Conjecture regarding base oil changes.

[Solarent]

It's been floating around the board for several weeks now that a certain manufacturer may have begun incorporating high quality synthetic base oils replacing conventional base oils into one of their primary conventional product lines. This is likely not true.

While the people floating this theory have sound reasoning regarding the differences in some of the performance specification tests, many of us may not be aware that there are guidelines and requirements established by the API when a marketer wants to change the formula of a product which has already been approved under the EOLCS. This includes making changes to the base oil mix. While the API has greatly simplified this process in terms of reporting and submitting changes to formula's using their new online portal, the basic requirements are still in effect and would weigh heavily on the economics of making unnecessary formula changes.

For interested parties: These are the Base Oil Interchange Guidelines from the API

Basically in order for a change like what has been suggested to occur, there would have to be a whole series of testing done in order to maintain their use of the appropriate service marks under the same product names. And as the marketer in question has specifically stated that while a small percentage of the base oil blend may change, "Products in the remainder of the portfolio will broadly continue to use conventional base oils as their primary base oil type." It is highly unlikely that any marketer would go to the trouble of re-testing and re-certifying a formula with the associated increase to cost-of-goods-sold and give you a product branded and sold on a lower tier - which performs as good as a higher tiered product which is branded and sold at a premium price in comparison.

Small changes in lubricant manufacturing and differences in varying batches performance characteristics are possible. However to infer that this is an intentional change is misleading as we have no confirmation that such is the case.

While meaning well, some of our members have a tendency to repeat internet rumors as fact, and this can perpetuate those rumors until enough people believe that it is true - even if it is not.

 

[dave1251]

I believe more research with the API guidelines. From what I have read a blender can change it's formulation at anytime and maintain it's license as long as the royalty fees are paid and the product that is blended meets or exceeds the API service category that said product has a license for.

"As stated in 6.3.2, the marketer is solely responsible for ensuring that the performance characteristics of the oil product displaying an API Mark or Marks meet all requirements for the Mark or Marks"

How I read it API does not care how the performance marks are met or exceeded by a blender as long as the blender meets or exceeds the guidelines. There are too many variables at play as far as resources available on the market at a given time. The API's purpose is not hinder a company from making a profit but to ensure a minimum standard of quality is met with products with a API logo.

Also what I interpret about what you quoted from base oil's is that applies if a blender suddenly started using a base oil that was not tested and certified. As far as I know there is not a base oil for a lubricant in use by Shell, XOM, Chevron, and ECT that is not certified. This includes GTL lubricating base stocks.

I hope someone with more knowledge on the subject chimes in.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
I hope someone with more knowledge on the subject chimes in.


Hmm, I think the OP has a fair handle on the subject.

 

[Solarent]

When a specific product is certified, the entire formulation, including base oils and percentages are submitted to the API. The purpose of the base oil interchange guidelines are to show how substitutions of similar base oils can be made if a supplier changes.

Depending on how much is changing (for example if you are increasing the % of Group I vs Group II) then some of the bench tests and engines tests must be repeated. If it's only minor changes, then some of the tests may be omitted.

In the case of the claim of switching the Group I/II blend to a GTL Group III almost the entire set of SN test would have to be repeated. This would be financially burdensome with no ROI for the company. This makes this kind of change highly unlikely.

It is possible to have more than one formula on file for the same product (this is how regional blends are handled, but each formula has to conform to the base oil interchange guidelines.

 

[Oil Changer]

No way! Not on BITOG! [Sarcasm off]

P.S. I think I found my new signature line.

Originally Posted By: Solarent
While meaning well, some of our members have a tendency to repeat internet rumors as fact, and this can perpetuate those rumors until enough people believe that it is true - even if it is not.

 

[Danh]

This comment presumably goes to the recent PQIA test of conventional motor oils in which PYB and QSGB were found to have much lower Noack volatility than equivalent products and published manufacturer PDS documents.

As SOPUS is quiet on the matter, we're left to speculate what made this happen. One train of thought was that SOPUS had excess GTL base stocks or Ultra product that it blended in with traditional PYB and QSGB formulas. We now know that the version of Ultra we knew then seems to have been discontinued, so getting rid of that product or base stock seems sort-of logical.

This isn't necessarily at odds with the OP's point, though:

1) if base stocks are the issue, API seems to allow base stock substitution without redoing many of the tests of the base stock is "better" than the one used for the original certification. GTL stocks would seem to be better than Group II, making this an easy pass.
2) certain other tests must be redone only if more than 30% of Group III is substituted for Group II. As PYB was likely a blend anyway, substituting 30% GTL for Group II would have probably caused a significant reduction in Noack on its own, with no retesting needed.
3) it's also possible already-blended Ultra was added to PYB and QSGB. If that's the case, one approved API oil would have been added to another approved API oil. The linked document doesn't address how the API would view this, but as inter-oil compatibility is a requirement anyway, such a change may be a non-event.

So, lacking any other plausible explanation for PQIA test results, the BITOG conclusion that PYB/QSGB base stocks were adjusted still seems very possible.

OP - if this wasn't the example you were thinking of...never mind..

 

[fdcg27]

This is all very interesting.
The speculation regarding the oils in question arose as a result of the exceptionally low NOACK volatility shown in a PQIA VOA series of 5W-20 oils.
If the answer is not to be found in the blender having used some GTL Grp III in place of the usual Grp II, then I wonder how such low volatility (relative to every other conventional 5W-20 tested) was achieved?

 

[jrustles]

So, when all's said and done, it all remains conjecture one way or the other.

Also in reading the interchangeability guide, substitutions of up to 10% of any group base oil may be made without subsequent testing.

But even again, I doubt Shell/SOPUS is gunshy about retesting a formula especially when the economics may even be in their favour as mentioned above. GTL base oil lubes are something they have plenty of, as a consequence of GTL jet fuel production and other higher value GTL products, the base oils stock remain with no other user than SOPUS/Shell lubricants themselves; its not like they are/can sell[ing] them to anyone else. Why buy market priced grII or produce it when you have a stock of superior base oil and no where to put it?

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
If the answer is not to be found in the blender having used some GTL Grp III in place of the usual Grp II, then I wonder how such low volatility (relative to every other conventional 5W-20 tested) was achieved?


I would take a look at some of the past Pennzoil/GTL threads in which I explained how low NOACK formulations could be accomplished without the use of GTL base oils.

 

[Danh]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
If the answer is not to be found in the blender having used some GTL Grp III in place of the usual Grp II, then I wonder how such low volatility (relative to every other conventional 5W-20 tested) was achieved?


I would take a look at some of the past Pennzoil/GTL threads in which I explained how low NOACK formulations could be accomplished without the use of GTL base oils.


I'm sure that's right. But if that was the case it would represent a long-term reformulation of PYB and QSGB; otherwise, why do it? And if it was a long-term reformulation it would surely be worthy of some comments, advertising, revised PDS,etc. on SOPUS' part. After all, this would be kind of a big deal. But not a peep.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
But if that was the case it would represent a long-term reformulation of PYB and QSGB; otherwise, why do it?


Not necessarily because of industry trading/exchange of base oil supplies, etc.

Possible scenario to make the point: Company A's procurement division gets a call from a base oil trader. "There is a large supply of some GroupXX base oil at this price for a quantity of a half a million barrels of oil. The analysis specs are - blah blah... Are you interested?"

Procurement says, "Let's come out and get a sample and we'll get back to you."

Procurement guy goes to the chemistry Dept. with the information. The chief chemist looks up formulations for that type and quality of oil commensurate in keeping with their API specs and qualifications. "OK, we can do it, have them offload the oil at location X and pump into the tanks at blending farm Y."

 

[Tom NJ]

In the years preparing for GTL shipments to began arriving in the USA, I'm sure Shell formulated and tested many different viscosity grades based on varying amounts of GTLs. They didn't necessarily have to modify an existing conventional 5W-20 - they could have simple branded one of their tested GTL formulations as PYB temporarily to adjust inventories.

Tom NJ

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
In the years preparing for GTL shipments to began arriving in the USA, I'm sure Shell formulated and tested many different viscosity grades based on varying amounts of GTLs. They didn't necessarily have to modify an existing conventional 5W-20 - they could have simple branded one of their tested GTL formulations as PYB temporarily to adjust inventories.

Tom NJ


Agreed. This is very possible. Provided these research formulas had the testing documentation necessary for formula approval.

I still remain highly suspect of the likelihood of PYB containing any significant amount of GTL, and I am against the concept of unilaterally declaring that PYB is better than other competitive conventional oils just because of an unconfirmed possibility - which is something we have already seen creeping into the the PYB fan posts on the board.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
In the years preparing for GTL shipments to began arriving in the USA, I'm sure Shell formulated and tested many different viscosity grades based on varying amounts of GTLs. They didn't necessarily have to modify an existing conventional 5W-20 - they could have simple branded one of their tested GTL formulations as PYB temporarily to adjust inventories.

Tom NJ


Agreed. This is very possible. Provided these research formulas had the testing documentation necessary for formula approval.

I still remain highly suspect of the likelihood of PYB containing any significant amount of GTL, and I am against the concept of unilaterally declaring that PYB is better than other competitive conventional oils just because of an unconfirmed possibility - which is something we have already seen creeping into the the PYB fan posts on the board.


I think GTL is the best explanation of the low Noack results because internal inventory adjustment is the only justification I can think of for increasing the product cost without promoting improved quality (e.g. "New & Improved", "Made from Natural Gas", or "Synthetic Blend"). That said, I agree we can't declare PYB to be better than competitive oils as we don't know if this change is temporary or universally available.

Tom NJ

 

[jake88]

API formula submission does not require the balance of base oils be reported, only the weight percent and trade names of dispersant-inhibitor packages, pour point depressants, and viscosity modifiers.

Base oil brand and type should be reported, but this can be changed under what is called a "Single Technology Matrix" or STM without any additional formula submission, provided bench testing can support the formula change. Typically they will test HTHS, KV, CCS, MRV and NOACK in their audit program (all of which are heavily influenced by the base oil blend).

Echoing Tom's point above about inventories, which is entirely logical, I'll also add the rerefined Group II is getting better all the time as feedstock quality improves. And at least at this point, the economics are still quite favorable for rerefined neutrals. A boutique rerefiner in my region has been putting out 110N with as low as 11% NOACK.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I hope someone with more knowledge on the subject chimes in.


Hmm, I think the OP has a fair handle on the subject.


I guess not.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I hope someone with more knowledge on the subject chimes in.


Hmm, I think the OP has a fair handle on the subject.


I guess not.


In what way???

My original post was to point out that additional testing would likely be required and that SOPUS doesn't just change their formula's at will - there is a process that must be followed. We aren't talking about a change from Group I/II to another Group I/II combination; the proposed change involves adding what would likely be a significant amount (>30%) of GTL.

If they have followed the proper guidelines- and Tom and Jake have pointed out that this is possible - it could explain the test results of the low Noack. It could also be used to argue that some PYB has in fact had some GTL blended in.

However there are other possible explanations including the original comment from the Pennzoil Q&A: "Products in the remainder of the portfolio will broadly continue to use conventional base oils as their primary base oil type."
The point is we don't know and it is all simply conjecture.

The rest of my post is related to the economics of oil manufacture, where I stated that there is little financial incentive for a change to occur. If there was indeed some sort of inventory transfer in their base oils (and IMO that's a big IF). Then as has been mentioned, there is way it could have been done - at a cost to SOPUS (whether part of their original GTL research or at another point in the game). I see no ROI for SOPUS for this kind of change.

What concerns me about this type of speculation - logical or not - is that people spout that the new PYB is the old Ultra - which is some of the comments we've seen creeping into some of the conversations on the board. These kinds of statements can lead to misinformation and confusion among those who maybe don't deal with it on a daily basis.

 

[Solarent]

All I'm saying is we should be wary of conjecture like this:
Originally Posted By: Name withheld
PYB since they are secretly adding GTL base oils into it.

Originally Posted By: Name withheld
PYB is using up leftover GTL stocks so it's a better oil than MS5K. Without that knowledge, it would be a toss-up between the two.

Originally Posted By: Name withheld
GTL provides low NOACK numbers and is produced by Shell. PYB and QSGB have low NOACK numbers and are produced by Shell. Therefore, PYB and QSGB are using GTL.

 

[Tom NJ]

Conjecture is the right word - only Shell knows for sure.

Tom NJ

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
All I'm saying is we should be wary of conjecture like this:
Originally Posted By: Name withheld
PYB since they are secretly adding GTL base oils into it.

Originally Posted By: Name withheld
PYB is using up leftover GTL stocks so it's a better oil than MS5K. Without that knowledge, it would be a toss-up between the two.

Originally Posted By: Name withheld
GTL provides low NOACK numbers and is produced by Shell. PYB and QSGB have low NOACK numbers and are produced by Shell. Therefore, PYB and QSGB are using GTL.


I agree conjecture is not prudent.