Beyond the Refinery Gate: A Conversation Worth Having About SAF's Downstream Integration
Elvis Ebikade, PhD · April 30, 2026
We've made real progress on SAF production and continue to make new developments. The next opportunity is everything that happens between the refinery gate and the airplane, and we have time to get ahead of it.
In January, I had the chance to spend a morning at a SAF blending facility outside the Twin Cities, hosted by Delta Air Lines and Flint Hills Resources at the Pine Bend refinery as part of a GREATER MSP Partnership Mn SAF HUB tour. The facility wasn't operational yet at the time of our visit; the Pine Bend team walked us through the in-line blending equipment, the dedicated tankage, the rail connections, and the supporting infrastructure that had been built out and was being prepared to begin operations in the months ahead. Delta operates as the dominant carrier out of MSP and has been the central airline anchor of the Minnesota SAF Hub, and the work that team has put into building out a real, end-to-end SAF value chain in the region is a meaningful part of why this story is being written today rather than in some hypothetical future.
The morning at Pine Bend fit into a broader picture I've been building for some time. During earlier work at Southwest Airlines, I had the chance to spend time inside the fuel farm and terminal infrastructure at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson and Dallas Love Field, places where conventional jet fuel comes off the pipeline or the truck and gets dispensed into the wing. A while back, I went on a tour of Neste's blending terminal in Houston, which at the time was being walked through ahead of operations beginning. The team showed us the dock where ocean-going tankers would berth to deliver neat SAF produced at Neste's overseas facilities, the blending and tankage layout, and a pipeline connection that could route blended fuel to a Texas-area airport or even a Midwest airport through Explorer pipeline. That terminal now handles a meaningful share of imported SAF blended with Jet A and distributed into the U.S. system. Each of those visits taught me something different about how this fuel actually moves once it leaves the refinery.
Putting all of that together with freight numbers from CN Rail's earnings report, one of North America's largest railroads, it surfaced something I think is worth raising as a prompt for a conversation the industry benefits from having early. The sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) industry has come a long way. We have eight approved production technologies, dedicated tax credits, increasing voluntary and mandated SAF demand globally, and a growing set of first-of-the-kind blending facilities coming online across the country. There is real momentum, and a lot of smart, committed people are building this industry.
One thread I want to pull on here: scaling SAF production is an enormous opportunity, and the part of the supply chain that takes finished SAF from the production plant to the airplane (the trucks, trains, blending terminals, pipelines, and quality-control systems in between) is where the next set of opportunities and bottlenecks will play out. Depending on geography and scale, that downstream stack can plausibly add ~$1 to $3 to the cost of every gallon of SAF delivered to the wing. With U.S. spot jet fuel typically trading in the $2 to $3 per gallon range (depending on region and market conditions), that's a number worth surfacing while we still have time to design around it.
Based on what's visible today, here a some levers I believe are worth flagging whilst recognizing that markets continue to evolve, technology improves, and infrastructure adapts.
1. Blending is more than mixing two fuels
If you've followed the SAF conversation casually, you've probably heard it described as simple: take "neat SAF" (the renewable fuel by itself), mix it with regular jet fuel, and you have a drop-in replacement. The Pine Bend and the Neste Houston facility tour reinforced the same point in different settings.
The so-what: blending finished SAF that meets aviation specs at commercial scale is a multi-component, multi-variate optimization problem, not a fixed recipe. Sometimes neat SAF and Jet A combine cleanly on their own; sometimes one or more corrective components are needed to bring every property within spec. The number and identity of components depends on which SAF, which Jet A, and what the receiving infrastructure requires. That variability has real implications for cost, infrastructure, and how producers and blenders coordinate.
At Pine Bend, the planned configuration the team walked us through uses three components:
Neat SAF (the renewable component)
Conventional Jet A (regular jet fuel)
A third "corrective" component, in this case a refinery stream called heavy-heavy naphtha, used to balance viscosity and aromatics content in the finished blend, bringing both within the ASTM D1655 spec window.
Different SAF and Jet A combinations land on those properties differently. In some cases, the two fuels combine cleanly and no further adjustment is needed. In other cases, additional corrective components brings the final blend cleanly within spec. The point is that finished SAF blending is fundamentally a multi-component, multi-property optimization, and the number of components is not as straightforward as thought (sometimes two, sometimes three, sometimes more components) to hit the spec target. As volumes grow from millions to tens of millions to hundreds of millions of gallons per year, several factors make this optimization more dynamic:
Different SAF producers, even ones using the same technology pathway, deliver fuel with measurably different properties.
Conventional jet fuel itself varies by refinery, crude oil type and by season.
Adding aromatics to address one property (like seal swell in older aircraft) can shift another (like viscosity), which then calls for further adjustment.
The encouraging part: we have the tools. In-line blending with continuous monitoring, dedicated tankage, robust quality control, and tight coordination between SAF producers and blending terminals all work today at commercial scale. The opportunity is to invest in those tools at the same pace we're investing in production capacity.
2. ASTM certification is the floor, and the broader system builds on it
Time spent inside operational airport fuel farms, walking through in-line SAF blending system prepared to begin delivering certified fuel to airports highlighted that the layered system (upstream and downstream of a single piece of equipment for the whole supply to work) is a regulatory reality I think the industry sometimes understates with investors and policymakers, in a way that obscures how robust the actual machinery is.
The so-what: passing the ASTM standard is the entry ticket. Moving SAF through real-world infrastructure builds on several additional layers of operational standards, each governed by a specialized organization, and each evolving in real time. It's a remarkably well-coordinated system.
Conventional jet fuel must meet ASTM D1655 (Def-Stan in some regions like the UK), the master fuel standard. SAF, before blending, must meet ASTM D7566, which covers the renewable/synthetic blending components. Once SAF is blended with Jet A within the allowed ratios and re-tested, the finished blend is treated as ASTM D1655 fuel. At that point, it can move through the conventional jet fuel pipeline and terminal system.
A practical consequence worth knowing: today, neat SAF moves to a blending terminal by rail, truck, or barge, gets combined with Jet A, gets re-certified, and then enters the multi-product pipeline system as finished fuel. That sequence shapes what "infrastructure compatibility" looks like in a financial model, and it's one of the reasons the blending infrastructure siting (co-located with/near an existing refinery or sized to receive neat SAF imports by ocean tanker for blending and onward distribution with connection to pipelines serving an airport) is an effective design. The blended SAF can be injected into the same pipeline that already feeds an airport. The Neste Houston operation reflects the same principle in a different context.
ASTM is one layer. There are three more, each focused on a different segment of the supply chain:
Production-to-airport handling. The Energy Institute and Joint Inspection Group publish the standards (EI/JIG 1530 and the SAF-specific supplement EI 1533) that govern how fuel is manufactured, stored, and moved between refineries, terminals, and airports. They are the international rulebook for keeping fuel quality intact across the supply chain.
Pipeline and terminal. Each pipeline company publishes its own acceptance criteria for SAF-containing fuel through its tariff or shipper manual, regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The American Petroleum Institute's Recommended Practice 1543 governs documentation and laboratory testing of jet fuel as it moves from refinery to airport.
Airport-side quality control. Airlines for America publishes Specification 103 (currently Revision 2023.1), the standard governing how jet fuel is stored, tested, filtered, and dispensed at U.S. airports. This is the standard the fuel farm teams I worked alongside live by every day. It has been in continuous use since 1986 and updates through a transparent change-request process. Internationally, ICAO Document 9977, developed jointly by IATA, A4A, and Airports Council International, summarizes practices for the entire chain from refinery to wing.
Here's what's particularly worth noticing: Since 2023, A4A has issued a steady stream of bulletins updating Spec 103, covering filter monitors, emergency actions, and water barrier filter procedures, reflecting real-time operational learning across the airport network. As more SAF moves through more airports, expect that evolution to continue. This demonstrates a well-governed system, refined over decades, adapting in real time as SAF volumes grow and financial models for SAF projects would do well to leave room for such operational adjustments that come with that adaptation.
One more point worth being explicit about. SAF from two different production technologies, say HEFA and alcohol-to-jet, are likely kept segregated in dedicated storage/blending tanks. Once each is blended with Jet A and certified, the finished products can be combined freely. The upstream segregation requirement is real, impacting how blending terminals are designed and sized. As more SAF pathways come online, this would matter more, which is part of why distributed and well-designed blending infrastructure becomes increasingly valuable.
3. A quick note on language, and why it reflects two valid worlds
Something I've noticed over the years: the language people use for "SAF" tells you a lot about which part of the system they work in. It's a small thing, BUT very insightful tell.
The so-what: the SAF industry runs on two parallel vocabularies, each reflecting a community with a different set of priorities. Both are right, both are essential, and conversations move faster when we recognize which lens the person across the table is speaking through.
Sustainability teams, policy professionals, ESG leads, commercial offtake teams, and the sustainability arms of airlines and airports tend to call it sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF. That language reflects what they're focused on: lifecycle carbon emissions, feedstock sustainability, certification under CORSIA, the Renewable Fuel Standard, California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, ReFuelEU. Their core question is, "What's the carbon intensity of this fuel, and how does it count toward our targets?"
Refinery operators, fuel terminal staff, pipeline companies, airport operations teams, fuel procurement professionals, and the people who actually move and dispense the fuel often use different language: synthetic blending component, synthesized hydrocarbons, semi-synthetic jet fuel, ASTM D7566 fuel. That language reflects what they're focused on: chemistry, performance, quality, and above all safety. Their core question is, "Does this fuel meet spec, and can we move it through the system safely?"
Both communities are right. The ASTM standard itself reflects this. D7566 is officially titled "Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons." The technical specification governs chemistry, properties, and safe operation. The sustainability claim lives in a parallel layer: carbon intensity accounting, lifecycle assessment, certification frameworks. Both layers matter. They're different rulebooks, governed by different organizations, answering different questions.
I use SAF myself across most conversations, and not an ideal custodian of correct language. The reason it's worth flagging: having spent time in fuel farms watching the operational team's questions about a delivery, and time in policy and commercial conversations watching sustainability teams ask their questions about the same fuel, I've come to appreciate how much smoother things move when both groups recognize they're answering different parts of the same problem. The fuel farm operator and the ESG director are both essential to scaling this fuel. They're each looking at different parts of the same molecule.
A small, recurring example. Across many conversations on the operations side of this industry, I've found that teams who are deeply expert on the ASTM technical chain often haven't engaged closely with the parallel sustainability certification chain (ISCC, RSB, and similar frameworks), where the feedstock is certified, the neat SAF is certified, and the finished blend also has to be certified for the sustainability claim to carry through to the offtaker. That's more of a reflection of the two-worlds reality, rather than a gap in expertise. Each community is rigorous within its domain. The bridge between the domains is where the work is.
This is part of why downstream conversations sometimes move slowly. A producer may be talking carbon intensity. A blender may be talking corrective components. A pipeline operator may be talking acceptance criteria and tariff language. An airport operations team may be talking filtration and Spec 103. A sustainability lead may be talking ISCC chain-of-custody. Each of them is answering the question their seat in the system requires them to answer, and each answer is correct. The opportunity is to translate across these worlds, and to bring all of those people into the same room early. The Minnesota SAF Hub is an example of what that looks like in practice.
4. Where today's pathways stand, and path to 100% SAF
There are eight approved production pathways allow up to 50% blending with conventional Jet A; a couple are limited to 10%. The well-known ones include:
HEFA (hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids), made from used cooking oil, tallow, and seed oils
Fischer-Tropsch fuels, made from biomass-derived synthesis gas
Alcohol-to-jet, made from ethanol or other alcohols
Catalytic hydrothermolysis jet, synthetic iso-paraffins, and other emerging variants
All eight are blending components today, expected to integrate into the existing fuel system.
The so-what: all eight approved SAF technologies today are designed to be blended with conventional jet fuel, and that's a feature of the current standard rather than a limitation. A fully synthetic jet fuel is on the horizon, and it's worth being measured about how soon it shows up at scale.
On 100% SAF: there is encouraging work moving toward fuels that could one day stand alone. The most recent pathway approved (developed by Swedish Biofuels) produces a fuel that includes aromatics by design, narrowing the compositional gap with fossil kerosene (the developer's own characterization). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's most recent SAF logistics report notes that any future 100% SAF specification is expected to contain at least around 8% aromatics, which is within the range of conventional Jet A. That means infrastructure compatibility would carry forward, which is excellent news.
In 2023, Gulfstream completed the world's first trans-Atlantic flight on 100% SAF, a Gulfstream G600 from Savannah to Farnborough powered by Pratt & Whitney PW815GA engines running on neat HEFA produced by World Energy. The fuel had zero added aromatics, very low sulfur, and the flight was explicitly framed as a data-gathering exercise to validate aircraft compatibility with low-aromatic renewable fuels under cold temperatures and extended durations. Adam Klauber (Chief Sustainability Officer at World Energy) noted that the operational dependencies on conventional Jet-A run well beyond the engine itself as cockpit instrumentation co-developed with OEMs was calibrated on conventional Jet-A in the lines, even on a flight running 100% SAF, with significant implications on deployment timelines. The Gulfstream flight also involved coordination across Pratt & Whitney, Honeywell, Safran, and Eaton, a reminder that 100% SAF deployment at scale is a multi-supplier/OEM qualification challenge, not just a fuel chemistry milestone.
Annex approval and operational deployment are sequential steps, each with significant time requirements. Most commercial flight demonstrations to date have still used blends that include both paraffinic SAF and aromatics, while engine-design work and airframe instrumentation work for purely paraffinic operation continue to advance.
A note on novel SAF pathways
New SAF technologies outside the current eight approved pathways, including some emerging chemistries based on lignin, biomass fractionation, and other novel routes, go through a multi-year qualification process through ASTM International. Tier 1 to 4 fuel D4054 testing, engine and airframe manufacturer/OEM evaluation, ballot approval. Very detailed, rigorous, and rightly so, because it underwrites the safety record the aviation industry depends on.
The opportunity for novel pathway developers: run the qualification effort in parallel with first commercial scale-up rather than sequentially after it. The regulatory clock and the technical clock both matter, and the industry benefits when developers treat them as concurrent workstreams. Engaging with the relevant industry working groups, fuel committees, and engine and airframe manufacturers early accelerates the path to operational deployment.
5. The logistics chain, with real numbers
From CN Rail's earning report, it was much clearer how the rest of the supply chain becomes once you've walked through several points along it. The fuel that will run through SAF blending terminals has to get to that facility from somewhere, and then to an airport. Every leg shows up somewhere in the freight numbers.
The so-what: moving SAF from where it's made to where it's used carries real cost. Following operating supply chains end-to-end makes that visible in a way the headlines often don't, and it points toward where the next round of value-creation lies.
CN's petroleum and chemicals segment moved 12.7 billion revenue ton miles in Q1 2026 at an average freight revenue of about 7.3 cents per revenue ton mile. That's the going rate for moving liquid hydrocarbons by Class I rail in North America today, and it's one leg of the SAF logistics chain. To make this concrete, here are two real, operating supply chains worth comparing:
First, Montana Renewables' fuel from Great Falls, Montana to Los Angeles International Airport:
Production at Great Falls, Montana
BNSF rail to Portland, Oregon, where neat SAF is stored in dedicated holding tanks
Marine vessel down the West Coast
Discharge at a Southern California terminal, blended with conventional Jet A, re-certified to the ASTM jet fuel standard
Delivered to LAX and other West Coast airports through existing fuel infrastructure
Second, Neste's imported volume into the U.S. market:
Neat SAF produced at Neste's overseas facilities
Marine vessel transit/barge to a Houston-area terminal
Blending with conventional Jet A and re-certification to ASTM D1655 at the Houston terminal
Onward distribution from Houston into the U.S. system, with possible pipeline routes serving Gulf Coast and Midwest airports depending on the offtake
Each leg adds cost. Each leg adds documentation: Certificates of Quality, Certificates of Analysis, recertification testing at every transfer point. Each leg adds working capital tied up in inventory and rolling stock. The headline numbers worth holding in mind: long-distance rail across multiple PADD zones can run on the order of a dollar per gallon for SAF being moved across the country. Blending costs (tankage, in-line equipment, quality control, labor) can add up to another dollar per gallon. Pipeline tariffs are largely interchangeable with conventional jet fuel costs, since the same tariff applies whether the molecule is fossil or renewable. Truck or barge delivery to airports without pipeline access is a separate transport surcharge that varies meaningfully with origin and destination geography, and can be material on its own.
There's a second dynamic compounding all of this. State-level SAF incentives concentrate the demand-side opportunity in a relatively narrow set of geographies (California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, with New York emerging) while the production-side optimization tends to pull facilities toward feedstock geography (HEFA near used cooking oil and tallow supply chains, ATJ near corn ethanol in the Midwest, etc.). When the production geography and the incentive geography don't overlap, fuel has to travel a long way, often across multiple PADD zones by rail, to monetize. Some of those incentive programs also have volume caps (Illinois and Minnesota) or are structured around specific tax liabilities that not every airline can claim against. The net effect is that the most reliable place to monetize large SAF volumes today is the West Coast LCFS-type regimes, which is exactly where the long-haul rail costs become most material.
Stack all of that together (the rail and marine economics, the blending and quality-control costs, the working capital tied up across the chain, the documentation overhead, the geography mismatch that drives long hauls), and the ~$1 to $3 per gallon range for the full downstream stack starts to look credible, particularly for projects whose production geography doesn't sit next to their incentive geography.
The encouraging news is that Renewable diesel and ethanol scaled through similar logistics dynamics, and the industry developed dedicated rolling stock, optimized rail routes, and sophisticated commercial structures along the way. Aviation has a more rigorous quality-control regime, narrower spec windows, and a more constrained pipeline footprint, which makes early, deliberate design of the SAF logistics network all the more valuable. This gives us a chance to design around it intentionally rather than discovering it project by project.
6. Every airport is a whole new world, literally
The Pine Bend facility sits on existing refinery land, connected by Flint Hills' existing pipeline directly to Minneapolis-St. Paul International. The airline consortium at MSP, anchored by Delta, can take blended fuel through that pipeline as part of its normal jet fuel supply, a very thoughtful piece of infrastructure design, which works due to supporting conditions at MSP.
Pine Bend's setup doesn't necessarily transplant cleanly to every airport. Each airport has its own infrastructure, its own carrier consortium, its own relationship with pipelines, trucks, and storage. What works at one airport may need significant adaptation at another.
The so-what: the diversity of airport governance and infrastructure across the U.S. (and globally) means SAF integration will look like a rich portfolio of solutions tailored to local realities. That diversity is also where a lot of the innovation opportunity lives.
Most U.S. commercial airports have their fuel infrastructure operated by an airline consortium, typically led by the dominant carrier at that airport. The consortium pools resources to operate the tank farm, hydrant system, and into-plane fueling. That means decisions about fuel handling, storage, blending, and acceptance of new fuels are made collectively by airlines, with significant input from the airport authority. A SAF strategy that works at one airport often benefits from being adapted, sometimes meaningfully, at another.
Some airports operate differently. Pittsburgh, I believe, has a more centralized model where the airport authority itself plays a larger role in fuel infrastructure decisions. Some airports are connected to the major refined-products pipeline system: Colonial Pipeline runs from the Gulf Coast and feeds airports up the East Coast, including Atlanta, BWI, and the New York area. Others, like Austin Bergstrom, rely on truck delivery for jet fuel. That changes the cost structure, the truck traffic profile, and the practical logistics of bringing in additional SAF volumes.
Outside the U.S., the picture changes again. Different countries have different governance structures, different controlling bodies, different pipeline footprints, different mandate structures. A SAF strategy designed for the U.S. West Coast benefits from thoughtful adaptation when applied to Northern Europe or Singapore.
All of this is a planning input we can work with. Successful downstream SAF integration is going to look like a portfolio of solutions tailored to local realities, with multiple complementary approaches operating in parallel. Some airports will be best served by central blending facilities upstream, like the model serving MSP, or by major terminal hubs like the Neste Houston operation that serves a wide footprint. Others, particularly those with constrained pipeline access or smaller footprints, will benefit from decentralized, near-airport blending solutions.
Worth noting: there are companies actively building exactly this kind of distributed, modular blending infrastructure. FlyORO, based in Singapore, has been developing decentralized near-airport blending systems with their modular AlphaLite platform, designed to be deployable at airports, logistics nodes, and upstream production hubs. It's a pragmatic response to the heterogeneity reality, and the kind of innovation the industry benefits from as we move from a small handful of producer-blender pairs into a much more distributed network.
7. The levers we actually have
Pulling all of this together, this is a story about a problem we can get ahead of, if we surface it now and act in coordination across the value chain. A few levers stand out, and each one is available to act on today:
Co-location as a strategic principle. The Pine Bend, Montana Renewables, Neste Houston, and Phillips 66 Rodeo projects all leverage existing refinery and pipeline assets. As the next wave of SAF projects gets sited, treating proximity to existing terminal and pipeline infrastructure as a first-tier criterion can meaningfully compress downstream costs.
Decentralized and modular blending solutions. Where co-location isn't the right fit (and given airport heterogeneity, that will often be the case), modular near-airport blending platforms like FlyORO's AlphaLite offer a complementary path. Distributed solutions can match the distributed nature of the airport network.
Earlier coordination between producers and blenders. The compositional details of each producer's fuel, batch consistency, and corrective-component requirements are knowable in advance. Bringing blenders into the technical conversation early, even at the project development stage, smooths the path to commercial operations.
Treating fuel qualification as a parallel workstream. For developers of novel pathways, the ASTM qualification process can run in parallel with first commercial scale-up. Engaging the relevant industry working groups, fuel committees, and engine and airframe manufacturers early accelerates the path to operational deployment.
More creative commercial structures. Long-term offtake agreements that share downstream cost and value between producers, blenders, and offtakers. Book-and-claim structures that decouple the physical fuel from the sustainability claim, useful for voluntary SAF purchases where buyers want to offset SAF premiums without taking physical delivery. (Worth noting: book-and-claim typically doesn't apply to mandated SAF volumes, where double-counting risk requires the physical molecule and the claim to stay coupled.) State-level programs like Minnesota's SAF incentive that explicitly support blending and infrastructure alongside production. There is more room to be creative here than current contract templates suggest.
Cross-sector coalitions that bridge both worlds. The Minnesota SAF Hub is the template. Airlines, refiners, producers, state government, airports, and feedstock suppliers in the same room. Delta's anchor role on the airline side, Flint Hills on the refining side, regional farmers and feedstock partners on the supply side. The most effective coalitions bring together the carbon-first community (sustainability, ESG, policy, commercial) and the safety-first community (operations, refining, pipeline, airport ops). The downstream challenges being described are systems challenges which get solved faster when both worlds are at the table from the start.
Closing thought
SAF scale-up is a deeply integrated systems opportunity that goes well beyond fuel chemistry alone. The companies and coalitions that scale will solve production, blending, segregation, multi-modal transport, certification (technical and sustainability), airport-level governance, and infrastructure access in an integrated way, and the field is full of people doing exactly that.
None of what I've described here is settled. Markets shift, technology improves, infrastructure adapts. Based on what's visible today, the downstream reality is a conversation worth having early, and one where the industry has real tools and real agency.
If you're a project developer, an investor, an offtaker, a refiner, a blender, a pipeline operator, an airport operations team, a fuel procurement professional, a sustainability lead, or someone working on policy and incentives in this space: I'd genuinely like to hear what you're seeing on the downstream side. What's working? What's harder than it looks? What creative commercial structures are you exploring? What does the picture look like from your seat?
The more we surface this together, across both the carbon-first and the safety-first worlds, the better positioned we are to design around it: proactively, and in a way that compounds the progress the industry has already made.
Sources and references
CN Rail, 2026 Q1 Quarterly Review (April 29, 2026)
NREL/TP-5400-90979, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Blending and Logistics, Moriarty & McCormick (September 2024)
ASTM D1655, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels
ASTM D7566-24a, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons
ASTM D4054, Standard Practice for Evaluation of New Aviation Turbine Fuels
Energy Institute / Joint Inspection Group EI/JIG 1530 and EI 1533
Airlines for America Specification 103, Revision 2023.1, and associated bulletins (2023.2, 2023.3, 2024.1, 2024.4)
ICAO Document 9977, Manual on Civil Aviation Jet Fuel Supply
American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1543
Minnesota SAF Hub site visit (Pine Bend refinery, January 22, 2026), hosted by Delta Air Lines and Flint Hills Resources
Neste blending terminal tour, Houston, Texas (visit hosted during prior tenure at Southwest Airlines)
Fuel farm and terminal operations, Atlanta and Dallas Love Field (operational experience during prior tenure at Southwest Airlines)
BNSF Railway, public statements on Montana Renewables SAF logistics
U.S. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, Montana Renewables MaxSAF announcement (January 2025)
Argus Sustainable Aviation Fuel Index / Airlines for America SAF price comparison data
FlyORO, public company materials on AlphaLite decentralized blending platform
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., "Gulfstream Completes World's First Trans-Atlantic Flight on 100% Sustainable Aviation Fuel," press release, November 20, 2023
