Sname 19 September

2015 Impact to marine fuels

Lefteris Capatos

ECA = Emission Control Area

Hong Kong
0,5-0,05%?

ECA Limit
1st July 2010
1% Sulphur
Max

Global Limit
1st Jan 2012
3.5% Sulphur Max

ECA Limit
1st Jan 2015
0.1% Sulphur Max

Global Limit
Jan 2020 OR 1st Jan 2025
0.5% Sulphur Max
Subject to 2018 Feasibility
Study

1st

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

EU Ports & Californian Coast

1st Jan 2010
0.1% Sulphur Max

New ECA
August 2012
Coastal USA & Canada
1st

ECA = Emission Control Area

Demand for 0,1% Sulphur max. will be met mainly by the use of middle distillate
fuels (Low Sulphur MGO/MDO)
Other solutions :
-Use of SOx scrubbing technology
-HFO can respect 0,1% S such as Exxon mobile ECA 50 but have still a very limited
availability

Projected Bunker Demand according to applied regulations

Global 0.5% S
Global 4,5% S
SECA 1.5% S
500

Global 3.5% S 2012

2020-2025

ECA 1% S

ECA 0.1% S

2010

2015

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Residual Max 1.5%
Distillate Max 0.1%

Residual Max 1.0%

Distillate Max 0.5%

Residual Max 4.5%

Distillate - Other

Residual max 3.5%

Impact of new 2015 legislations

HFO consequences:
Higher demand for middle distillates fuels (Low Sulphur MGO/MDO) will further deteriorate
provided HFO due to severer conversion methods required to meet additional market
demands (deteriorated ignition + combustion + fuel stability properties)
Fuel change over from Jan 2015 being between HFO and middle distillate L.S. MGO/MDO is a
higher risk to compatibility
Souring HFO prices dictate slow steaming operation further challenges the ignition and
combustion
Use of middle distillate fuel within ECA results to prolonged storage times of HFO challenging
its stability
LS MGO/MDO
M/E operation with middle distillate L.S. MGO/MDO will require additional storage space for
sufficient ship range within ECA regions. Change of tank allocation will require costly cleaning
procedures
Middle distillate L.S. MGO/MDO expected increased use is associated with proportionally
increased risk for poor lubricity issues.
Prolonged storage of middle distillate L.S. MGO/MDO does increase the risk for fuel
destabilization.

Interest for more light fraction products, not in residual fuel oil = deeper
conversion!

Source BP statistical research

Fuel Ignition + combustion

Most common methods for measuring ignition and combustion

CCAI=Calculated Carbon Aromatic index
CII= Calculated Ignition Index

FIA/FCA
Fuel ignition/combustion
analysis
Combustion Pressure Trace

D=density at 15C
V=viscosity (cst)
t= viscosity temperature C

10.0

"Normal fuel" , ECN = 29

ECN = 13

ECN = 8

Pressure increase (bar)

8.0

good fuel?

6.0

4.0

2.0

problem fuel?

Ignition delay

0.0
0

10

15

20

25

Time (msec)

Rate of Heat Release - ROHR

5.0

"Normal fuel" , ECN = 29

ROHR (bar/msec)

4.0

ECN = 13

ECN = 8

Efficient
combustion

3.0

2.0
Long combustion
period

1.0

0.0
0

10

15
Time (msec)

20

25

Organic Combustion Improvers

Improve spray pattern exposing more fuel to charge air (improve atomization)
Release free radicals for more vapor production (influence earlier ignition)
Reduce droplet size (less mass) allowing faster heat up and earlier ignition
Smaller coke particles require less time for complete burn through

Effect of Fe has been extensively evaluated in several studies.

Oxidation of Carbon Particulates during combustion is 16 times faster with Fe
catalysts
Fe catalysts reduce the ignition temperature of Carbon by approximately 125C.

2+

Carbon
particle

Iron oxide
Iron oxide

2 Fe2O3 + 3C 4 Fe + 3 CO2

FeO + C Fe + CO

Iron oxide

Response in FIA/FCA Test (IP541) Example of Combined Fe catalyst

+ organic combustion improver (ignition + combustion)
Rate Of Heat Release - ROHR

Pressure Trace

EC

EC

EMC

ABP

PMR

MCP

ABP = After Burning Period

AR = Accumulated ROHR

EMC = End of Main Combustion

EC = End of Combustion

ID = Ignition Delay

Max RV = Max ROHR Value

Bar/ms

Max PI

Max PI = Max Pressure Increase

Bar

MCD = Main Combustion Delay

PCP = Pre Combustion Period
MCD

MRT = Max ROHR Time

Max ROHR

0.9 Max PI

EC = End of Combustion

AR

PCP

ID

0.1 Max PI

0.01 Max PI

Time
Time

Basefuel
with
Octamar
F35
16
6.29
7.90
14.58
22.82

Parameter
ECN
ID
MCD
EMC
EC

Description
Estimated Cetane Number
Ignition Delay
Main Combustion Delay
End of Main Combustion
End of Combustion

Unit
msec
msec
msec
msec

Basefuel
13.3
6.74
8.54
17.28
26.74

Repeatability (r)
+/N/A
0.13338
0.19574
0.57508
1.16480

PCP
MCP
ABP

Pre Combustion Period

Main Combustion Period
After Burning Period

msec
msec
msec

1.80
8.73
9.47

0.13271
0.54353
0.95310

1.61
6.68
8.24

maxROHR
PMR
AR

Maximum Rate of Heat Release

Position of maxROHR
Accumulated ROHR

bar/msec
msec
-

1.35
10.14
7.54

0.11478
0.4593655
0.92280

1.89
9.14
7.89

KEY

Positive Response - Outside r

No Response - Within r

Improved ignition & combustion properties lead to less deposits = improved

efficiency & reliability

Preservation of efficiency between maintenance intervals

(Field Experience Example Indonesian Power Station)
Reduced deposit formation especially of Turbocharger / nozzle ring preserves
efficiency overtime.

Deterioration of efficiency in non additised engine equates to 2.07%

over 2,341 hours.
Test on 2x Warstila 9 TM620 engines
Engine No 1
Engine No 2
(additised)

Source Cimac

2,341 Hours

2.07%

Fuel cost is a major operational cost and cuurent trend is that fuel
prices may further increase.
8
2

DAY-TO-DAY RUNNI NG COSTS OF THE VARI OUS VESSEL TYPES

Figure 2.1 gives the relative distribution of the day-to-day running costs by vessel type
of vessels operating between Finland and other countries and sailing under the Finnish
or a foreign1 flag, according to the Finnish Vessel Costs Survey 2006. Cost factors are
proportionately tied to vessel type and size. Seven vessel types are examined: container,
container feeder2, conventional dry cargo, dry bulk and ro-ro vessels, car and passenger
ferries and tankers. The comparisons given here were made by vessel type according to
the mean value for their draught categories3. It will be seen from the diagram that fuel
costs account for the largest share of the vessel costs for all vessel types now, and especially container vessels (fuel prices as at 2006: container vessels 54%, conventional dry
cargo vessels 38%, dry bulk vessels 40%, tankers 33 %, ro-ro vessels 36%, and car and
passenger ferries 30%)4.

100 %
90 %
80 %
70 %
Fuel

60 %

Overhead
Insurance

50 %

Repairs and maintenance

Crew (navigation)

40 %

Capital expenditure

30 %
20 %
10 %
0%
Container

Conventional dry
cargo

Dry bulk

Tankers

Ro-ro

Car and passenger

ferries

Easiest and most popular measure for reducing the vessel fuel cost is
via reducing vessel speed /engine load
According to Tests carried out by Maersk Line
Reduce vessel speed by 20% (60% engine load) results in Fuel Consumption and
CO2 emissions reduction of 10%.
Reduce vessel speed by 50% (10% engine load) results in fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions reduction of 30%.

Emma Maersk:
Slow steaming can save 4000 ton of fuel
on a one way voyage from Europe to
Singapore. This with todays HFO price is
around 2,4$ million saving!

Studies have linked CO2 emissions

to HFO consumption at a rate of
1: 3.1144 meaning that for each
consumed ton of fuel 3,1144 tons of
CO2 are emitted!

Slow steaming with poor ignition + combustion fuels

Reduced efficiency of turbocharger and increased deposit formation (Low exhaust

flow means inability to maintain sufficient boost pressure)

Poor combustion leading to deposits on pistons, cylinder heads, valves, injectors,

scavenge spaces etc.

Exhaust gas economiser Low exhaust flow and poor combustion leading to
increased depositing. Can result in uptake fire.

Risk of cold corrosion in combustion chamber and exhaust gas system Lower
exhaust gas temperatures at low load. 1,05
1
0,95
0,9
0,85
0,8
0

0,5

1,5

2,5

Various Solutions to slow steaming side effects

Slow steaming side effects mostly orientate from T/C poor efficiency!
Sequential turbocharging
Variable pitch turbines and nozzle rings
Turbocharger cut-out
Cylinder cut-out
Combustion improver / catalysts
To enhance fuel ignition (critical for slow steaming)
To enhance fuel droplet oxidation
To maintain T/C optimum efficiency (deposit free)
T/C efficiency vs deposits

Source - MAN Diesel

1,01
1
0,99
0,98
0,97
0,96
0,95
0,94
0

0,5

1,5

2,5

S.F.C. reductions are obtained by releasing more energy from every

droplet of fuel
SFOC Case Study European Container Line
SFOC (g/kWhr)
Engine
Load

TC Cutout?

No Additive

With
Octamar
F35C

Diff %

*Daily
Saving

47%

No

182.13

180.27

1.02%

$681

41%

Yes

170.73

168.88

1.67%

$1055

* Daily saving includes additive cost

11,000 TEU vessel MAN B&W 12K98ME-C Mk7 72,240kW

Approach to measuring SFOC on a ship
Many short 6 hour test runs, alternating between additive use and not to build large
data set
All testing completed where steady operation can be maintained for whole test period
One fuel in constant use for whole test
Fundamentally calculated by accurate recording of:
Engine Power
Volumetric fuel flow converted to Mass via Volume Correction Factor

SFOC Results Conducted by Caterpillar Motoren - Kiel

In response to their client request, Caterpillar Motoren (MaK) tested
Octamar F35 on their engine test bed, under reduced load
operating conditions.

Innospec Fuel additive F35

6M43C HFO-Betrieb
Motorleistung / Engine Power - Load

50%

25%

be g/kWh

192.8

214

be g/kWh mit Additiv

189.7

206.8

%-Satz

98.39

96.64

% Improvement

1.61

3.36

Summary : Combustion additive advantages to severely converted residual

fuels burned under slow steaming operation
Fuel ignition
Optimize fuel spray pattern (reduce droplet mass increase fuel surface)
Faster carbon oxidation with Fe combustion catalysts ( reduce fuel ignition
temp) critical for engines under slow steaming
Fuel combustion
Provide more time for complete combustion
Complete burn out of fuel / Utilize all carbon into energy not deposits =
Specific fuel consumption reduction
Deposit reduction
Preserve engine efficiency between scheduled maintenances and reduce
SFC by keeping deposit free:
Piston crowns, rings, injector nozzles and valves
Economiser
Turbocharger Nozzle Ring and blades

Fuel stability/compatibility challenges

Analysis:
No1: Very good
compatibility
No2: Good compatibility
No3: Limited
compatibility
No4: Incompatibility
No5: Incompatibility

HFO HS & HFO LS Compatibility During Changeover

Changeover from one HFO to another is low risk, as can be done quickly and
aromaticity of the fuel is similar

HFO HS Tank
95C

Mixing
Column
100% HFO HS

100% HFO LS

HFO LS Tank
95C

HFO & MGO more severe compatibility issues during changeover

Changeover to MGO is high risk, as it takes a significant time to safely
changeover. Plus MGO is very paraffinic and will effectively cause asphaltenes
to flocculate
HFO Day Tank
95C

Quicker change
over may cause
fuel pump
thermal shock,
or gassing up
in changeover
column.

Mixing
Column
100% HFO

100% MGO

LS MGO Tank
20C

Change over takes

time:
At 2C per minute this
scenario will take
almost 40 minutes

How to increase HFO stability = Keep asphaltenes apart

Solution: Dispersant / Stabiliser additive

Function of a Stabiliser:
Simulate natural resins that have
been removed by secondary
refining which keep the asphaltenes
emulsified.

Function of a Dispersant:
Re-emulsify the existing
agglomerations - clean up effect,
make good fuel
from sludge.

Hypothetic Model of Colloidal from Crude Oil

Structure of original colloids

Changes in the surrounding medium

Legend

Flocculation and
deposits due to
large
agglomerates

Asphaltenes
Resins
Aromatics
Saturated

Hypothetic Model of Colloidal from Crude Oil

Addition of Treatment

Structure of original colloids

Changes in the surrounding medium

Legend
Asphaltenes

Asphaltene kept
in suspension by
the help of
dispersant

Resins
Aromatics
Saturated
Dispersant

Common methods to measure HFO stability & compatibility

-Spot

test (compatibility)
-P-value test (reserve stability)
Hot Filter tests (Max: 0.10% m/m )

-TSE (total sediment existent) No fuel preparation

-TSP (total sediment potential) Fuel is heated to 100c for 24hours
-TSA (total sediment accelerated) Fuel is mixed with 10% cetane and heated
for 1 hour at 100C
-Turbiscan or RSN (ASTM D7061-12), RSN = Reserve Stability Number
RSN < 5: good stability reserve, pass
RSN >5, < 10:
limited stability reserve, fuel oil may flocculate
SN > 10: unstable fuel oil, likely flocculation of asphaltenes

0 min

1 min

2 min

3 min

4 min

Without additive

5 min

6 min

0 min

60 min

With additive

Innospec in correlation with Lintec have simulated fuel change over

scenarios between various HFO grades and middle L.S distillates.

Changeover between IFO & MGO

Hot Filtration (TSP)
Sample

Turbiscan (RSN)

No Additive

50ppm
Octamar
BT-25

No Additive

50ppm
Octamar BT25

HFO 1

0.03

0.50

70%HFO
30%MGO

0.13

0.03

10.63

0.60

HFO 2

0.03

10.2

70%HFO
30%MGO

0.18

0.04

11.2

Source Lintec

Mixing of IFO 180 & MGO

During Changeover

Mixing of IFO 380 & MGO

During Changeover
0.50

Maintaining Residual fuel Stability for longer time periods

Vessels frequently travelling within ECAs on middle distillate fuel will result
to having the onboard HFO in storage for prolonged time intervals.
Time and temperature lead to HFO destabilization !

Bellow is a long term storage stability simulation using ASTM D7061-12

standard test.
We see that stabilizing additives are a highly effective way to keep HFO
stable and ready for use when needed.

Stabilized HFO = reduce sludge production = cost saving

Sludge % - 66%
Backflushes/Tonne - 82%

All residual HFO under normal conditions

produce a sludge % varying from 0,7 to
1,5% of the total fuel consumed.
Assuming an average 1% sludge
production = 6$* per every consumed ton
is wasted + the handling costs
*(Assuming 600$/Ton fuel price)

Purifier HR/Tonne - 36%

2.00
1.80

Note - Vessel in
Drydock Jan 2011.

1.60

Slugde %

1.40
1.20

1.00
0.80

0.60
0.40
0.20

0.00
Pre Trial

Sep-11

Oct-11

Nov-11

Dec-11

Feb-11

Month

Middle East Shipping Company - VLCC

2.0000
1.5000
1.0000
0.5000

month

Maersk Sealand Meteor 2008

Dec-08

Nov-08

Oct-08

Sep-08

Aug-08

Jul-08

Jun-08

May-08

Apr-08

0.0000

Mar-08

Sludge/Fuel x 100

Obtained sludge production

reductions with dispersing /
stabilizing additives range from 30% to over -60% depending on
the initial sludge production
tendency

Monthly Total

Un-Stabilized HFO creates more sludge load on purifiers

Fuel System Catfine Removal

60 mg/kg

Source - DNVPS

Need for increased LS MGO/MDO storage tanks

Middle distillate fuel tank capacities are designed according to the auxiliary engines
fuel consumption requirements. When used to feed main engine the vessels cruising
range is reduced to around 3 days!

Typical ship fuel tank arrangements VS sea cruising range when using distillate fuel on M/E)

Source ABS

2015 ECA - Change of Fuel Tank Allocation

T1

ENGINE RM

T2

T3

T4

T5

HFO Tank conditioning

prior to final manual
clean up
C1

C2

C3

Summary HFO stability + Compatibility solutions 2015

Reduced risk of incompatibility during changeovers between low

sulphur middle distillate and HFO.

Improved HFO stability for longer storage periods while vessel is

travelling within ECA on middle distillate
Can be used to clean tanks up prior to change of tank allocation or
dry-dock cleaning.
Less sludge = more fuel!= cost saving
Keeps separators and centrifuges clean reduces workload,
maintenance requirements and maintains efficiency for optimum
catfine removal.

LS MGO/ MDO
What is Lubricity?

Lubricity The intrinsic ability of a fluid to prevent wear

on contacting metal surfaces
Lubricity types
(I) Boundary Lubrication
(II) Elastohydrodynamic
(mixed) lubrication
(III)Hydrodynamic lubrication

Stribeck curve

Fuel Pump Tribology

Two distinct regimes of lubrication in a fuel pump.
Hydro-dynamic lubrication relates to the oil film between moving
two metal surfaces, which prevents contact and therefore wear. This
is affected by the oils viscosity.

Boundary Lubrication (lubricity) more critical in fuel pumps. Relates

to lubrication where clearance is minimal, and moving metal surfaces
are in contact. The fluid creates a mono molecular layer on the
surface of the components to reduce friction and prevent wear.

Low Lubricity Causes & tests

Cause of lubricity problems in diesel fuel

Hydroprocessing to reduce sulphur levels also removes
N species
O species
Polyaromatic
Others

Lubricity test methods

High Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR)* 60 C
Scuffing Load Ball On Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator (SLBOCLE)
Ball On Three Discs (BOTD)
Bosch pump test
* HFRR (IP 450 conditions)
Temp of fuel: 60C
Load: 200gr
Stroke: 1000m
Time: 75 minutes
Frequency: 50hz
Wear Scar Limit: 520m

Upper
specimen
Lower Specimen

ISO8217:2010 includes a limit for lubricity in distillate fuels by the HFRR

method ISO12156-1 = 520m max WSD when sulfur content is < 0,05%

MGO Lubricity Study

In the aftermath of ISO8217:2010s introduction there were some
misconceptions regarding the relationship of lubricity to sulphur
content and viscosity.
Innospec Limited and Intertek Lintec Shipcare Service teamed up to
assess the lubricity characteristics of marine distillate fuels as per the
above specification, and assess the relationship of lubricity to sulphur
content and viscosity.
Study began in October 2009 and concluded in July 2011.
182 fuels tested & sourced globally.
The only selection criteria used was the tested sulphur content.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Overall Averages (182 Samples)
WSD = 372
Viscosity = 2.93cSt
Sulphur = 660ppm (0.066%)
7.2% of fuels failed specification
(>520m)*
Failed samples were bunkered:
from Long Beach, USA
from Augusta, Sicily
from Rostock, Germany
from Taranto, Italy
from St Croix, Virgin Islands

The highest failed sample (>520m)

had a viscosity of 3.3cSt

*All failed samples responded

well to application of Lubricity
Improver.

LS MDO/MGO Lubricity solutions

Lubricity improving additives are a reliable way to restore lost fuel lubricity
Upper Specimen

600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200

Lubricity
Additive

Lower Specimen
0

50

100
500ppm Sulphur
50ppm Sulphur

150

200

350ppm Sulphur
10ppm Sulphur

Lubricity additive performance / HFRR

250

LS MDO/MGO Viscosity problems & solutions

Viscosity at fuel pumps must be above 2.0cSt (@ 40C).
Lower than above Viscosity can create operational problem such as :
-Difficulty in engine starting up
-Can lead to excessive leak off causing high and low load operation problems
-Can cause high end performance loss
-Solution: Is only fuel blending or fuel chillers
LS MDO/MGO being supplied under 2cst is
statistically very rare
2165 samples have average viscosity of 3.32 cst

Typical Chiller system

Source: Viswa Lab

Summary on lubricity 2015

Middle distillate fuel consumption from Jan 15 will be significantly
increased which proportionally increases the risk for poor lubricity.

Lubricity of a fuel is dictated by the hydroprocessing severety in the

refinery to reduce sulphur content.
No direct correlation between lubricity and Sulphur or viscosity. Only
way to know lubricity is by HFRR.
If lubricity is poor a lubricity improver is an attractive reliable cost
effective solution.

Other LS MGO/MDO challenges 2015:

Increased storage intervals of LS MGO/MDO will challenge the fuels stability

Middle Distillate Instability

Three external factors can influence stability
These are
Light (UV Stability)
Air (Oxidation Stability)
Temperature (Thermal Stability)
Storage time
Instability of MGO will lead to sludge/gum formations, filter plugging, and
increased risk of MGO/HFO compatibility

Biofuel blends of MGO?

Next revision of ISO8217 will include Biofuel Grades for distillate Fuels
These will contain a maximum limit of FAME at 7% (as per EN590
automotive diesel)
This could further negatively impact:
Price
Stability
Cold flow properties
Resistance to microbial activity

Certified middle distillate fuel additive solutions provide:

Oxidation Stability according to ISO12205
Thermal Stability according to ASTM D6468
Injector Fouling according to CEC F-23-01 Peugeot XUD9
Steel Corrosion according to ASTM D665A&B
Fuel Lubricity according to HFRR ISO12156
Filter Blocking Tendency according to IP387

Total Insolubles, g/m3

3
30

25

Left: Unaged base fuel

Middle: Aged base fuel
Right: Aged fuel containing
Innospec FOA Additive
Increased MGO/MDO fuel storage requirements
will increase risk for aging problems !

EN ISO 12205 and DMA

Basefuel
Basefuel
+ Additive
LI5 Plus

2
20

15
1
10

5
0

Total Insolubles reduced by 82 %

Lubricating Oil Selection during change over between HFO 3,5%S and
middle distillate MGO 0,1% S
The current change over practice is between 3,5% and 1 % Sulphur HFO fuels
(2,5% Sulphur difference)
Post January 2015 the change over will be between 3,5% S HFO and 0,1% MGO
(3,4% Sulphur difference)

In general Low TBN cylinder oils should be chosen for low sulphur fuels, and high
TBN oils for high sulphur fuels.
The tolerance period for which the engine can be run on low sulphur fuel and high
TBN cylinder oil is very dependent on engine cylinder oil feed rate and the
difference between two sulphur contents of used fuels.
Post January 2015 change over procedure will result in a + 36 % higher sulphur
difference
Evaluate the engines actual cylinder condition after the first operating period on
low sulphur fuel, and act accordingly. If excessive piston crown deposits are seen
to be forming, operate at low lubricating oil feed rate or change to a low BN
cylinder oil.
In all cases the engine manufacturers recommendations need to be followed.

Thank you for your time & attention !

Our Fuel Specialties business

MARINE

HEATING

REFINERY

PERFORMANCE

POWER

FBC