Divorcing Mobil 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
>still implying that "M-1" is the greatest PCMO available
diehard troll dies hard
Originally Posted By: babbittd
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.
diversity is great for business. where does all the crude capacity that Shell's no longer using ending up and what's it doing to supply wink
 
To do what? At least in terms of the oil's performance.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Looks like Shell has another 30 year jump on Mobil here.
 
Why? You still haven't addressed why in terms of a finished product. What advantage does Shell have again? And BTW my comment about some interim product being superior wasn't directed to oil per se, it comes from my years of working in a research laboratory at a large multinational company here in the US. We weren't ignorant of a production environment, but the starting materials we chose in research were often based on availability or on a simpler synthesis pathway. But once a research project was released to the production engineers then they made choices based on other criteria. So yes, very often our choice of a starting material were better than some future selection. My comment was general and not specific to synthetic oil. But ExxonMobil does make it clear that Visom is/was intended to be interim, and they really made no claims that GTL would be better. Sure there might be less impurities in the gas, but natural gas has a lot of components - any one of which may be undesirable to a particular synthesis pathway. In any case I stand by my guess that the reason GTL is being used is because in the middle east, natural gas is a byproduct to crude and is cheap if not free.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
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: kschachn
Why? You still haven't addressed why in terms of a finished product. What advantage does Shell have again?
Despite the goalposts growing legs and shifting, there are still commonly known advantages at the finished product level, namely unmatched volatility per PQIA's independent lab test results. GTL is a fantastic base oil with well-known advantages to crude bases, advantages that have become only more pertinent with newer engine technology. It's no hypothesis or secret. If you choose to disagree and argue that crude-derived GrIII+ is equal or superior to GTL or PAO then feel free to make your case as suggested before.
 
What goal posts are moving, I have no idea what you mean. So ExxonMobil's products utilizing whatever formulation they use, are inherently inferior to the products synthesized by Shell utilizing GTL? Volatility is the only advantage?
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Why? You still haven't addressed why in terms of a finished product. What advantage does Shell have again?
Despite the goalposts growing legs and shifting, there are still commonly known advantages at the finished product level, namely unmatched volatility per PQIA's independent lab test results. GTL is a fantastic base oil with well-known advantages to crude bases, advantages that have become only more pertinent with newer engine technology. It's no hypothesis or secret. If you choose to disagree and argue that crude-derived GrIII+ is equal or superior to GTL or PAO then feel free to make your case as suggested before.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Sure there might be less impurities in the gas, but natural gas has a lot of components - any one of which may be undesirable to a particular syntheses pathway.
This is true. The great thing about the F-T process is that the required components from the NG (CO+H2) are isolated BEFORE entering the catalyst. This is how such a pure product is obtained, really requiring only fractioning and isomerization into the finished fuel or base oil.
 
What percentage of their crude production is this? Do you know? I don't, I'm not trolling.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
diversity is great for business. where does all the crude capacity that Shell's no longer using ending up and what's it doing to supply wink
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
What goal posts are moving, I have no idea what you mean.
Because now you're specifying a finished product, making the discriminator (us) blind to any properties of the oil beyond basic 'common denominator' certifications. Nevertheless, I did legitimately answer your question, even according to the 'new rules'
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
What percentage of their crude production is this? Do you know? I don't, I'm not trolling.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
diversity is great for business. where does all the crude capacity that Shell's no longer using ending up and what's it doing to supply wink
I don't know either, and is inconsequential to the point. The point being that there is now a new significant supply of high quality petroleum products, no longer derived from crude.
 
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: dave1251
>still implying that "M-1" is the greatest PCMO available
diehard troll dies hard
Without posting any validity to your stance you resort to name calling. You still can not answer the simple question. What PCMO is better than Mobil 1?
 
This thread is humorous. M1 is the big dog, so naturally, some have nothing but disdain for it. That's the American way. I can't imagine how anyone could really tell what oil is the very best for each application, but at the same time, I've seen no evidence M1 isn't the best, either. (Truthfully, I think today's certified oils are all VERY good, both dino and synth). I run Mobil 1 because I have confidence in it. It has served me well over many years, in many vehicles. That said, Pennzoil Platinum has served me well, too. I love hearing the testimony of noisy engines. I'm betting it is their imagination they are hearing. Flame on...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
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.
Did I say that? NO! no-no
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: kschachn
To do what? At least in terms of the oil's performance.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Looks like Shell has another 30 year jump on Mobil here.
Using wax isomerisation...Shell did XHVI forever ago, and have now moved on to GTL... Mobil state
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.
If Visom was the be all and end all, then surely there'd be no preparation required to get to GTL, and they wouldn't be referring to it as being "used as a precursor of GTL"...which it clearly isn't. Poorer pour point and a lower VI than the original is hardly an improvement...might not mean much in practice, but you can't consider them an advantage.
 
Here is a little comparison between Visom vs GTL. Visom figures are from EM's published spec sheet, no typical values shown. GTL figures I pulled out of my friend's magic hat. These are spec sheet min - max limits. As one can see Noack volatility is hugely dependent on viscosity. No magic there even for GTLs. I think EM did pretty good job with Visom series. GTL 4 VI min. 120 Noack max. 14 wt% PP max. -30c CCS -30 max. 1200 mPas GTL 8 VI min. 120 Noack max. 5.0 wt% PP max. -24c CCS -30 max. 8600 mPas VISOM 4 VI min. 136 Noack max. 14.8 wt%. PP max. -18c CCS -35 max. 1650 mPas VISOM 6 VI min. 142 Noack max. 8.0 wt% PP max. -18c CCS -35 max. 7350 mPas
 
Well you brought it up. And that gets you what? My point being why is that so important?
Originally Posted By: jrustles
I don't know either, and is inconsequential to the point. The point being that there is now a new significant supply of high quality petroleum products, no longer derived from crude.
 
I still don't get why it is so significant. Sure it's gee-whiz and more super-duper than hydrocracking, but in terms of being able to sell a superior product at a lower cost does it do that? Or is Shell just attempting to exploit a low cost raw material?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: kschachn
To do what? At least in terms of the oil's performance.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Looks like Shell has another 30 year jump on Mobil here.
Using wax isomerisation...Shell did XHVI forever ago, and have now moved on to GTL...
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I still don't get why it is so significant. Sure it's gee-whiz and more super-duper than hydrocracking, but in terms of being able to sell a superior product at a lower cost does it do that? Or is Shell just attempting to exploit a low cost raw material?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: kschachn
To do what? At least in terms of the oil's performance.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Looks like Shell has another 30 year jump on Mobil here.
Using wax isomerisation...Shell did XHVI forever ago, and have now moved on to GTL...
You left out the rest of my post...why ? Mobil call their Visom process the predescesor of GTL (is it really, no, not really ?), and part of their plan to move towards GTL ? Why would they infer that it's "nearly" GTL, and a stepping stone rather than an end in itself ? And you believe that visom is NOT chasing cheaper ingredients ? As per the Shell XHVI4 PDS I posted, Visom is about as good as what Shell made a decade ago...it's not revolutionary, in spite of it being "unique" to Mobil. When Shell introduced XHVI they at least had the honesty to say "mineral with the performance of synthetic" I agree that an oil is a complete package...but Mobil are selling 0W40 for $100/5 litres, even as the extremes of their specification are getting poorer...everyone else is 20-30% cheaper.
 
Shannow: That's not the case everywhere else though. M1 0w-40 is the same price as Castrol's "faux" synthetics and the GTL-based SOPUS products. All with very similar certifications. VISOM is Mobil's version of Group III (or III+). It WAS intended to be their precursor to GTL until their GTL plant budget went offside and they abandoned it. Which has left us with products that continue to leverage VISOM, PAO and other base stocks to meet their intended performance targets. I'm not sure if Mobil will embark upon another GTL plant adventure. Perhaps? But they wasted billions on the last one and I think they'll probably just stick with what was meant to be an interim product for now. On the other hand, SOPUS stuck with their investment and are now trying to make the most of it, which makes perfect sense. But is there any actual advantage in application? I don't know. There is no SOPUS product that matches M1 0w-40 at this point. So at the present time, the answer to my question would be no, there appears to be no actual advantage. Mobil has managed to produce a heavily certified product with better low temp performance and comparable NOACK (8.8%) than the SOPUS GTL product in the same target market (certification market?), which is the PU 5w-40. Both products are excellent, but M1 0w-40 has the obvious VI and low temp advantage. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. AFAIK, Mobil is still the world's largest producer of PAO, and they seem to use it as needed in their products. They blend it with VISOM, where they can, to reduce their costs, and this seems to be working for them.
 
Yep, it still seems to be working for them, and yes, I use their products probably about 50% of the time...just can't justify $250 for an oil change on my Nissan...most of my workmates get recommended towards one or another of the mobil line. I just find it interesting how their use of facts and data has evolved over the last 20 years from what a synthetic WAS, to how the new product has lower PP and VI, which means little to nothing in their current advertising. Mobil Oz lube techs were royally miffed when they had to change their scripts from the holier than thou white horse to the "everyone's doing it, so are we"...currently they have no "techs" that you can talk to, just a reference to the online lube recommender.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Parking Lot
Mercedes 229.5 engine oil - Castrol vs. Mobil 1 vs. Pennzoil
Replies
14
Views
936
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