Divorcing Mobil 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
We now have the very high quality Group III+ base stock, ‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we developed the Mobil 1 ESP technology we found that combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.
This says to me, that blends aren't synergistic or better, just that they can, within the limits of a given oil specification, match all-PAO performance.
Quote:
Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas (Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high quality non-PAO basestocks.
XOM knows GTL is superior to their Visom-branded GrIII+ from crude. It's funny how they talk up Visom as being 'exclusive to Mobil', not because crude GrIII+ is exclusive to XOM, but the 'Visom' trademark. Classic move.
 
Mobil's Visom is/was exclusive to their products, of course no one knows if it is/was superior to the mainstream hydrocracked offerings from other producers. Note that in the paragraph you quote, nowhere does it say that GTL is superior to Visom. I have a theory as to why Mobil is/was moving to GTL and it is price. With the then and now glut of natural gas in the middle east, this is the cheapest way to synthesize motor oil. Cheaper than hydrocracking crude right? And remember, they aren't synthesizing PAO from the gas either.
 
Originally Posted By: Shark
Clever question... Wear metals (especially iron), remaining TBN, viscosity relative to spec are what I normally look for when comparing two oils.
This issue has been beaten to death on this board, and even in this thread. You cannot compare "wear metals" of UOAs from one oil to another oil in any meaningful way - period. Viscosity and TBN are more meaningful numbers to compare, but we always have to watch about grabbing individual UOAs here and there.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
With the then and now glut of natural gas in the middle east, this is the cheapest way to synthesize motor oil. Cheaper than hydrocracking crude right?
Well sure, it's a higher quality, cleaner oil with less processing required vs crude. Imagine starting with a product purer than the most hydrocracked crude; that's holy grail territory. Now why XOM pulled out of the GTL race to let Shell win, and years later is still on crude, is anyone's guess.
 
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Quote:
We now have the very high quality Group III+ base stock, ‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we developed the Mobil 1 ESP technology we found that combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.
This says to me, that blends aren't synergistic or better, just that they can, within the limits of a given oil specification, match all-PAO performance.
Quote:
Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas (Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high quality non-PAO basestocks.
XOM knows GTL is superior to their Visom-branded GrIII+ from crude. It's funny how they talk up Visom as being 'exclusive to Mobil', not because crude GrIII+ is exclusive to XOM, but the 'Visom' trademark. Classic move.
This is the prefect opportunity to submit a PCMO that is a better oil than M-1.
 
Originally Posted By: jrustles
XOM knows GTL is superior to their Visom-branded GrIII+ from crude. It's funny how they talk up Visom as being 'exclusive to Mobil', not because crude GrIII+ is exclusive to XOM, but the 'Visom' trademark. Classic move.
Superior? In cold properties yes, as for VI, no.
 
Originally Posted By: jrustles
XOM knows GTL is superior to their Visom-branded GrIII+ from crude. It's funny how they talk up Visom as being 'exclusive to Mobil', not because crude GrIII+ is exclusive to XOM, but the 'Visom' trademark. Classic move.
This presentation was prepared at a time where XOM was also actively working on their own GTL plant BTW. Which they abandoned after it was over budget by 10's of billions of dollars. FWIW. I posted on it in the past here.
 
Thanks for the reminder, or repost. I missed that. So it is only about cost then. I always suspected it was only due to the glut of natural gas in the middle east that ExxonMobil was trying to exploit GTL. As we noted earlier, I don't believe there was any sort of technical problem with Visom, only that EM thought it would be cheaper to produce an equivalent product from locally available and inexpensive (often vented) natural gas. Companies do that sort of thing all the time, producing an interim product until some less expensive alternative is developed. It doesn't mean the interim product is inferior, sometimes it is even better. Just more expensive perhaps, or based on an industrial process that is not scalable to the anticipated market requirements. In this case though I'm going to stick with my presumption that it was price.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: jrustles
XOM knows GTL is superior to their Visom-branded GrIII+ from crude. It's funny how they talk up Visom as being 'exclusive to Mobil', not because crude GrIII+ is exclusive to XOM, but the 'Visom' trademark. Classic move.
This presentation was prepared at a time where XOM was also actively working on their own GTL plant BTW. Which they abandoned after it was over budget by 10's of billions of dollars. FWIW.
 
What did Shell win?
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Now why XOM pulled out of the GTL race to let Shell win, and years later is still on crude, is anyone's guess.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
This is the prefect opportunity to submit a PCMO that is a better oil than M-1.
>implying no oil is better than "M-1" >ready to fight about it but just needs to draw mention of competitive product name first so as to target it and consequently puff up "M-1" Current Status: No trollbait shall be provided
Originally Posted By: Mathson
Superior? In cold properties yes, as for VI, no.
...as for inherent purity and molecular uniformity yes. As for superior volatility, yes
Originally Posted By: kschachn
It doesn't mean the interim product is inferior, sometimes it is even better. Just more expensive perhaps, or based on an industrial process that is not scalable to the anticipated market requirements.
Oh no, cliches. First, I'd like to see one source that reliably postulates that crude GrIII+ is 'even better' than either GTL or PAO. We're here. Second, I'd like to see some evidence that GTL would be cheaper to XOM, than XOMs own price on crude. XOMs entire business existence is centered around crude. Factoring in the initial investment to start up GTL production, I strongly suspect that crude is still significantly cheaper for XOM. Crude oil is not something that XOM needs to pay dearly for. If you dispute that, by all means present your case that XOMs crude costs are too high and a poor value. Also, natural gas is everywhere, not just in the middle east. While there are constantly new reports of new finds right here on this continent, availability is not enough. Political will, will decide who, how much and for what purpose it's to be used for. XOM isn't about to abandon the crude oil infrastructure, just like automakers are not going to abandon the ICE in favour of EVs (which many may argue are superior).
Originally Posted By: kschachn
What did Shell win?
Um. A fully functioning, large-scale GTL facility that no other major player has? When XOM was in the game, it was a race. Shell won that race, as previously mentioned IMO, not just by following through to completion, but by XOMs forfeiture. XOM should'a stuck through it, rather than favouring their (presumably one of the best) supplies of crude.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
This presentation was prepared at a time where XOM was also actively working on their own GTL plant BTW. Which they abandoned after it was over budget by 10's of billions of dollars. FWIW. I posted on it in the past here.
Thanks, yes it old wink Even at that time, they fully knew GTL was coming down the pipe from their competitors. 2014, and it is so.
 
What are the benefits of Natural gas over crude? Im not sure my car notices a difference..if anything its smoother running on Mobil than PP. Does anyone know the touted advantages?
 
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
What are the benefits of Natural gas over crude? Im not sure my car notices a difference..if anything its smoother running on Mobil than PP. Does anyone know the touted advantages?
The benefit for the manufacturer of the product or for the consumer? It's entirely possible that the main benefit is Shell's and that it is only temporary. That would be because for now, it costs less to use Natural Gas than to use Crude.
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
Natural gas--Crude oil-- It all comes from the ground.
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? From what I understand basestocks derived from natural gas are cleaner,which makes for a better product because there are less impurities to remove. In all likelihood it's cheaper for shell to achieve the final product using natural gas rather than crude. And yes they both can come from the ground but that's where the similarities end.
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
Natural gas--Crude oil-- It all comes from the ground.
I'd suggest that you switch to dino then...if it's all the same.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
From what I understand basestocks derived from natural gas are cleaner,which makes for a better product because there are less impurities to remove. In all likelihood it's cheaper for shell to achieve the final product using natural gas rather than crude. And yes they both can come from the ground but that's where the similarities end.
GTL is closer to the "oriiginal" synthetic, where molecules of gas (used to be ethylene, but now NG) are built into the molecule that you want it to be. IMO, that's about as close to "synthetic" as you can get. Wax Isomerisation takes an already extant large molecule, then attempts to add/break/"fold" it into something more useful...Shell used to call their XHVI "mineral oil with the performance of synthetic" before they started calling it synthetic. Looks like Shell has another 30 year jump on Mobil here.
 
I would add one more point. Ecologically speaking, it may be beneficial to spread the demand and use to as many natural inputs as possible, thereby reducing demand for and the possibility of overuse, of any one input.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Clevy
From what I understand basestocks derived from natural gas are cleaner,which makes for a better product because there are less impurities to remove. In all likelihood it's cheaper for shell to achieve the final product using natural gas rather than crude. And yes they both can come from the ground but that's where the similarities end.
GTL is closer to the "oriiginal" synthetic, where molecules of gas (used to be ethylene, but now NG) are built into the molecule that you want it to be. IMO, that's about as close to "synthetic" as you can get. Wax Isomerisation takes an already extant large molecule, then attempts to add/break/"fold" it into something more useful...Shell used to call their XHVI "mineral oil with the performance of synthetic" before they started calling it synthetic. Looks like Shell has another 30 year jump on Mobil here.
Now that is an interesting tidbit of info. Thanks Shannow
 
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: dave1251
This is the prefect opportunity to submit a PCMO that is a better oil than M-1.
>implying no oil is better than "M-1" >ready to fight about it but just needs to draw mention of competitive product name first so as to target it and consequently puff up "M-1" Current Status: No trollbait shall be provided
Originally Posted By: Mathson
Superior? In cold properties yes, as for VI, no.
...as for inherent purity and molecular uniformity yes. As for superior volatility, yes
Originally Posted By: kschachn
It doesn't mean the interim product is inferior, sometimes it is even better. Just more expensive perhaps, or based on an industrial process that is not scalable to the anticipated market requirements.
Oh no, cliches. First, I'd like to see one source that reliably postulates that crude GrIII+ is 'even better' than either GTL or PAO. We're here. Second, I'd like to see some evidence that GTL would be cheaper to XOM, than XOMs own price on crude. XOMs entire business existence is centered around crude. Factoring in the initial investment to start up GTL production, I strongly suspect that crude is still significantly cheaper for XOM. Crude oil is not something that XOM needs to pay dearly for. If you dispute that, by all means present your case that XOMs crude costs are too high and a poor value. Also, natural gas is everywhere, not just in the middle east. While there are constantly new reports of new finds right here on this continent, availability is not enough. Political will, will decide who, how much and for what purpose it's to be used for. XOM isn't about to abandon the crude oil infrastructure, just like automakers are not going to abandon the ICE in favour of EVs (which many may argue are superior).
Originally Posted By: kschachn
What did Shell win?
Um. A fully functioning, large-scale GTL facility that no other major player has? When XOM was in the game, it was a race. Shell won that race, as previously mentioned IMO, not just by following through to completion, but by XOMs forfeiture. XOM should'a stuck through it, rather than favouring their (presumably one of the best) supplies of crude.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
This presentation was prepared at a time where XOM was also actively working on their own GTL plant BTW. Which they abandoned after it was over budget by 10's of billions of dollars. FWIW. I posted on it in the past here.
Thanks, yes it old wink Even at that time, they fully knew GTL was coming down the pipe from their competitors. 2014, and it is so.
In other words you are unable to answer my question. Thus you should stop because you do not have a position to stand on.
 
Ive never used 0w40 cause my cars are not specd for it. People talking about race teams using 5w30 mobil 1 is true. Though the oil is a race oil with different packaging. Actually stated racing or race on bottle. I cannot say that off the shelf oil from mobil 1 will fail anywhere but in this instance what i saw was not the mobil1 we can buy at walmart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Parking Lot
Mercedes 229.5 engine oil - Castrol vs. Mobil 1 vs. Pennzoil
Replies
14
Views
937
BHopkins
A
Mobil 1 0w-40fs flat tappet mercruiser 350
Replies
8
Views
580
dgcamero
N
Good quality oil for fuel dilution?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
1K
ARCOgraphite
W
Mobil 1 5w-20
Replies
8
Views
1K
BISCUT
Z
Synth blend or full synthetic for extreme summer?
Replies
17
Views
1K
chemman
Top