Bob, according to GRNO's press release, the fuel tested is not suitable for highway use as is because of the sulphur. In all other respects the test results showed considerably higher than minimum standards, and therefore of higher quality than most diesel offered at retail. ASTM standards cover about a dozen necessary quality tests of which sulphur content is only one. See the list at the Lubrizol site referrenced in an earlier post.
There are several possibilities for attaining acceptable status. One, discussed before, is removing part of the sulphur. A second is blending with low quality but also low sulphur diesel (such fuels exist). A third is better feedstock with lower initial sulphur content--the initial testing was performed on about the worst feedstock GRNO could devise, including tar. There may be other methods.
So far, GRNO has released only the one set of lab tests, the blind sample test from the bad feedstock. I know there have been other tests, but I don't know of what sort (many are only concerned with one or a few factors to help ascertain consequences of different choices in settings), nor do I know the results. Perhaps some have identified legal highway grade fuel--if Spencer said that was the case, then presumably they have tests to sustain it.
My understanding is that sales from the existing processor are likely to go to Allied Terminals (primarily marine use, or off-road terminal vehicles and engines) or to an oil-burning utility plant near Charleston. In South Carolina, there is apparently little if any difference in price in diesel fuels based on sulphur content; BTU content is likely to be of considerably more importance to the utility, and GRNO's fuel oils (including the lower grade bottom fuel) rate very highly in that regard.
=+=+=Norm
|
