When Faridabad resident Rajendra Dhankar's eight-month-old Santro began to belch white smoke like a run-down truck, he rushed to the vehicle's manufacturer, Hyundai. What had caused the engine to so wheeze was heavily adulterated fuel. The company replaced the piston and the ring. Dhankar's car was as good as new again. But even as he swore to henceforth buy petrol only from Delhi (Faridabad is a satellite town of Delhi), Hyundai hit the panic button.
Since the beginning of 2003, it had received 70-80 customer complaints from buyers of new vehicles in Faridabad. A pattern had begun to emerge: premature engine failure, before the warranty period expired. "We were shocked," says V D Bhasin, vice president, Hyundai. "Complaints were largely with the technology we introduced recently -- common rail direct injection in diesel cars and multifuel injection systems in the petrol cars. We noticed faster wear and tear, and deterioration in the engine. Even the oil consumption had shot up."
It then transpired that competitors Maruti Udyog Ltd were in a worse fix: 150-200 similar complaints. What was with the fuel being poured into these cars? Both companies had fuel samples collected, and sent for tests in the Indian Oil Corporation's (IOC) Research and Development Center in Faridabad. Nothing turned up in the normal tests. Maruti Udyog Ltd also sent the engine parts, corroded as if by hydrochloric acid. A chlorine test revealed the presence of chloropentane -- a dry cleaning solvent.
Fuel samples sent by Maruti Udyog Ltd to the Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun similarly confirmed the presence of chlorine compounds at high concentration. Also, samples picked up by the anti adulteration cell of the Union ministry of petroleum and natural gas from outlets along highways in Faridabad and neighbouring Gurgaon showed traces of yet another dry cleaning agent -- acetylene. There seemed no end to the variety of materials used to doctor transport fuels: in 1998, when Maruti was swamped with complaints of large-scale fuel pump failures, the Dehradun laboratory had found traces of paint solvents in petrol samples.
After the Faridabad episode, prodded by the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, the matter was taken up by the ministry of petroleum and natural gas itself. Yet, to date, no one has been penalised. No retail outlets in the region have been shut down. Adulteration, it seems, is good business.
The grisly racket is alive and kicking. In the third week of October, 2003, when the anti-adulteration cell swooped upon a godown of a chemical factory in Mundka village northwest of Delhi, it unearthed a 0.16 million litre cache of fuel suspected to be diesel. This was but one of many such seizures, all involving huge quantities of tampered-with fuel: in January this year, the department of food and civil supplies (responsible for checking adulteration) had unearthed a dump containing 0.28 million litres of illegal solvents in Shahbad Daulutpur, west Delhi.
Big drums in garages and workshops; loaded tankers casually parked at retail outlets -- these are but two links in a vast adulteration chain. It begins with pilferage from tankers carrying transport fuels. Swipe some petrol or diesel. Then mix a range of industrial fuels and solvents illegally diverted from industrial estates. The operation is carried out in ramshackle sheds that can be dismantled in the twinkling of an eye; and a similar mix and match occurs in retail outlets to fill the purse.
The network is all pervasive. Narrates a highly placed official in the anti adulteration cell about a raid in Abu Road near Ahmedabad, Gujarat earlier this year: "Dealers 400 km away were alerted in a fraction of a moment. By the time the team reached the destination, they were actually waiting for them to arrive." The same cell had raided eight outlets in Varanasi in the second week of October. They sealed as many as 7 outlets for malpractices.
Adulteration hotspots dot the country. Officials point at coastal areas, the interior of northern India, and northeast India as special trouble spots. Cities in the coastal region of southern and western states -- such as Cochin in Kerala, or Mangalore in Karnataka -- and coastal districts in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra are particularly vulnerable: here, easily available and cheap imported kerosene incite adulteration.
In southern states, IOC reported a drastic drop in diesel sales over the last couple of years. In Namakkal, a large trucking centre in Tamil Nadu, nearly 60-70 makeshift shops sell white kerosene to truckers. Says G Prasanna Kumar, director general of the anti adulteration cell, "About 60 per cent of the superior kerosene oil imported to Kerala is mixed with petroleum products."
Among other effects -- such as badly belching trucks, two-wheelers and three wheelers, and cars whose engines seize up -- adulteration by kerosene has had one that is extremely deleterious to the oil industry: diesel consumption in India in the last three and a half years has fallen by 3.6 million tonnes, or 10 per cent. Even as the oil incensed industry is lobbying heavily with the petroleum ministry to come up ways to restrict cheap kerosene imports and so combat adulteration, the crime itself continues unabated.
Indeed, the modus operandi can hoodwink any amount of policing. For instance, industrial units seek licenses to obtain tankers of kerosene to generate power for their own use. But many such tankers -- with valid papers and licenses -- never pass the factory gates. The problem here is that of extremely lax monitoring of the end use refinery products are put to. In a free-for-all regulatory atmosphere, illegal diversion has become the corrosive norm.
Moreover, kerosene is but one adulterant. As we move into the country's interior from the coast, the poisonous mix changes in nature. The mix depends on the availability of waste oil and solvents from industrial zones. Informs A K Bhatnagar, former chief of R&D at the IOC, "Even the same solvents come back to the market with a new name, making tracking difficult. And there are a wide range of refinery products that can easily mix with transport fuels." Petrol can mix with aromatics such as toluene or xylene, or lighter materials such as pentanes and hexanes. Diesel is more amenable to kerosene, or light diesel oil (LDO), used as an industrial fuel and similar to diesel in composition. Says a food and civil supplies official, "If you mix bitumen with kerosene, the solution you get is very similar to the furnace oil sold by refineries. This also finds its way into transport fuel."
While the crime infests the entire fuel supply chain, every one in the supply chain points fingers at each other. Petrol retailers argue they have no confidence in the quality of fuel they receive. They accuse oil companies of cheating them. For instance, at the time of delivery, invoices do not mention the temperature during the filling of the tankers. As a higher temperature would make the volume of fuel expand, the tanker can be filled with lesser quantity of fuel. The volume would shrink in the colder underground tanks at the retail outlet. So retail outlets receive less than what the invoice indicates; the actual volume of fuel delivered is eminently manipulable.
Says Atul Peshawaria, president, Petrol dealers association of Delhi, "When we receive our deliveries we can only test the density to know if we are receiving the right product. This is very inadequate. But our samples are tested against a range of parameters. This is unfair. We demand on the spot test of all relevant fuel parameters." But retailers are accused of obstructing collection of samples from all their underground tanks. Its simple: they temporarily disable the dispensers. Also, tampered dispensing meters allows for rampant short-selling.
Complete indiscipline reigns over fuel transportation. Fuel in transit is most vulnerable to pilferage and adulteration. A year ago, at the Bijwasan oil terminal, Delhi, a CSE team had witnessed rampant pilferage from oil tankers. Tankers trundled out of the terminal gate. Stopped in front of a nursery. A troop carrying 50 litre cans began pilfering fuel from the tankers with hosepipes, and disappeared back into the nursery. A revisit in October this year showed no change. Tankers still stop outside the terminal gates and the same drill happens. Moreover, almost every third tanker disappears into an enclosed construction site, locally called hotel, re-emerges after 10-15 minutes, and carries on down the road.
Oil companies do not take responsibility for the quality of fuel during transit. Even the official industry quality control manual holds transporters responsible for malpractices en route. According to oil industry estimates, oil companies own around 10 per cent of the tankers for fuel transportation. The rest are contracted out. In Delhi, for instance, retail outlet owners own nearly 50 per cent of the tankers.
Transporters and retailers, on their part, point fingers at oil companies, who they say supply substandard fuels. They suspect high amount of cross contamination in the fuel due to indiscipline in the supply infrastructure connecting refineries and oil terminals in cities.
Such connivance isn't limited to fuel suppliers. Drivers and operators of commercial vehicles, working on a fixed rental basis, resort to adulteration to keep a margin of profit. Short-term earning is the motive; long-term damage to the engine is of no concern. This is especially true of three-wheelers. Studies conducted by Ahmedabad-based Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology shows out of all registered three wheelers in the city, 45 per cent run on kerosene-mixed fuel. In Vejalpur bus-station and Thatlej, operators are known to mix kerosene quite openly.
In such a scenario, the only ones happy are those using compressed natural gas (CNG). Three-wheeler operators in Delhi claim adulteration is no longer an issue, as most of them have shifted to CNG. Of course, some still use 'back-up' petrol tanks filled with adulterated fuels.
The 0.28 million litres of solvents in the custody of the food and civil supplies department, Delhi -- and the latest haul of 0.16 million litres, suspected to be diesel, now with the anti-adulteration cell -- are still to be tested. To date, officials don't know what these contain. Laments one official, "The Society for Petroleum Laboratory (SFPL) refused to test this catch." SPFL officials, on their part, explain that they have the mandate to check only petrol, diesel and kerosene. Not solvents. Amazingly, because vigilance officials have no clue about the nature of the product in their custody, the onus is actually on the adulterator to describe the fuel. Only then would SFPL step in to do tests. This means the SFPL -- primarily set up under the Supreme Court order to test fuel adulteration -- does not consider testing adulterants as one of their responsibilities.
In any case, as another official complains, "How does it matter even if they agree to test? Most likely the suspect samples would never fail any test!" This is the biggest scam the CSE study exposed over a year ago: there are no reliable test methods to detect adulteration!
Here's how CSE stumbled upon this truth. While preparing its study on fuel adulteration, CSE had sent to SPFL three samples each of petrol and diesel. The samples were a decoy; they were deliberately mixed with naphtha and kerosene, respectively, in the following proportions: 10, 15, and 20 per cent. The laboratory came up with shocking results (see table: Dummyfounded!). Tested against BIS specifications on fuel quality, that are normally done to detect adulteration, SFL found only one diesel sample contaminated with 15 per cent kerosene. The rest got a clean chit.
Adulteration is an intelligent science. It is about mixing different hydrocarbons. If astutely done -- that is, if you can figure out the proportions -- it is possible to adulterate and yet comply with fuel quality specifications currently in force. So it is possible to mix diesel and kerosene, or diesel and LDO, without transgressing quality parameters. Compliance with fuel quality standards does not necessarily imply testing for adulteration. The lax fuel quality standards that allow a broad permissible range for each quality parameter absorbs some amount of adulteration.
Yet the profits from even a small amount of adulteration can be lucrative. If a diesel tanker with a capacity of 12,000 litres is contaminated with only 5 per cent kerosene, the profit would be still as attractive as Rs 7,200 per tanker at the current level of prices. Similarly, adulteration of petrol with 15 per cent low aromatic naphtha can earn Rs 25,000 per day.
While adulteration has caught up with technology, government hasn't cared to develop advanced methods to accurately confirm adulteration. There exists, for instance, the gas chromatography (GC) method. One can detect -- as the CSE did with this method at its pollution monitoring laboratory, dramatically high variations in parameters not even checked under the BIS standards. The unique 'fingerprint' of every hydrocarbon molecule, and its proportion to the total, enables accurate comparison with the reference fuels to detect adulterantion.
A sub-committee set up by the Central Pollution Control Board and chaired by P K Mukhopadhyay had recommended, in 2000, alternatives to complement BIS testing methods. It suggested the use of instrumental analysis for simulation and estimation of parameters of fuel samples, including simulated distillation and gas chromatography.
Oil companies oppose such moves. Ever ready with excuses, they claim it is difficult to provide reference fuel for GC. No two batches of products manufactured at the same refinery are similar, even if produced from the same crude. For GC tests the samples from oil depots and retail outlets should be tested against the reference sample obtained from the same batch in the terminal. They claim that batches mix constantly and it is not possible to get the pure reference sample. Since GC is a sensitive method, it will show variation among samples as aberrations.
The fact remains that the oil bureaucracy, or even the Indian government, does not care to find out how other governments apply these methods for surveillance, even in countries where fuel supply chain is far more disciplined than ours (see box: GC is possible). As R Desikan, an expert with CONCERT, a Chennai-based institute investigating fuel adulteration, puts it, "We wish to globalise without applying the global standards."
|
The government incurs huge losses every year on account of fuel adulteration, a scenario exacerbated by skewed pricing: Rs 1,00,000 million every year, by a conservative estimate. To this, add the investment on vigilance infrastructure by oil companies and state agencies, and the damages consumers and automobile companies pay on account of adulteration. Against such huge costs, the defaulter, if caught, pays a pittance of Rs 20,000 as a penalty!
The track record of penal action is dismally weak. Action taken on retail outlets between January 1, 2001 and December 12, 2001 by IOC shows that out of 18 penal cases, 3 dealerships were terminated while the rest were still operating after completing the suspension period of 15 to 30 days. Out of the three terminated, two were operating under different names.
The penalty system is defined in the marketing discipline guidelines of the ministry of petroleum and natural gas. But these aren't legally binding. Unbelievably, and in the face of severe criticism, the ministry brazenly modified the guidelines in 2001, weakening them further. The earlier penalty fees of Rs 1,00,000 and suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 45 days for the first offence of adulteration, has been lowered to Rs 20,000 and suspension of supplies for 30 days.
Contrast this with what the United States Environment Protection Agency does. The maximum penalty for violation can be as high as US $27, 500 per day (Rs 1.34 million) per violation, plus the profit the violator would have made from non-compliance.
There are some feeble efforts to plug the loopholes in the illegal adulteration trade. One way of doing this is to track the use of all fuels and solvents obtained in the market. The government has issued two orders under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to keep a close vigil on the use of naphtha and solvents and to curb their misuse:
The Naphtha (Acquisition, Sale, Storage & Prevention of use in Automobile) Order, 2000, and
The Solvent, Raffinate, and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage & Prevention of use in Automobile) Order, 2000.
The naphtha control order was enforced in November 2000. But the solvent order went into typical bureaucratic delays, following strong representations by various chemical associations and a stay order from the Hyderabad high court. The bone of contention was how a 'solvent' could be defined. When a task force was set up to define solvents, for inexplicable reasons it narrowed down the number of solvents to be included in the order. In November 2001, the revised order was officially issued, much watered down.
The earlier order defined 'solvent' as, "volatile fractions derived either directly or indirectly from petroleum or coal. These solvents can be single hydrocarbon components like propane, benzene, toluene, xylene or narrow or wide boiling range of hydrocarbon." But the amended order of 2001 redefined 'solvent' as, "volatile fractions derived either directly or indirectly from petroleum or coal and are included in the Schedule." The schedule that listed 15 solvents excluded commonly used adulterants propane, benzene, toluene, xylene.
Another serious loophole is the exemption granted to small-scale users to use 50 litres of solvents. Perhaps this explains why, at the Bijwasan depot, pilferage happens in 50 litre cans.
Naturally, these orders have made no difference. These regulations demand that the user of the listed solvents obtain a license and file end use certificates. The onus is thus on the user to prove the legality of the product. The regulator does nothing to monitor the actual practice in the field. The regulatory net is designed to let defaulters escape with ease.
The trade beats the system with ingenuity every time the government finds a way to detect adulteration. At the behest of the Oil Coordination Committee, for instance, kerosene was dyed blue for easy detection. But the antidote for blue dye is already available. Subsequently, even doping kerosene with furfural, a marker, was too unstable to be reliable. In any case, coding only kerosene doesn't help, for too many other adulterants exist.
The latest technical approach under experiments now is an electronic marker. The marker is a unique combination of chemicals that covertly marks prime fuels. The basic principle is simple. The marker is mixed with fuel in the proportion of 2.5 parts per million -- a measure of the ratio of the chemical to the fuel. It is read through a portable digital analyzer to detect any dilution.
HPCL uses this technique in Mumbai. Other oil companies are resisting it. They are raising doubts: How can constant dosages be maintained at low concentration? What about leaching? Can it be laundered? A logjam once again.
The Supreme Court of India had warned in its order of April 5, 2002, "merely lowering the sulphur and the benzene content in diesel and petrol respectively will have a little effect unless the oil companies can guarantee that the fuel sold from dispensing stations is pure and unadulterated." Currently, accountability and responsibility and even penalty are fragmented along the fuel supply chain. Oil company's responsibility ends at the terminal point. The onus shifts to the transporters and the retailers when malpractices occur. If the companies are not held responsible for the quality of the end product their surveillance will always remain slack and perpetuate adulteration. In the US and Europe, after years of adverse publicity, oil companies have become more image-conscious. To protect their brand name, they take the business of checking adulteration seriously.
Even the Mukhopadhyay committee acknowledged this issue: "in Europe currently, National Standard Bodies carry out quality checks. Failure cases lead to penalties of filling station owner and the fuel supply company." The report cites the example of Belgium: there, a few years ago, the failure rate in fuel samples was 30 per cent. But once the government made it clear that offending companies would be named in case of malpractice -- and heavily fined -- the situation improved.
In India, retail outlets use the name of oil companies, but aren't necessarily vertically integrated with their refineries. Companies buy from each other and share the market. As a result, the retail outlets do not exclusively use fuel from the company whose name it bears. In short, only the service at the retail outlet is branded, not the product.
The Indian oil industry opposes any suggestion of direct liability. Informs an insider: "We are not monitoring what our agents do every day. We sell them the fuel, and ultimately the onus lies on them." Only recently, some companies have begun to evolve a strategy to certify quality of services and products at selected retail outlets. The 'Pure for Sure' programme of the Bharat Petroleum Ltd is such an example. These are voluntary efforts with no legal back up.
The customer's verdict could be the ultimate answer. "Frequent testing of fuel quality and public broadcast of the results can lead to public boycott of defaulting pumps," says Desikan.
Fuel adulteration is one of the oldest illegal professions. It could survive without much customer protests so long as dinosaur carburetor engines dominated our streets. Refineries with full government protection could remain indifferent. Public reaction to poisonous air was mute. But no more. Today, people are angry. Vehicle technology is forced to improve to clean up air. But more sophisticated engines and emissions control systems, will simply collapse if made to run on contaminated fuels. Emissions will be as deadly as ever. Even the refineries cannot survive more open competition in fuel market without fuel quality as its USP. The distractors of technology leapfrog advise against aggressive technology measures before fuel markets are disciplined. But if the current mood of the new customers is any indication, leapfrogging would actually help. The strong push and protest against adulteration will come not from policing, but the market itself. A bloody mutiny over the corrosive mutation of dream cars.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|