Ultra low sulphur diesel fuel
impacts on availability of other
fuels
G. R. Hadder, S. Das, R. Lee, N. Domingo and R. M. Davis
Legislation for ultra low sulphur (ULS) diesel
fuel, with a greatly reduced allowable sulphur
content and a new limit on aromatics content, is
expected to be in place in the USA by 1995. The
ULS diesel fuel has been specified to satisfy US
standards for particulate emissions from heavy-
duty diesel engines. The Navy Mobility Fuels
Forecasting System has been used to study the
impacts of ULS diesel fuel production on other
refined petroleum products. The study predicts
that to produce ULS diesel fuel, US Gulf and
west coast refiners will have to invest about $4.4
billion in new processing capacity. Refiners will
shift aromatics from No 2 diesel fuel to jet fuel
and to No 2 fuel oil. Therefore, particulate
emissions could be transferred from highways to
airways and to communities which use No 2 fuel
oil for residential and commercial heating. The
study also predicts that there will be an increase
in the aromatics content of Navy JP-5 jet fuel and
F-76 marine diesel fuel produced in the USA.
The gum-forming tendencies of F-76 and F-77
burner fuel oil will increase in most cases. The
freezing point of JP-5 will improve. There will
be minor changes in the cost of JP-5, but sizable
reductions in the cost of F-76 and F-77.
Keywords:Diesel fuel; Jet fuel; Environmentalregulations
On 15 March 1985, the USA Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) established particulate standards
for heavy-duty diesel engines. 1 These standards
were to go into effect for 1988 model year vehicles,
and were to follow with progressively more stringent
regulations. 2 In response to these regulations, the
diesel engine manufacturing industry stated that the
The authors are members of the Energy Division, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, PO Box 2008, Oak Ridge,
Tenessee, TN 37831, USA.
488
particulate limitations would require the use of traps
on the vehicle exhaust system. The industry express-
ed concern that these traps might be ineffective with
present day sulphur levels in diesel fuel because of
the trap plugging by sulphates in the engine exhaust
and the generation of increased sulphur emissions
catalyzed by the traps. Commenters recommended
that EPA reduce the allowable sulphur in diesel fuel.
EPA responded that it would continue to study the
issue and, if warranted, would consider so doing. 3
While addressing the issue of diesel fuel sulphur,
EPA investigated the emission effects of other diesel
fuel properties such as aromatics content. 4 Aromatic
compounds in fuel contribute significantly to both
the carbonaceous fraction of particulate emissions as
well as hydrocarbon emissions from heavy-duty
diesel engines under transient conditions. 5
Various studies were conducted to estimate the
cost to cut diesel fuel sulphur content to 0.05 weight
percent 6 and to limit diesel aromatics content to a
maximum of 20 volume percent. 7 EPA now esti-
mates that the cost to produce this ultra low sulphur
(ULS) diesel fuel will be equivalent to 7 c/g of diesel
fuel, with an industry investment of $2.7 billion, s
Based on an independent survey, the petroleum
refining industry has estimated that the cost to
produce ULS diesel fuel will be equivalent to 15.5
c/g, with an industry investment of $6.7 billion. 9
Industry analysts believe that legislation covering
the levels of diesel sulphur and aromatics is likely to
be in place by 1995.1°
A plausible impact of the production of ULS
diesel fuel would be that some of the high sulphur
and high aromatics stocks currently blended to diesel
fuel would be diverted to products with relatively
high allowable levels of sulphur and aromatics. For
example, F-76 marine diesel might be a good dis-
position for high sulphur stocks, since the limit on
sulphur in F-76 is 1.0 weight percent or 20 times the
limit for ULS diesel fuel. The purpose of this report
is to discuss the application of the Navy Mobility
0301-4215/91/050488-06 0 1991 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd
 Ultra low sulphur diesel fuel impacts on other fuels

Table 1. Key specifications for navy fuels.

JP-5 F-76 F-77

API gravity 36-48 11.5 minimum
Flash point, °F, minimum 140 140 150
Freezing point, °F, maximum -51
Smoke point, mm, minimum 19
Cetane number, minimum 45
Sulphur, wt %, maximum 0.4 1.0 3.5
Pour point, °F, maximum 20 15
Particulate matter, mg/L, maximum 1.0
Accelerated stability, mg/100 ml, maximum 1.5

Fuels Forecasting System in the assessment of such
impacts of ULS diesel fuel production on the availa-
bility and quality of other fuels, with emphasis on
Navy jet and marine fuels.
Model analysis of domestic production of
fuels
The Navy Mobility Fuels Forecasting System has
been used to predict the impacts of the production of
ULS diesel fuel on the production of other refined
petroleum products. The study focuses on the effects
of ULS diesel fuel production on the availability and
quality of Navy JP-5 jet fuel, F-76 marine diesel fuel,
and F-77 burner fuel oil. Key specifications for these
fuels are summarized in Table 1.
The forecasting system, shown conceptually in
Figure 1, consists of three Department of Energy
models: the oil market simulation model; the pet-
roleum allocation model; and the refinery yield
model.
The oil market simulation model
The econometric oil market simulation (OMS)
model 11 estimates the price at which global supply
and demand for oil are in balance. Aggregate sup-
ply, demand and price data from the OMS model are
used for some of the input data requirements of the
other two models of the forecasting system.
The methodology of the OMS model consists of a
specific set of behavioural rules for three groups of
market participants who have different objectives:
oil consumers, OPEC oil producers, and non-OPEC
oil producers.
The oil demand equations for the six regions of
the consumer group are expressed in terms of four

FORECASTINGSYSTEM

I
CRUDE ? I
AND SYNCRUDE I
CHARACTERISTICS .L . . . .
l- . . . .
I SUPPLYDISRUPTION
"1 SCENARIOS
L
WORLD
CONVERSION DISTRIBUTION
TECHNOLOGY CRUDE,PRODUCT
TRENDS (PAL)

REGIONAL
.EF,NERY I REFINERY
TRENDS ] MODELLING

-I (REMS/RYM)

±
T
REFINEDPRODUCT(FUELS)QUANTITY,
QUALITY,COST

Figure 1. Navy Mobility Fuels Forecasting System and supporting activities.

Source: S. Das et al, Navy Mobility Fuels Forecasting System Phase IV Report,
ORNL-6517, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 1988.

E N E R G Y P O L I C Y June 1991 489

Ultra low sulphur dieselfuel impacts on other fuels
variables: the world oil price; regional income; the
economic feedback effect of world oil price on
regional income; and regional oil demand in the
previous year.
For the group of OPEC oil producers, the OMS
model incorporates a theory of pricing behaviour
that maintains that the higher the demand for OPEC
oil relative to the OPEC maximum sustainable oil
production capacity, the greater will be the increase
in the world oil price. The pricing theory, repre-
sented mathematically in a price reaction function,
assumes that the OPEC pricing objective is to main-
tain a target percentage of OPEC oil production
capacity utilization. If the percentage falls below the
target level, OPEC reduces the world oil price to
encourage increased demand for OPEC oil and
movement toward the target level. Conversely,
when the actual capacity utilization rises above the
target level, OPEC raises the world oil price in order
to reduce demand and utilization of oil production
capacity.
The supplies of oil from the five regions in the
non-OPEC producer group are determined by the
world oil price and the regional oil supplies in the
previous year. The required relationship in an OMS
model solution is that the free world quantity of oil
demanded equals the quantity supplied.
The petroleum allocation model
The petroleum allocation (PAL) model 12 is a linear
programme that estimates global petroleum move-
ments for different market scenarios. Crude oil
supplies and the production of refined products,
such as motor gasoline, are forecast by the PAL
model for input to the refinery yield model.
Two basic assumptions underlie the PAL model
objective function. First, the distribution of crude oil
from supply points to refinery regions, and the
distribution of refined products from refinery re-
gions to refined product demand regions will tend to
follow historical movements. Second, when supply
conditions are such that these historical movements
cannot be satisfied, crude and refined products will
be distributed according to the pattern that mini-
mizes total costs. Within the PAL model, there are
33 crude oil supply regions; over 50 crude oil types;
37 refinery regions; 33 refined product demand
regions; and modes of petroleum transportation
including tanker, pipeline, rail and truck.
The refinery yield model
The refinery yield model (RYM) is a linear
programme 13 that represents regional refining op-
erations.
490
Each regional RYM determines the optimal solu-
tion which maximizes the gross refinery margin.
Because of the detailed refinery technology repre-
sented within RYM, the model can be used to
perform a host of impact analyses by estimating the
changes in product yields given changes in input
variables. These variables include capacity, utiliza-
tion and yield structure for more than 20 refinery
processes; refinery slates which can contain over 30
products; product prices; detailed blending speci-
fications for most products; availability and cost of
more than 100 crude oils; crude oil assays; and cost
of utilities.
RYM is idealized in that it assumes 'connected
refinery pipelines' within a large region. Conse-
quently, RYM has a tendency to over-optimize
refinery operations. In a verification study to deter-
mine how closely RYM could simulate refinery
activities in 1982, it was estimated that regional
refinery aggregation could have caused the model to
overestimate light product yields by about 3% of
total gasoline and distillate yields. 14 The over-
optimization problem can be mitigated by focusing
on scenario-induced changes in refining operations,
rather than relying on the model to predict the exact
values of refining variables for a particular scenario.
The OMS and PAL models produce an aggre-
gated picture of regional refining under different
market scenarios. Although regional refinery yield
models are embedded within the PAL model, they
do not explicitly represent the production of impor-
tant military fuels such as JP-5. Therefore, RYM,
which contains enhanced descriptions of military
fuel production, uses some key results of the PAL
model but is executed independently of it. The
stand-alone RYM can be used efficiently to evaluate
many variations of the refining environment. For
example, RYM is used to estimate investment in
domestic refining capacity and to produce detailed
reports on the effects of changing refined product
prices and specifications.
Given the global petroleum market analyses of the
OMS and PAL models, RYM has been used to
analyse the impact of ULS diesel fuel production. A
region was selected for study if it had a recent history
of production of Navy mobility fuels. The selected
regions were:
• US Bureau of Mines (BOM) Districts 7 and 11
(Inland Texas and New Mexico);
• BOM District 8 (Texas Gulf Coast, which
contains over 85% of Texas's crude oil distilla-
tion capacity);
• BOM Districts 9 and 10 (Louisiana, Mississip-
pi, Alabama and Arkansas); and
ENERGY POLICY June 1991

• BOM District 13 (Alaska, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, Oregon and Washington).
Scenarios for production of current-quality diesel
and ULS diesel were studied for petroleum markets
in the year 1995. In both scenarios, it was assumed
that motor gasoline will be unleaded and that the
Reid vapour pressure of summertime motor gasoline
will be reduced by about 25% relative to the present
motor gasoline. 15
Business-as-usual market conditions, which were
estimated with the OMS and PAL models, are
described in detail by Das et al. 16 A map which
summarizes the projected business-as-usual free-
world distribution of petroleum is shown in Figure 2.
Impacts of ULS diesel fuel production
Of the nation's total crude oil distillation capacity
66% is located in the Gulf and west coast study
regions of BOMs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13.17 To produce
ULS No 2 diesel fuel rather than current-quality
diesel, refiners in these study regions will have to
Figure 2. Business-as-usual free-world petroleum (crude oil and refined product) distribution in 1995.
Source: S. Das et al, Navy Mobility Fuels Forecasting System Phase IV Report, ORNL-6517,Oak RidgeNationalLaboratory,Oak Ridge,
TN, USA, September 1988.
ENERGY POLICY June 199!
Ultra low sulphur diesel fuel impacts on other fuels
invest about $4.4 billion, according to the Navy
Mobility Fuels Forecasting System. is The invest-
ment will be primarily for the processes of distillate
deep hydrotreating, naphtha hydrotreating and gas
oil hydrocracking.
The production of ULS diesel fuel results in a shift
of aromatics to civilian jet fuel and to No 2 fuel oil as
summarized in Table 2.
Table 3 shows some of the key effects of ULS
diesel fuel on JP-5:
• ULS diesel production causes an increase in
the aromatics content of JP-5 in all study
regions.
• Increases in aromatics content would be ex-
pected to result in decreases in smoke point.
However, the only substantial decrease in
smoke point is in BOMs 9 and 10.
• The forecasting system predicts substantial im-
provements in the freezing point of JP-5 in
BOMs 7, 8, 11 and 13. The improvement of
freezing point is consistent with the fact that
freezing point improves substantially as the
491
Ultra low sulphur diesel fuel impacts on other fuels

Table 2. Civilian product quality changes associated with change to ultra low sulphur diesel
specifications.

BOM 7/11 BOM 8 BOM 9/10 BOM 13

Jet A aromatics (vol %) +2.0 0 +3.6 0
No 2 diesel aromatics (vol %) -9.8 -13.8 -12.0 -17.9
No 2 diesel cetane index (number) +3.9 +8.3 +0.7 +3.6
No 2 diesel sulphur (wt %) -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3
No 2 fuel oil aromatics (vol %) +24.7 +25.9 +15.5 +16.2
No 2 fuel oil sulphur (wt %) 0 -0.2 0 -0.2

characterization factor of a fuel decreases (ie, Observations and recommendations

the fuel becomes more aromatic), for a con-
stant 50% recovery temperature. 19
The change in cost of JP-5 ranges from -2.3 to
+1.4 c/g.
Table 4 shows some of the key effects of ULS
diesel fuel on F-76.
• ULS diesel fuel production causes large in-
creases in the aromatics content of F-76 in
BOMs 8 and 13.
• In BOM 13, the cetane index of F-76 drops by
9 numbers.
• There are increases in light cycle oil blended to
F-76 in all regions of production of this fuel.
Light cycle oils have inferior stability, with
tendencies to produce gums and other particu-
lates, resulting from complex interactions be-
tween molecular oxygen, organocompounds of
nitrogen, sulphur and oxygen, and the more
reactive hydrocarbon species such as olefins
and aromatics. The resulting particulates and
gums can cause plugging of diesel engine filters
and fouling of fuel injectors. 2° Studies have
shown rapid degradation in the stability of
fuels blended with more than 30% light cycle
oil in virgin distillate. 21 Hardy et al cite the
marked instability of a blend of 70% good
quality F-76 with 30% light cycle oil. 22
• The cost of F-76 is reduced in all study regions.
The quality of F-77 produced in BOM 8 is not
affected by ULS diesel fuel production. However, in
BOM 13 the sulphur content of F-77 increases
substantially and the change in light cycle oil
blended to F-77 is +60 volume percent. In both
regions, the cost of F-77 is substantially reduced.
The forecasting system predicts that the production
of ULS diesel fuel will cause an increase in the
aromatics content of domestically produced JP-5. It
is recommended that the impact of higher aromatics
content in JP-5 be reviewed with respect to compara-
bility with materials such as elastomers and with
respect to engine performance characteristics, such
as smoking.
It is also predicted that the production of ULS
diesel fuel will cause an improvement in the freezing
point of domestically produced JP-5. It is recom-
mended that future research focus on the extension
of JP-5 supplies, during market disruptions or mili-
tary mobilization, by blending higher freezing point
stocks.
The production of ULS diesel fuel is predicted to
cause an increase in the aromatics content of domes-
tically produced F-76. It is recommended that the
impact of higher F-76 aromatics content be reviewed
with respect to ignition and particulate formation
characteristics.
The forecasting system predicts that the produc-
tion of ULS diesel fuel will cause an increase in the
percentage of light cycle oil blended to domestically
produced F-76 and an increase in the percentage of
light cycle oil blended to F-77 produced in BOM 13.
It is recommended that because of potential fuel
stability problems, the possibility of high percen-
tages of light cycle oil in F-76 and F-77 should be
discussed with refiners. These discussions could
identify the need for follow-up investigations on the
stability and power system impacts of such blends.
Finally, it is predicted that the production of ULS
diesel fuel will cause a shift of aromatics from No 2
diesel fuel to jet fuel and to No 2 fuel oil. Since
aromatics tend to produce more smoke in the com-

Table 3. Key effects of ultra low sulphur diesel specifications on JP-5.

BOM 7/11 BOM 8 BOM 9/10 BOM 13

Aromatics content (vol % change) +1.6 +2.2 +1.2 +1.0
Smoke point (mm change) -0.5 +0.2 -5.2 -0.1
Freezing point (degrees F change) -25.0 -42.0 +2.0 -24.0
Cost (c/g change) +1.1 0 +1.4 -2.3

492 ENERGY POLICY June 1991


Table 4. Key effects of ultra low sulphur diesel specifications on
F-76.
BOM 8 BOM 9/10 BOM 13
Aromatics content (vol % change) +7.8 -1.2 +20.6
Cetane index (number change) 0 0 -9.0
Light cycle oil (vol % change) +13.5 +10.0 +35.4
Cost (c/g change) -4.0 -2.4 -9.6
bustion of jet fuels and fuel oils, 23 the net reduction
in particulate emissions may be less than anticipated
by environmental planners. The final recommenda-
tion is that the proposals for ULS diesel fuel be
assessed for the net reduction in particulate emis-
sions, accounting for the potential transfer of the
particulate emissions from highways to airways and
to communities which use No 2 fuel oil for residen-
tial and commercial heating.
Research sponsored by the Mobility Fuels Technology Program
of the US Navy Energy and Natural Resources Office, Office of
Naval Research, Interagency Agreement No 40-1391-83 under
Martin Marietta Energy Systems Inc, Contract No. DE-AC05-
84OR21400 with the US Department of Energy.
1Federal Register, Vol 50, No 51, 15 March 1985, p 10606.
2The particulate emission standards, which apply only to heavy-
duty diesel engines are: 0.6 grams per brake horsepower-hour for
1988 and later model years, 0.25 grams per brake horsepower-
hour (0.1 grams per brake horsepower-hour for urban buses) for
1991 and later model years, and 0.1 grams per brake horsepower-
hour for 1994 and later model years. Tile rule is in response to the
requirements of section 202(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1977.
3Federal Register, Vol 51, No 124, 27 June 1986, p 23437.
4The back-end distillation temperature has also been directly
correlated with diesel fuel particulate emissions.
50p cit, Ref 3.
6In a 1986 survey of 139 refineries, representing 98% of the
nation's crude oil refining capacity, the average diesel fuel sulphur
content was 0.27 weight percent. A relatively small volume of
diesel fuel, which was primarily consumed in the Los Angeles
basin area, met a 0.05 weight percent maximum sulphur specifica-
tion. For diesel fuels sold in accordance with the ASTM D 975
standard, the maximum sulphur content is 0.5 weight percent. See
National Petroleum Refiners Association, US Refining Industry
Capability to Manufacture Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuels: NPRA
Survey 1986, National Petroleum Refiners Association, Suite
1000, 1899 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA, 1986.
7The average aromatics content of diesel fuel produced by the
refineries surveyed by the NPRA (op cit, Ref 6) was 34 volume
percent. ASTM D 975 has no aromatics specification but requires
a minimum cetane number of 40. Cetane number and aromatics
content are inversely related, and, in effect, the cetane specifica-
tion limits the amount of aromatics that can be blended. Unzel-
ENERGY POLICY June 1991
Ultra low sulphur diesel fuel impacts on other fuels
man shows a relationship in which a minimum cetane number of
40 (for a blend of light cycle oils and virgin distillates) corresponds
to a maximum aromatics content of about 38 volume percent. See
G. H. Unzelman, 'Higher diesel quality would constrict refining',
Oil & Gas Journal, 29 June 1987, pp 55-59.
8Bob Williams, 'US refiners may face gasoline supply crunch in
driving season', Oil & Gas Journal, 5 June 1989, pp 23-28
90p cit, Ref 6.
l°Op cit, Ref 7.
HSystem Science Inc, The Oil Market Simulation Model, Model
Documentation Report DOE/EIA/19656-2, Department of Ener-
gy, Washington, DC, USA, 1985.
1ZA.F. Turhollow, T.R. Curlee and Sujit Das, Documentation of
the Petroleum Allocation (PAL) Model, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 5 March 1987.
13Refinery Evaluation Modeling System (REMS) Documentation,
DOE/EIA-0460, Energy Information Administration, October
1984; Refinery Evaluation Modeling System (REMS) Documenta-
tion, DOE/EIA-0461, Energy Information Administration, Octo-
ber 1984.
a4REMS 1982 Verification Test Results, working paper prepared
for US Energy Information Administration and the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve Office of the US Department of Energy by
Decision Analysis Corporation with Sobotka and Company,
under subcontract with Computer Data Systems, November 1983.
15G.T. Kinney, 'EPA to limit summertime gasoline RVP', Oil &
Gas Journal, 27 March 1989, p 79.
16S. Das et al, Navy Mobility Fuels Forecasting System Phase IV
Report, ORNL-6517, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, TN, USA, September 1988.
17Energy Information Administration, US Department of Ener-
gy, Petroleum Supply Annual 1988, DOE/EIA-0340(88)/1,
Washington, DC, USA, May 1989.
]SWhen extrapolated by the distillation capacity of the entire
USA relative to the study regions (ie, 1/0.66), the investment
estimate of the study supports the investment determined in the
petroleum refining industry survey (op cit, Ref 6). The extrapola-
tion, which does not account for important factors such as the
total refinery process configuration, provides only a rough appro-
ximation.
~gW.L. Nelson, Petroleum Refining Engineering, McGraw-Hill,
NY, USA, 1958, p 139.
2°L.D. Palmer and B.V. Copson, 'Hydrotreatment of light cycle
oil for stabilization of automotive diesel fuel', in Conference
Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Long-Term Storage
Stabilities of Liquid Fuels, Southwest Research Institute, San
Antonio, TX, USA, 29 July-1 August 1986, pp 902-914.
21M.W. Schrepfer, R.J. Arnold and C.A. Stansky, 'Distillate
stability ensured by testing, treatment', Oil & Gas Journal, 16
January 1984, pp 79-84.
22D.R. Hardy, R.N. Hazlett and E.W. White, 'Assessment of
storage stability additives for naval distillate fuel', Conference
Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Long-Term Storage
Stabilities of Liquid Fuels, Southwest Research Institute, San
Antonio, TX, USA, 29 July-1 August, pp 887-901.
23See, for example, D.W. Naegeli and C.A. Moses, 'Effects of
fuel properties on soot formation in turbine combustion,' Society
of Automotive Engineers Paper No 781026, Aerospace Meeting,
San Diego, CA, USA, 27-30 November 1978, p 5; and V.B.
Guthrie, Petroleum Products Handbook, McGraw-Hill, NY,
USA, 1960, pp 7-29.
493