VLS
An open letter to UK lubricant blenders
Andrew Goddard, Chairman, Morris Lubricants
For an OEM approval to be valid, a finished lubricant requires a precise set of additives, an exact viscosity modifier and a mix of different and approved base oils at the right treat rate and quantities. Anything less risks the lubricant failing to meet the exacting requirements demanded by the formal OEM approval. But how can we be sure as an industry that every finished lubricant formulation holding a formal OEM approval is using the correct and approved additives, base oils and components required to validate the approval?
In a recent meeting with one of our base oil suppliers, the thorny subject of OEM approvals came up and how certain companies were able to offer fully approved lubricants at a significant discount to market-general selling prices.
It then transpired that the base oil company informed me that they had the only approved base oil to achieve this OEM approval and more surprisingly inferred to us that they had NEVER sold a litre of approved base oil to the company mentioned, this then raised the question of how is this possible? The OEM approval process for engine oil begins with the provision of a validated formulation from a lubricant technology provider. The formulation data accurately details the percentage treat rates for the additive system, viscosity modifier, base oils and any other materials, such as pour point depressant or boosters.
Each line of this formulation refers to the materials by name and does not allow for any deviation as all the necessary qualifying bench, static rig and fields testing, would have been performed with these components. The validated formulation will be signed off by that particular OEM and it will be issued with an internationally recognised oil code to identify it.
The first step, before the formal approval application is made, is to request a Letter of Consent from the Technology provider. This officially states that the oil blender has provided full written permission to use their formulation, which they own, and the unique identifying oil code will be quoted. This also establishes the fact there is a commercial relationship between Technology provider and oil blender. Once any additional documentation has been submitted, possibly including the Candidate Data Package (outlining all the results from the development program), any quality system certifications, manufacturing limits, etc., the OEM may consider issuing a formal approval to that oil blender, for the named product cross-referenced to the unique oil code.
The ‘weak link’ in this process is establishing whether there is a relationship between the oil blender and the base oil supplier. Historically, a Letter of Consent from the technology provider has been standard practice, but despite the critical nature of the base oil types, this has never been a pre-requisite for base oil suppliers. All first-tier base oil suppliers liaise with the technology providers and put their grades forward for inclusion in the demanding OEM qualification process. To this end, it does not seem unreasonable to expect a letter of consent from a base oil supplier whose grade(s) are stated in the approved formulation. However, this doesn’t happen, but it should. Firstly, this would confirm a commercial relationship with the oil blender who is making the application. And secondly, it would prevent the approval process from continuing if the application was being made under false pretences.
My point in raising this issue is that VLS was set up initially to maintain a level playing field in the UK lubricants market, my question is if using unapproved base oils in formulations is acceptable, then why
Continued on page 58 LUBE MAGAZINE NO.181 JUNE 2024 57
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
