imo 2020 – VLSFO issues
WAT’s going on
with VLSFOs?
Steve Bee of VPS advises that the industry must be
prepared to recognise and deal with the many different
characteristics of the VLSFOs now coming onto the market
T
here is a very British saying which
is: ‘It’s a completely different ball of
wax.’ It is used to emphasise when,
or where, two things are completely dis-
similar to one another. Compliance with
IMO 2020 has driven the introduction of a
number of new marine fuel types which are
being brought to market. These fuels have
already shown certain characteristics which
are markedly different from the traditional
residual and distillate fuel-grades histori-
cally encountered in the maritime industry
and they are indeed almost literally, ‘a com-
pletely different ball of wax’.
Even within this group of new fuels, all
being broadly termed very low sulphur fuel
oils (VLSFOs), there are many where their only
common characteristic is the fact they have
a sulphur content of 0.50% or lower. Many of
these fuels are blended products (ULS dis-
tillates + LS residues), utilising hydro-treated
vacuum gas oils and hydrocracker fractionator
bottoms as part of their make-up. In addition,
various other cutter stocks, diluents and addi-
tives may also be present within these fuels.
This level of variation in components leads to a
wide range of chemistries and considerations
regarding the management of such fuels.
50
One key consideration regarding the fuel
management of VLSFOs is their paraffinic
content. In the world of chemistry, paraffins,
also known as ‘saturates’, exhibit excel-
lent ignition and burn properties, making
them ideal fuels. However, one potential
issue with paraffins is, when held at certain
temperatures, they can precipitate a wax.
Many of the new VLSFO fuels have a much
higher saturate, or paraffinic content than
residual heavy fuel oils (HFOs) which are
currently the most commonly used marine
fuels. As shown in Table 1, VLSFOs can have
three times the level of saturates than a typ-
ical HFO and half their aromatic content.
This means there is a far greater poten-
tial for wax precipitation from VLSFOs than
Chemical Composition Typical HFO
Sulphur 3.5%
Saturates ca 21%
Aromatics & Polar
ca 64%
Aromatics
Asphaltenes ca 14%
Table 1: Chemical Composition of Various Fuel Types
www.bunkerspot.com
there is from HFO. The temperature at which
wax precipitation starts is dependent upon
the chemical composition and this varies
from fuel to fuel. Should the wax precipitate
it can block a vessel’s pipework and filters
and ultimately starve an engine of fuel and
cause many onboard operational problems.
Therefore, the determination of the temper-
ature at which wax precipitation starts is
an incredibly important measurement with
respect to the cold-flow risks of VLSFOs.
There are currently three common cold-flow
measurement parameters with associated
international test methods that cover the
potential of a fuel to wax – i.e. Cloud Point
(CP), Cold Filter Plugging Point (CFPP)
and Pour Point (PP). Distillate fuels can
Typical Distillate 0.5% VLSFO blend
<0.1% 0.5%
ca 75% ca 69%
ca 25% ca 29%
ca 0% ca 2%
Bunkerspot December 2019/January 2020
 imo 2020 – VLSFO issues

Cloud Point vs Pour Point+10 Wax Disappearance Temperature (WDT),

which is the temperature at which the last
40
wax solids are melted into liquid when the
30
oil is warmed. As such it provides an indi-
y-Axis: Cloud Point

20 cation of the temperature that the fuel

10 must be heated to in order to fully dis-
R² = 0.358
0 solve any wax solids that have precipitated.
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 This method is based upon ASTM D5773,
-10
-20 utilising a light-scattering optical measure-
ment within the near-infrared spectrum as
-30
shown in Figure 2. VPS has undertaken
-40
significant R&D work to modify the test
equipment and method in order to optimise
x-Axis: Pour Point +10
Cloud Point vs Pour Point+10 Linear (Cloud Point vs Pour Point+10) the test method (VPS-LP1307) for VLSFOs.
In order to validate the VPS LP1307
Figure 1: Correlation between Cloud Point and Pour Point (15,000 data points)
method, several distillate blends were
tested in both the non-visible light and
utilise all three parameters as they are visu- Services (VPS) has developed an in-house
then by the standard method in the visible
ally clear. However, HFOs and VLSFOs can method for the measurement of the Wax
light. Very good correlation of R2=0.98 was
only employ pour point due to their opacity. Appearance Temperature (WAT) of VLSFOs achieved as in Figure 3. Extensive work on
It should be noted that Cloud Point (CP) is
(WAT is the same as CP). In addition, VPS the method VPS LP1307 also proved the
a fundamental cold-flow property since it indi-
developed this equipment to measure the test has excellent repeatability, as in Table 2.
cates the temperature at which wax starts to
form. Therefore, fuel held above its CP will
ABSENCE OF CRYSTALS PRESENCE OF CRYSTALS
always flow. As CP cannot be measured in
opaque fuels, the historic advice has been
to store such fuels at PP+10°C, that is 10°C
above the PP. However, the visual PP test
method (ISO3016) is a subjective visual test,
with poor repeatability and reproducibility. It
is also known that there is poor correlation
between PP and CP, as indicated in Figure
1
Furthermore, PP is affected by the presence
of additives within a fuel, whilst CP being a
fundamental fuel property is not. Figure 2: Wax Appearance Detection Method
Due to the high paraffinic content of
VLSFOs, wax may precipitate at temperatures
far higher than the current PP +10°C guidance.
A much more reliable method of monitoring
the likelihood of fuel waxing is to measure the
CP.
In order to overcome the issue of not being
able to measure the CP of opaque fuels and
to provide valuable information with
‘VLSFOs can have
respect to the cold-flow of VLSFOs, Veritas
Petroleum
three times the level
of saturates than a
typical HFO and half
their aromatic content.
This means there is a Figure 3: Correlation of VPS LP-1307 with Cloud Point – R2=0.98
far greater potential
for wax precipitation WAT/Cloud Point 65°C 45°C 30°C 10°C
from VLSFOs than Repeatability 1.3°C 1.2°C 1.5°C 1.7°C
there is from HFO’ Table 2: Repeatability of VPS LP-1307 WAT Test Method

Bunkerspot December 2019/January 2020 www.bunkerspot.com 51

 imo 2020 – VLSFO issues

Over the past months, 87 currently avail- temperatures, demonstrating VLSFOs must
able commercial VLSFO samples from fuel be maintained at much higher temperatures
bunkered in Singapore, Rotterdam, Fujairah than traditional HFOs, and the operational
and Houston were tested using the new VPS importance of measuring WAT. The WDT for
method. These VLSFOs showed a very wide those same 87 VLSFOs, showed how much
range of Wax Appearance Temperatures higher temperatures need to be to ensure
(0°C-65°C), with many at elevated the wax has fully melted, once it has been
WAT Distribution
Figure 4: WAT Results from VPS LP1307 for 87 VLSFO Samples
WDT Distribution
allowed to appear, (0°C - 70°C +). The tem-
perature difference between WDT and WAT
can be up to 20°C or more, in certain cases.
Using this new VPS test method, key fuel
management and operational information can
be obtained for the new VLSFOs in relation
to safe storage, transfer and overall handling
of these new fuels with respect to their spe-
cific Wax Appearance Temperature. Fuels
maintained above their wax appearance
temperature will always flow, thus preventing
cold-flow problems. However, should the fuel
be allowed to fall below their WAT, then their
specific WDT will indicate the temperature
required to ensure the wax has fully dissolved.
So far, the VLSFOs coming to market
are all exhibiting many different character-
istics and test parameter variations, not
only in comparison to traditional marine
fuels, but even between the many differ-
ent VLSFO products themselves. Now with
the means to measure Wax Appearance
Temperature for the first time in these fuels,
we can see the wide range of temperatures
at which wax can appear and how prior
knowledge of this temperature can help
avoid many cold-flow operational problems.
V L S F O s a r e i n d e e d ‘a c o m-

20
WDT
WDTDistribution
Distribution p l e te l y dif ferent ball of wa x ’.
17 16 To obtain a copy of the VPS Technical
20 17
15 13 16 Paper relating to this new test method please
15 13 contact Steve Bee at steve.bee@v-p-s.com
Count

10 8
6 6
Count

10 8 4 4 4 4
5 6 6 2 2
4 1 4 4 4
5 2 2
0 1
Steve Bee,
0
Group Commercial & Business
Development Director,
WDT Range (°C) VPS
WDT Range (°C) Mob: +44 750 084 8351
Email: Steve.Bee@v-p-s.com
Figure 5: WDT Results from VPS LP1307 for 87 VLSFO Samples
Web: www.v-p-s.com

52 www.bunkerspot.com Bunkerspot December 2019/January 2020