Diesel

[macdon02]

It's going up, way up.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1II0PP

Rumors of $6/gal coming and gas dropping to $1. Of course don't expect to see the cut at the pumps as govt will step in and help themselves to another tax hike. If your familiar with the 3-2-1 crack spread, the spread is likely to occur. Also expect further downside on WCS and shale oil as its more friendly to gasoline then lighter sweeter crude. Somehow im thinking the 58% collapse last 2 months in baltic dry Index has spurred this as the industry tries to push out the older fleet and get their rates back up after the 2008 overbuild.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Ironic. Those in the industry with foresight have been losing sleep ( literally ) over where the world will source its sulfur for fertilizer ( including the processing of phosphate), and a host of other industrial processes, as the world shifts away from sour crudes and sour gas, or away from fossil fuels all together. Meanwhile, we have the issue you have brought up, blissfully unaware of the unintended consequences.

Most sulfur is, however, used in the production of sulfuric acid, which is perhaps the most important chemical manufactured by western civilisations

Do you think the UN has enough teeth or respect to get enough countries on board to enforce this?

And a better question,( and I don't profess to know enough to answer), but does the concentration of emissions over the open ocean pose a threat in any way, is this justified from an environmental perspective? Perhaps they only need to burn low sulfur fuel in congested areas?

I probably have a unique perspective, living proximate to , and having worked in and around the sour gas plants and their massive sulfur blocks, another of which recently switched to all sweet gas, and eliminated their sulfur processing altogether. Whereas only a few short years ago, they were beginning to build a plant to make sulfur prills to export fertilizer.

[macdon02]

Ironic. Those in the industry with foresight have been losing sleep ( literally ) over where the world will source its sulfur for fertilizer ( including the processing of phosphate), and a host of other industrial processes, as the world shifts away from sour crudes and sour gas, or away from fossil fuels all together. Meanwhile, we have the issue you have brought up, blissfully unaware of the unintended consequences.

Most sulfur is, however, used in the production of sulfuric acid, which is perhaps the most important chemical manufactured by western civilisations

Do you think the UN has enough teeth or respect to get enough countries on board to enforce this?

And a better question,( and I don't profess to know enough to answer), but does the concentration of emissions over the open ocean pose a threat in any way, is this justified from an environmental perspective? Perhaps they only need to burn low sulfur fuel in congested areas?

I probably have a unique perspective, living proximate to , and having worked in and around the sour gas plants and their massive sulfur blocks, another of which recently switched to all sweet gas, and eliminated their sulfur processing altogether. Whereas only a few short years ago, they were beginning to build a plant to make sulfur prills to export fertilizer.

Im hoping the ship owners are smart enough to figure out its cheaper to expand the fuel tank and fill in a non UN country, giving up a portion of cargo space, then it is to comply.