A company that operated a filling station in Johannesburg under the BP brand has been ordered to leave by the Johannesburg High Court.
This comes after claims that Boy 50, a business, sold petrol laced with paraffin at Booysens’ Erven 49 and 50 Theta Extension 3.
This business practice put drivers who filled up their cars at the petrol station in danger.
A test of the fuel (non-BP) sold at the filling station indicated that the fuel had been mixed with paraffin, as per the court order.
In addition, the fuel’s extremely low ignition temperature made it dangerous for drivers.
Fuel not sourced from BP
“The petrol station, or any of the cars that fill up at it, are at real and continuing risk of exploding if the hazardous fuel ignites at the wrong time,” said Judge Stuart David James Wilson.
“They were selling fuel not sourced from BP while still using BP’s branding.”
The judge further said Boy 50 had rented property from Aquarella while it was running under the BP brand.
However, the lease had been cancelled because certain amounts owed under it had not been paid.
Wilson claimed that regardless of whether there is irreversible harm or not, the burden of proof has been satisfied.
“For BP and Aquarella to demonstrate irreversible injury, no one needs to wait for there to be fatalities, serious injuries, or substantial property destruction.
“Allowing dangerous fuel to be sold under their name or on their property that could cause death or severe damage is harmful enough,” said Wilson.
Wilson said in his order that BP was allowed access to the location and the removal of any signage or other materials that suggested the petrol station was operated by BP.
Leave to appeal dismissed
Boy 50 filed a request for leave to appeal through its lawyers, but the request was denied with costs.
“In this case, there are clearly two exceptional circumstances. The first is that Boy 50’s prospects on appeal are very weak.
“The second is the ongoing risk of death or serious injury arising from the undisputed fact that Boy 50 is selling hazardous fuel.”
He continued: “If my order is suspended pending appeal, BP and Aquarella will have to tolerate the sale of hazardous fuel in their name or on their premises until the appeal is heard.”
“Irrespective of any applications for leave to appeal or pending appeals against the order to the Supreme Court of Appeal or to the Constitutional Court, the order is not suspended and will continue to be operational and executed in full.
“The respondent is to pay the costs of the interim execution application.”
The claim that adding paraffin (kerosene) to diesel fuel would create a significant explosion or fire risk due to a lowered ignition temperature is questionable:
1. **Ignition Temperature**: Paraffin has a higher flash point (above 38°C) compared to petrol (around -40°C), meaning it is less likely to form ignitable vapors at ambient temperatures. Diesel itself has a flash point typically between 52°C and 96°C. Therefore, mixing paraffin with diesel does not lower the flash point to the point where it would pose an increased fire or explosion risk. In fact, paraffin would generally make the fuel less volatile.
2. **Vapor Pressure**: Paraffin has a very low vapor pressure compared to petrol, meaning it does not readily evaporate to form a flammable mixture with air under normal conditions. This further reduces the risk of explosion or fire at ambient temperatures, as it is the vapor, not the liquid fuel, that would be involved in such incidents.
3. **Combustion in Diesel Engines**: Diesel engines rely on the high compression of air to create the necessary conditions for fuel ignition when the diesel (or diesel/paraffin mixture) is injected. Even with a slightly more volatile mixture, the compression and temperature in the cylinder would still be sufficient to ignite the fuel. Mixing small amounts of paraffin with diesel would typically result in a reduction of the cetane number (a measure of the fuel’s ignition quality), which could lead to a slight reduction in engine performance or efficiency, but not an increase in explosion risk.
4. **Practical Considerations**: In extremely cold environments, it is a known practice to mix small amounts of petrol with diesel to prevent gelling, which would make the fuel too thick to flow properly. This practice acknowledges that some variation in fuel volatility can be managed by the engine without compromising safety.
In summary, while adulterating diesel with paraffin is unethical and can lead to issues like reduced fuel efficiency, increased engine wear, or even damage due to improper lubrication, the claim that it poses a significant risk of explosion or fire due to a lowered ignition temperature is not supported by the properties of paraffin or the typical operation of diesel engines. The actual risks are more related to engine performance and long-term damage rather than immediate fire hazards.
Modern diesel engines Euro 5 or higher are operating on lower compression ratios with way higher fuel injection pressures. Mixing fuel at will, outside control would cause uncontrolled ignition point therefore it could cause serious engine damages. There is no reason to advocate criminal activity cz there is malpractice in question. If it wasn’t idea of creating more profit no one would do this funny business.
Willem, I see you went to Chatgpt for that argument. You really shouldn’t trust AI models for any serious stuff. Chatgpt can support or go against a point with stupid reasoning.
Let’s put that argument of combustion, ignition, explosion, etc. aside. What about a harm to our cars? Is it OK that these criminals continue selling us paraffin that’s disguised as petrol?
It was mixed with petrol, not diesel
Willem I agree 100%.
However the court case was for Petrol laced with IP and not Diesel
The fiscus are loosing out on vat and other relevant taxes .This chappy produced a new product by illegal mixing of kerosene with diesel which also causes damages to vehicles or trucks engines as kerosene dont have viscosity so enige seals and part may be damaged in turn costs of running you’re engine as its supposed too …SARS excise duties and penalties should be levied for this transgressor
I think this very dangerous to vehicle and they cause a lot of harm to everyone
The Problem is * The NON compliance of ZA 🇿🇦 LAW in General !!. ITS THIS FREE FOR ALL MENTALITY AND ENTITELMENT CULTURE THAT HAS TUNERNED ZA 🇿🇦 INTO A CRIME HAVEN *
PATENTS AND INTULECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS DISREGARD IS AT THE ORDER OF THE DAY !! IF ONE CANTEVEN CONTROLL THE LITTERING ,HOW DOES ONE EVER HOPE TO IMPLEMENT THE LAWS ON ALL OTHER SERIOUS CRIMES *????
If I pull into a BP filling station, I expect to products that are compliant with their quality specifications. If I am not informed that I am being sold an adulterated or alternative product, it is tantamount to fraud. Failing that, when my engine is damaged, my claim will be against BP because ‘their’ product was the cause.
It is sad that, when it comes to fuel adulteration, the oilcos need to resort to taking legal action against delinquent retailers and wholesalers where this is a matter that should be handled by Minister Gwede Mantashe’s department of Mineral Resources and Energy.
It happens to me here in lenasia SASOl, their petrol is mixed with something whitish. That petrol killed my car twice and they refused and denied that case. I needed them to pay for a repairs that have been done
It happens to me here in lenasia SASOl, their petrol is mixed with something whitish. That petrol killed my car twice and they refused and denied that case. I needed them to pay for a repairs that have been done
Sars should enforce random testing of fuels at fuel garages and have an heavy hand on fraudulent dales of fuel laced with kerosene as the fraudsters are pocketing extramoney that should otherwise have been allocated to sars
Same incident happened in burgersfort at sedikila filling station where cars after refilling had an engine knock and nothing has been done by authorities owners of those cars were left stranded after the garage owner ran away