supplier or the end user.

Also:
( Many users were concerned when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated on-road low sulfur (0.05% mass, maximum) diesel fuel and when California Air Resources Board (CARB) mandated low aromatics (10% volume, maximum) diesel. But there is no documented evidence that the use of these fuels, as a class, has led to increased wear, much less catastrophic failures.)

However, these fuels are not the same as the fuels that will be required come 2007, so although there have supposedly been no US catastrophic failures to date, we have no idea what impact the yet-to-be-released 2007 fuels will have.

SkyPup · Oct 7, 2004

Simple, I had mistakenly assumed that you already knew that all the producers of ULSD add a couple of ppm of lubricity enhancers to bring the lubricity higher than 3100 grams on the SLBOCLE (Scuffing Load Ball on Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator) test. And that all this has absolutely NOTHING to do with 15ppm of elemental Sulfur in ULSD whatsoever.

"However, these fuels are not the same as the fuels that will be required come 2007, so although there have supposedly been no US catastrophic failures to date, we have no idea what impact the yet-to-be-released 2007 fuels will have."

What do you mean? Texas and California are already using them now And Texas and California account for the consumption of 25% of all the diesel fuel in the USA.

And yes you are absolutley correct, Sweden has been using 10ppm ULSD without aromatics now for over 15 years now with out any problems.....

Dargo · Oct 7, 2004

SkyPup, it looks like most of us will have to agree to disagree with you. I don't see anyone who is advocating more pollution or saying that it is a bad thing to reduce pollutants. However, there sure seems to be a vast amount of information available from chemical companies, refineries, diesel advocate groups, and researchers that flat contradict you. Since you paid your hard earned cash for your diesel engines, you are most certainly entitled to use whatever you wish in them.
Since I spent my hard earned money for my diesel engines, I'm going to have to side with the reports from the refineries, chemical companies, the military, and the diesel advocate groups and hope that in the end, when sulphur content is greatly reduced, that they add some sort of lubrication substitute at the refinery. I personally do not want to have to have to add a lubricant at each fill up. That would seem to me like having a 2 cycle engine, in that it is at the least, annoying, and easy to forget. I'm basically finished with this particular subject for now and have done all the research to satisfy what I feel I need to know on the matter at this particular point in time. As time passes, I'll have to keep an eye on the outcome of who will be responsible for making up the lost lubrication and make sure that I don't prematurely have engine problems.
I respect your stance, I just disagree with your position on the lubrication factors. I do not disagree with your stance that more pollutants should be removed from our fuels. See, I don't totally disagree with you. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SkyPup · Oct 7, 2004

No problem, I haven't found two people in the world who think alike yet! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

BTW, please don't forget that ULSG is also mandated in 2006!

You cannot have modern gasoline or diesel engines without first having modern gasoline and diesel fuel technology! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

cp1969 · Oct 7, 2004

I will offer my opinions about the intro of ULSD but I doubt that those who WANT to worry about it will be reassured.

When the first sulfur reduction took place back in '93 or so, my family had a small fleet of trucks. We'd heard the stories about how the lack of sulfur in the fuel was going to cause injection pump failures left and right. It wasn't long before the first one bit the dust, a 3208 Cat. But the autopsy showed that the failure was caused by rust, not a lack of lubrication. That sulfur reduction was much more drastic than the upcoming one. So unless there was a tremendous surplus of sulfur in the fuel in '92 and now we are down to the last little bit that's actually doing the "lubricating", this newest reduction is nothing compared to the big one of '93.

We had some maintenance done at a small shop that had, probably, 100 or so trucks that it serviced. I would ask the shop manager from time to time if the dreaded 'sulfur-shortage' injection pump failures were showing up. To my knowledge, they never had one.

You can find refiners' web sites that support both positions. BP calls sulfur a lubricant; Exxon says it isn't, so I'm not sure of the value of using the internet as proof one way or the other.

I am not going to worry about it. I will use whatever comes out of the pump. If indeed lubricity is reduced, I am confident that that problem has already been addressed since California has been using ULSD for quite a while. I think the elimination of sulfur should be 100%, cost not withstanding. From what I know, it's a tramp element in crude that, if it weren't already there, we sure as [censored] wouldn't be adding any to our fuel.

Soundguy · Oct 8, 2004

( "Lubricity enhancing compounds are naturally present in diesel fuel derived from petroleum crude by distillation. They can be altered or changed by hydrotreating, the process used to reduce sulfur and aromatic contents. However, lowering sulfur or aromatics, per se, does not necessarily lower fuel lubricity"

)

The second paragraph is the clencher. Your doing a bit of walking around the issue. As that report states.. it isn't the sulfuritself, that is reducing the lubricity when removed.. but the very process of removing it, lowers the lubricity, by effecting other chemicals int he mix. What this means is what we have all been saying.. lowering the sulfur content lowers the lubricity..... Makes little difference that it isn't the sulfur itself that is the lubricant if the act of removing it removes the other compounds that ARE the lubricant.. It's one of those unintended consequence issues.

I'm with Dargo and the other, We can agree to disagree.. especially since your 2nd paragraph even lays it more plainly out on the table about the reduced lubricity of fuel that is treated to remove sulfur....

Soundguy

KiotiJohn · Oct 8, 2004

( Sulfur is not a lubricant, it is a bad contaminant. The severe hydrotreatment utilized in its removal also removes many of the other water soluable polar compounds that do provide lubricity. In order to correct for the lubricity compounds removed, the ULSD producers add back enough lubricity back to the refined fuel so that the lubricity remains higher than 3100 grams on the SLBOCLE (Scuffing Load Ball on Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator) test. )
Many posts after you said this, some posted evidence of just what you said in this post. It's not the sulfur itself, it's the other compounds that provide the lubricity, and the treatment removes those. Someone, end user, or distributor, will have to add some lubricity. I got what you said and then read on to see misunderstanding.
I certainly hope you're right that the producers add back lubricants. John

SkyPup · Oct 8, 2004

No problem, I've known that fact for years now. It helps to have many years of basic organic and biochemisty education and experience as well as relatives in the industry.

Like I said, California and Texas use 25% of all diesel fuel in the USA and they have been using ULSD with no problems. Repeat -> No Problems!

Why do they have No Problems you ask?

Simply due to the fact the producers add a couple of ppms of short chain fatty acids to replace the lost lubricity from having to super catalytically crack the high percentage of aromatic hydrocarbon double bonds with severe hydrogenation and then hydrotreat the residue to remove the water soluable polar compounds (sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen motieties). One reason for this mess is the extreme low quality of crude available on the market for US refiners. Crude from Venezuala (CITGO) is so poor quality that it is loaded with sulfur and aromatics and receives extreme heavy duty refining treatment. This is NOT the case with Sweet Texas crude or most Gulf of Mexico crude grades, which is much higher paraffinc stock with low amounts of contaminants like sulfur and aromatic hydrocarbons. Remember, the best quality diesel fuels are Straight Cut from high grade crude sources, not hydrocracked and hydrotreated from low grade crude stocks.

BTW, the super high quality Swedish fuel that all the ULSD questioning people are afraid of is 65 Cetane, No Aromatics, 10ppm sulfur, and the absolute highest quality #2 diesel money can buy anywhere in the world! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Those who believe that the API and major oil companies are NOT aware of this fact can simply go on purchasing and adding aftermarket additives to their diesel fuel. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif