Boutique/Expensive Oils over standard brands?

[PeterPolyol]

Comprehensive information, Nyogtha. While I respect your qualifications, the contention with this issue is more rooted in language, and I think you said it best.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
includes hydroisomerization (catalytic dewaxing) in its processing steps


'Synthetic' suggests to me that a product is synthesized from directly unrelated compounds- taking two chemical feedstocks and producing an entirely different product- hydrocarbon oil.

Example, the Fisher-Tropsch process I would call true chemical synthesis, as the feedstocks are simple gas compounds reacted on catalysts to produce uniform viscous (often solid) hydrocarbons. Esterification is synthesis, because neither alcohol or acid chemical feedstocks are considered a 'hydrocarbon oil' but their reaction produces exactly that. Same logic applied to PAO, polysiloxanes, alkene glycols etc.

OTOH When it comes to GrII/III, it's just processing and refining IMO, not synthesis. The feedstock goes in as hydrocarbon oil and exits the process as hydrocarbon oil. It goes from being a dirty hydrocarbon oil mixture, having undesirable visco properties and irregular chain molecules to 'clean' hydrocarbon base oil with more molecular uniformity and sought after desirable properties. At no point does the oil change to something other than what it started out as- HCs. It was always HC, just now tailor processed to chains/structures you like, saturated with H and sequestered clean. Yes, catalytic and chemical reactions occur, no doubt about it, but it was always oil. Wouldn't consider GrII/III any more synthetic than margarine.

I'm clearly not a chemist by trade, so I need to ask if you agree or not. Am I misrepresenting anything about the hydro-cracking/isomerization process? Basically, how wrong am I in my apprehension to appropriate the word 'synthetic' to GrII/III base stocks?

Cheers

 

[Nyogtha]

I disagree. Conventional oil is traditional Group I & II processing metthods, seperating desirable property molecules. Catalytic dewaxing converts undesirable molecules to desirable molecules, therefore synthesyzing what's desirable. Again, I'm not an attorney nor a language specialist nor am I concerned with marketing appeal in forming my opinion, and I understand it doesn't meet courtroom definitions.

Group III is produced typically by hydrocracking - think of hydrotreating on steroids. The hydrocarbon carbon to carbon molecules are broken, changing size of the molecules, and inherently imparts a high degree of isomerization, changing molecules to more highly branched structure. Beyond just aromatics saturation to naphthenes, hydrocracking opens naphthenic rings. Catalyst is tailored for a desired yield structure from a specific feedstock or range of feedstocks. So molecules that might otherwise be sent to heavy fuel oil or contsin dignificant aromatics can still produce desirable molecules. This results in high cetane value diesel and low smoke property jet fuel products vs. those naturally occuring in crude oil for example. The initial stages are identical to very high severity hydrotreating as sulfur & nitrogen compounds are temporary poisons depressing hydrocracking catalyst activity, and organometallic compounds permanently deactivate hydrocracking catalyst. Hydrocracking catalyst is also much more expensive than simple hydrotreating catalyst. The lube oil distillation range molecules are then catalytically dewaxed to my knowledge in their own reactor, which begins with more of what's desirable than crude oil seperation processes and chemical polish provide.

GTL process basically produces a synthetic crude free from sulfur and nitrogen and organometallic compounds, and to my knowledge producing aromatic compounds via GTL is difficult at best. Then that material is hydrocracked, again with catalysts tailored to specific product slate for a given feedstock slate. Note the Pearl GTL plant's mainstay is jet fuels and diesel with inordinately desireable properties - 70 cetane diesel with no diesel improver additives for example. Luve stocks are only about 13% of that plant's output, and it foesn't profuce gasoline or gasoline blending stock but a naphtha that's evidently more valuable as a chemical commodity than for a fuels use. I can see it would be highly desireable as lighter fluid & charcoal starter material for some conventional product uses as example.

But Group III+ doesn't require GTL process, ExxonMobil defines their Visom product as Group III+, which uses wax from dewaxing operations as part of the hydrocracker feed, with catalytic dewaxing as part of the process. It's interesting to note the Visom PDS says this product wasn't posdible before Exxon & Mobil joined, which makes me think they added a hydrocracker & catalytic dewaxing process tailored for lube oil from Mobil's technology group to a refinery that was already producing Group I and / or Group II oils using traditional physical dewaxing. It's my understanding Shell XHVI base stock used a similar process.

So what makes Group III+? It appears to me starting with more desirable but not quite the most desirable molecules in the feedstock vs. other Group III production. GTL definitely isn't required since XOM charachterizes Visom as Group III+ material. With global Group I production shrinking though the availability and price for Visom feedstock vs. other uses for that material might be becoming less economically competitive as selective hydrocracker feed. Has anyone seen discussion on current Mobil 1 VISOM content? Seems pretty quiet recently.

SonofJoe has commented Shell runs the Pearl GTL reactors "quick & dirty compared to what GTL can really achieve" (paraphrasing rather than hunting for specific posts to use the Quote feature), but lube stocks are only a less than 15% part of the Pearl facility product slate from information I've found and fuels carry the lion's share of the plant economics.

 

[4wd]

Similar to things I have heard on Shell's GTL - whereas XOM mainly ships LNG to South Korea and that region etc,
In SK shipyard a few years back-found it interesting the large LNG tankers being built would soon be back with a load.

 

[PeterPolyol]

Appreciate the insight into each producers' processes, it's always good reading. Also good to know that you as a chemist consider any molecular transformation as synthesis. I see where you're coming from and won't argue with it. May have earlier synthesized my own chicken meat by changing the protein structure with heat

j/k

Yeah, I had read years back that 'gasoil' Av fuel is Pearl's primary economic concern rather than lubes, they apparently chose their catalyst to produce the most useful chains for the product they want. The "fast & dirty" comment is interesting. Do you and/or SoJ suggest that GTL products really have a much greater potential than what Pearl pumps out? Can it have an even higher VI and purity?? That's nuts.

The grouping system is far more accurate (and credible) as a distinction method than 'synthetic' and 'conventional', but does not make distinctions between production methods, only two? final properties. Suppose it says enough that the industry considers F-T (incl GTL) oils GrIII+ and not GrV.

 

[4wd]

A bit hard to read - but this well known company called it "synthesized" back when:

 

[Nyogtha]

That's a good segue to discussion on Group IV base stocks. However I made so many typos in my previous post I ran out of edit time before I could get them all corrected so I'm hanging up for now and I'll come back later.

SonofJoe is best to speak on GTL potential for lube base stocks as I'm an old refining hand never did finished formulation with additives or lubricant test sequence lab work. We can see the Pearl facility is producing a high quality set of lube market products at competitive shelf prices, with rebates. How much of this may be underwritten internally to Shell who knows but their initial rebate on PPPP & PUP was $4 / qt. instead of $2 / qt. back with the codes under the bottle caps fiasco.

 

[Nyogtha]

BTW, synthesizing your chicken by altering protien chains in the presence of heat isn't an inaccurate analogy. I've heard discussion that food preparation methods like cooking & fermentation gave mankind a type of partial external stomach compared to other mammals helping free up more development of higher brain functions. I'm no anthropologist either though.

 

[gfh77665]

Late to the conversation, but let me ask: What do the pro racers use?

 

[1JZ_E46]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Late to the conversation, but let me ask: What do the pro racers use?


What class? Le Mans GT3 racers use off the shelf 10W-60, 15W-50, 5W-50, and 0W-40 from companies like Mobil and Castrol (I believe they are required to use an off the shelf oil?). Redline has a lot of use in drag racing, drifting, and circle track.

 

[BrocLuno]

Have to define Pro Racer ... The Pro-Stock classes in NHRA use what gets into the winners column. Rehr & Morrison had a run down on oils by sponsorship and dollars allocated for engines.

Small teams run Red Line or Motul 300V or VR-1, or similar - usually around 30 grade or higher. Big teams with serious sponsor money who can afford the carnage are running 20 grades, or lighter blends, and they have proven that it frees up 5~8 HP at 8,500 RPM. But it comes with a cost - carnage

If the motor survives to the end of the run, you win (more HP on the big end). If the motor blows, it's usually down track, and if the other guy red lights, you win. If your opponent was out front and your motor goes you loose, and you get to pay for a track clean-up if your diaper did not catch it all ... It's a gamble, but racers are all gamblers

 

[gryffinwings]

Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
It is an alkane (saturated CnH2n+2) and alkene (unsaturated CnH2n) combination of higher carbon chain penta-decANE (C15H32) and tetra-decENE (C14H28). They are monomers derived from ethylene, which is the feedstock used to produce PAO. Usually you see decene/ane and dodecene/ane as the PAO molecule, which is C10 and C12, respectively. Penta and Tetra are just longer carbon chain (which I think means higher viscosity?) derivations.


So I got this information to start looking at MSDS or SDS of various oils that I could potentially use. I am currently using Mobil 1 High Mileage 10w30 in the old engine in my 87 Honda CRX, it has what I believe to be PAO, but doesn't seem to be much.

1-DECENE, HOMOPOLYMER HYDROGENATED
68037-01-4
1 - < 5%
H304

Also wondering about Ester content as someone mentioned in another thread that all Mobil 1 badged oils contain Esters, now the SDS doesn't mention anything about Esters, I also know that the SDS isn't going to contain every ingredient for the oil. So would an SDS contain Esters or no?

Now I was also looking at the SDS for Mobil 1 FS 0w40 for the heck of it, because it's on my list of potential oils to use and it had these on it, looks like 2 different PAOs, but I'm still learning about PAOs and Esters so I can't quite be sure. Here's the info from the SDS:

1-DECENE, HOMOPOLYMER HYDROGENATED
68037-01-4
10 - < 20%
H304

DISTILLATES, HEAVY, C18-50 - BRANCHED, CYCLIC AND LINEAR
848301-69-9
40 - < 70%
H304

Thoughts?

 

[Garak]

Be careful when trying to read too much into an MSDS. Remember, they're essentially for emergency response. When fighting a fire in a shipment of M1, or cleaning up a giant M1 spill, it's really not going to matter if a tiny percentage of ester isn't shown, or if it's the Visom version or a PAO version or something else altogether. And someone enforcing dangerous goods legislation isn't going to know or case about base stocks, unless the shipment is mislabelled as a compressed gas or something similarly off base. I bet no driver ever got a ticket for hauling Visom M1 while carrying dated information.

 

[gryffinwings]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Be careful when trying to read too much into an MSDS. Remember, they're essentially for emergency response. When fighting a fire in a shipment of M1, or cleaning up a giant M1 spill, it's really not going to matter if a tiny percentage of ester isn't shown, or if it's the Visom version or a PAO version or something else altogether. And someone enforcing dangerous goods legislation isn't going to know or case about base stocks, unless the shipment is mislabelled as a compressed gas or something similarly off base. I bet no driver ever got a ticket for hauling Visom M1 while carrying dated information.


Well, I think at least some information is better than no information on what's inside the oil.

 

[Garak]

For sure, but we have people generally trying to read way too much into it, that's all, and trying to make definitive statements about a formulation based upon a simple MSDS. An MSDS is never going to divulge Mobil's proprietary base stock formulation.