Low Sulfur Warning

[GiesJ]

The problem with LSD used in the '07 engines will be that these engines will have much more emissions equipment on them, including a particulate trap. The 500ppm of sulphur will overload the emissions equipment. The ULSD will not, with only 15ppm sulphur.



...



The older trucks will probably be OK since lubricity is added, by the manufacturers, before it's sold to us.



If you want to be on the safe side, suppliment your fuel with an additive.

I haven't read much on this (and it will become apparent with my questions) but when do the '07s come out?



500 ppm sulfur has been around for a long time and would be bad for '07 &<, right?



How does the 15 ppm sulfur affect us VP-44 guys?



Is there a date when 500 ppm will be completely replaced with 15 ppm?



I understand the sulfur to be part of the lubricity equation, right? What will the 15 ppm have to do what the sulfur did?



Thanks and sorry for the fundamental questions...

J

 

[BigPapa]

Once again... ..... the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), 15ppm, is made FOR the 2007 and UP models. It is an EPA requirement.



The current #2 Diesel, Low Sulfur Diesel (LSD), 500ppm, will be BAD for the new trucks.



Scott

 

[jrobinson2]

500 ppm sulfur has been around for a long time and would be bad for '07 &<, right?

It is a problem for the emisions equipment on the 07 engines

Is there a date when 500 ppm will be completely replaced with 15 ppm?

From Chevrons ULSD page,



When is S15 (ULSD) required to be produced and sold?

Introduction of the new 15ppm diesel into different portions of the diesel fuel supply channel will be managed through staggered compliance dates. For North America, there are currently three S15 (ULSD) implementation timelines.



United States (except California)



On-Highway Diesel Fuel

Refinery < 15ppm by June 1, 2006

Terminal < 15ppm by September 1, 2006

Retail < 15ppm by October 15, 2006

Off-Road / Locomotive & Marine Fuel < 500ppm by June 1, 2007

How does the 15 ppm sulfur affect us VP-44 guys?

I understand the sulfur to be part of the lubricity equation, right? What will the 15 ppm have to do what the sulfur did?

:-{} The fuel companies say they have it all worked out , the internet fuel gurus say it will cause the VP to instantly sieze and rip right off the block :-laf Everything I have read indicates they are adding lubricants to the ULSD, if its enough we will find out soon



From Chevron again:

# Lubricity:

Lubricity is a measure of the fuel's ability to lubricate and protect the various parts of the engine's fuel injection system from wear. The processing required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm also removes naturally-occurring lubricity agents in diesel fuel. To manage this change the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) adopted the lubricity specification defined in ASTM D975 for all diesel fuels and this standard went into effect January 1, 2005.

# The D975 specification is based on the High Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR) test (D 6079) and requires a wear scar no larger than 520 microns.

 

[TWilkening]

IF this nw fuel does end up causing a ton of problems, could we file a class-action lawsuit against the EPA? I know, I know, wishful thinking...

 

[GiesJ]

Once again... ..... the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), 15ppm, is made FOR the 2007 and UP models. It is an EPA requirement.



The current #2 Diesel, Low Sulfur Diesel (LSD), 500ppm, will be BAD for the new trucks.



Scott

I understand that the 500 is bad for the new trucks. Are there going to be 2 types of diesel at every island now??



Sorry if my questions frustrated you.

 

[HRDROKN]

I understand that the 500 is bad for the new trucks. Are there going to be 2 types of diesel at every island now??



Sorry if my questions frustrated you.

It will all eventually be just ultra low sulfur diesel... all 50 states



Then you should not see any more of those stickers... well at least someone should take the action to remove them when it is time.



.

 

[BigPapa]

No frustration G.



I apologize for totally mis-reading your post. You knew what you were talking about.



Scott

 

[GiesJ]

You knew what you were talking about.



Scott

Not really! Thanks for the help though.



I am just concerned (as I am on VP-44 #5) about how the lack of sulfur may affect ME. I understand (thanks to you gentlemen) that there will be similiar lubricity (sp?) properites, but I wonder if the lack of sulfur will have any impact on my fragile pump...



Perhaps I should do some searching on the TDR, I'm sure it's been discussed...

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

I just LOVE the quotes some supporters of the EPA and big oil are providing, where those sources are grandly stating the excellence of the new ULSD, and all the careful controls and precautions being implemented to assure us deserving customers the absolute max of lubricity and overall quality...



I mean, what would you EXPECT them to say, even if they were well aware of fuel system damaging issues?



What I HAVEN'T seen, is even the slightest change in delivery vehicles or methods - no upgrading of local bulk or individual station tanks - or ANYTHING other than business as usual.



And any customer thinking that ALL necessary quality precautions need only be made at the main distribution terminals and refineries - well, I still have a few acres of choice Florida swampland left... :-laf

 

[jrobinson2]

Are there going to be 2 types of diesel at every island now??

Only until October 15, thats when the conversion needs to be complete.



The sulfer is all bad, its hard on everything, less sulfer is good. The problem is what they remove with the sulfer and then attempt to add back in later. What actually worries me more is this statment from Chevron:



How will S15 (ULSD) affect my fuel system seals?

Chevron is not sure whether the transition to S15 (ULSD) in 2006 will affect fuel system elastomers (e. g. , O-rings). Any change will depend on the elastomer material and age, as well as the change in seal swell characteristics of the particular fuel being used, relative to the fuel the vehicle has been using. Experience in transitioning to S500 (500 ppm) in 1993 suggests end-users should be proactive. Specifically, maintenance records should be reviewed to ensure that fuel system elastomer seals have been changed out at recommended intervals with recommended materials.



At least they claim to know about lubricity, they admit to not knowing about seals, does anybody know what the "recommended intervals with recommended materials" are for a 5. 9 Cummins?



Jared

 

[jrobinson2]

Gary,

Perhaps you have some solid information to share, some wear tests or other data indicating a problem? I personaly have read nothing to indicate a problem except on these forums and would like to know if there really are issues with the ULSD as I burn over 50,000 gallons of diesel a year.



My delivery driver (an owner operator who needs to know) told me friday that he would need to dedicate his tankers strictly to gas or diesel, he said the new ULSD standards are so strict that hauling diesel in a tank that just hauled gas could cause the diesel to exceed spec.

 

[Champane Flight]

Not yet

My delivery driver (an owner operator who needs to know) told me friday that he would need to dedicate his tankers strictly to gas or diesel, he said the new ULSD standards are so strict that hauling diesel in a tank that just hauled gas could cause the diesel to exceed spec.

I can only speak for our terminal. We are not going to screen tankers, unless issues come to light. We are going to put the responsibility on the drivers to empty their tanks before coming in to load. If issues do come to light, we will have to assign loaders at truck docks. We will be testing dock daily, so any contamination problem will naturally fall on driver/customer.



Contamination will only take place if product is left in tanker, you do not want any gasoline in your diesel anyway. It only takes one gallon of gasoline to contaminate 100 gallons of diesel (flashpoint). It is going to be a pain for us all, including drivers.

 

[jrobinson2]

CF,

My driver is being told that the residue alone will be a problem and may require dedicated tankers, have you heard this at all?

 

[gitchesum]

CF,

My driver is being told that the residue alone will be a problem and may require dedicated tankers, have you heard this at all?

Depends on what was in the tanker before the ULSD is loaded. If it is something like Turbine oil(JETA), then yes, it could be a problem. JETA can run a sulfur content of over 3000ppm. A little of that stuff can contaminate a ULSD product enough that it is considered unsellable. Since most gasolines are running with a sulfur content of less than 20-30 ppm, it would take quite a bit to ruin a batch of ULSD. Enough so that you would probably smell the gasoline in it.

 

[GFrance]

The memo we got for loading said that our terminal would not be checking tankers for retain. They would prefer (not mandated) that trucks hauling ULSD be dedicated to do so. Not $$$ feasible. It also went on to say that 1 gallon of jet A in 500 gallons of ULSD would raise the sulpher content from 15ppm to 17ppm. Nothing was mentioned about how much gasoline would change the specs.

I don't haul any jet A, but I do haul loads of High sulpher, so I need to make sure there is no retain. At our terminal we are not set up for flushing like we use to do in Portland yrs ago.

 

[Champane Flight]

Different products

Everything we have will be ULS, so it will not be an issue except for liquid. Our Jet will even be classified ULSD #1 aviation grade. I also understand that 21 ppm will be the cutoff point, or the spot that our uncle will cutoff?//



How many of us work for oil companys here????

 

[gitchesum]

I bet there are more than a few of us that are waiting to June 1 to come and go.



I know I am.

 

[jrobinson2]

Thanks for the responses on the tank contamination, it sound like he (and I) is a victim of more rumors



This won't be over June 1st, it's going to take quite a while to find out if Gary or the refiners are right



Jared

 

[nps]

I am just concerned (as I am on VP-44 #5) about how the lack of sulfur may affect ME. I understand (thanks to you gentlemen) that there will be similiar lubricity (sp?) properites, but I wonder if the lack of sulfur will have any impact on my fragile pump...

Sulphur or no sulphur and your truck is happy. The newer truck's emission systems (particulate filter) is big $$$$ and will get clogged with sulphur. Kind of like when cats first came out, were big $$$$ and would get clogged with lead.



The problem with ULSD for your truck is because of the process that is used to remove sulphur. This process also removes lubricity from the fuel while it is removing the sulphur. So the sulphur is not desirable and does not provide lubrication, but removal of lubricity is a by-product of the removal of sulphur.



The lubricity is supposed to be restored when the fuel is loaded onto the tanker by way of a lubricity additive. If they forget to put it in then you could have some problems. Insurance would be to use an additive yourself instead of relying on the fuel distributor to do their job.



If you've gone through 4 VP44s already, I'd have to wonder what kind of fuel pressure you are delivering and if your filtration is working. I'm on my first VP44 (55,000 miles) and keep a min of 9 psi to the VP44. I'm also using a Donaldson spin-on fuel filter/separator back by the tank (I never have to change my factory filter anymore) along with 1 gallon of new motor oil to every fillup (free from my son who gets it in bulk from his work).

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Gary,

Perhaps you have some solid information to share, some wear tests or other data indicating a problem? I personaly have read nothing to indicate a problem except on these forums and would like to know if there really are issues with the ULSD as I burn over 50,000 gallons of diesel a year.



My delivery driver (an owner operator who needs to know) told me friday that he would need to dedicate his tankers strictly to gas or diesel, he said the new ULSD standards are so strict that hauling diesel in a tank that just hauled gas could cause the diesel to exceed spec.

I'm not at home at the moment - we're at our daughter and family's home out 600 miles away, and will be for another couple of weeks. I do have supporting info back in my own PC - and otherwise, can only judge and present likelihood of what might happen in the future based upon what I/we have experienced in the past.



Bosch a few years ago released a California Air Resources Board related document that well and thoroughly established the adverse effects of the current "excellent, high quality" fuels we consumers were getting at the pump - and the picture was VERY grim - a full 85% of random stations in California they sampled and analyzed FAILED basic tests for purity and lubricity.



Added to that, was the fuel system damage and seal failures that sidelined many commercial trucks during the early days of that same fuel.



I personally don't expect a whole lot different from this latest "improvement", at least as to what the consumer actually sees and pays for at the pump...



A bit further back, in the early '90's, the reformulated gasoline we were forced to accept damaged fuel delivery systems in many vehicles - and the EPA was on record as fully acknowledging they KNEW this would be the damaging effect on many vehicles. but they didn't CARE, as long as they got the fuel they wanted.



I had direct, personal experience with that "latest and greatest" fuel change, since I had just sold my '85 vette to my sister in law - and after a few tanks of the new reformulated gasoline, damaged fuel system hoses and seals clogged all 8 injector, requiring system and injector replacements totalling about $2000.



I had a very hard time convincing her that the problem was not a defective vette I had palmed off on her, but rather the damaging effects of the new gasoline I had no control over.



To me, the quotes posted by members here lifted from EPA and oil company mouthpieces is no better or reliable than that of any other shill promoting his own grand product or gadget - you know, the one he stands to get rich off of...



The only thing really in our favor, is the knowledge gained from past similar experiences, and the availability of decent products that can counter the possible and expected downside of the new ULSD.



I, for one, intend to plan and act accordingly.