Co-processed naphtha and kerosene

The window over which certified inputs and outputs reconcile, quarterly or annual per scheme, the accounting's fiscal quarter. Even molecules file quarterly.

Units designed for it run pyrolysis feeds, the tolerance being site-specific, the qualification being the gate. Chemistry per refinery, one size fits nobody.

Obligation value against the fossil base, the share trading like compliance elsewhere, the premium funding the co-feed. The percentage has a price tag.

The output is finished fuel by definition, no blending required, the renewable share living in the accounting not the tank. The blend happened before the refinery's front door.

The certificate chain documents the share, transparency being the scheme's product, the claim auditable to the barrel. Trust arrives notarised here.

Only units whose licensor limits, metallurgy and operating permits allow it, which is why co-processing is site-specific knowledge. Theoretically universal, practically a shortlist.

It is not separable in the product, the share is established by certified mass balance over the inputs, that being the entire concept. Chemistry mixes, accounting remembers.

Within refining's normal control, the finished fuel meets its standard regardless of feed share, that is the point of process integration. The standard is the product, the share is the claim.

Whatever the unit cannot tolerate, chlorine carriers, metals, solids, each refinery publishing its intake fences. The forbidden list is the business model of the pretreatment step.

With the certification chain intact to the destination's recognition, claims travel as documents, and documents travel as far as recognition allows. Exporting fuel is easy, exporting virtue takes paper.

Several European refineries run co-processing today, usually in existing hydrotreaters or FCC units, and the list grows as refiners seek renewable volume without building a plant. Which unit takes which feedstock is exactly the intake knowledge a broker carries between suppliers.

Yes, within the rules: the renewable share is verified under a certification scheme with mass balance, and only that verified share counts toward obligations. Done properly it is fully compliant, done loosely it is worth nothing, which is why the scheme documents travel with every claim.

Liquid bio feedstocks and pyrolysis oils, depending on the unit: clean waste oils and fats suit hydrotreaters, suitable pyrolysis oil suits units built to tolerate it. The unit's tolerance, not the feedstock's origin, decides the door.

That is its entire business case: co-processing earns renewable volume out of existing equipment at a fraction of new build cost. It will not replace dedicated renewable refineries, but it brings supply to market years faster.

Obligated fuel suppliers under the renewable energy rules, the same parties who buy HVO and biodiesel compliance value. The physical fuel flows as one stream, the renewable share sells with its certificate on top.

Chemically you cannot, and that is the point: after co-processing the molecules are identical. What you can do is measure the biogenic share. Biogenic carbon contains carbon-14, fossil carbon does not, so a radiocarbon measurement gives the renewable fraction of a sample directly. ASTM D6866 is the standard method, with EN 16640 as the wider European framework and DIN 51637 aimed specifically at liquid fuels and blends. That measurement is the independent check on the mass balance paperwork.

Usually not, and treating them as interchangeable is a common and expensive error. HVO is a distinct product made in a dedicated unit and sold against EN 15940. A co-processed fuel is conventional fuel carrying a certified renewable share. They are accounted for differently, they price differently, and a buyer with a mandate to meet cares intensely about the difference.

A refinery running bio feedstock through its existing units alongside crude oil, so renewable and fossil molecules come out inseparably mixed. The renewable share is established by mass balance accounting rather than by physical segregation. Its attraction is that it produces renewable volume from existing plant without new investment.

ASTM D1655 Annex A1 permits co-processing at up to 5 %. That is considerably lower than the 50 % blending limit available to HEFA-SPK produced as a standalone fuel under ASTM D7566 Annex A2, and it is the main technical constraint on the co-processed aviation route.

It is renewable aviation fuel, but it is not the same product as standalone HEFA-SPK and the two are not always interchangeable for compliance purposes. The limits differ, the accounting differs, and whether a buyer's framework recognises co-processed material for its specific claim has to be confirmed rather than assumed.

Bionaphtha is the co-product of a dedicated hydrotreating unit running bio feedstock only. Co-processed naphtha comes from a conventional refinery that fed bio material in alongside crude, so its renewable share is a mass balance claim. Both can go to a steam cracker; which one a polymer producer can use depends on what its own customers require.

Through mass balance accounting under a recognised voluntary scheme, with co-processing explicitly inside the certified scope. The method, whether energy, mass or carbon basis, and the accounting period both have to be stated. A renewable percentage without a stated method is not a usable claim.

Not uniformly, and this is where deals fail. Recognition depends on the scheme and on the framework the buyer is claiming under. Establish what the end buyer actually needs to claim, and to whom, before agreeing anything else.