Here comes the GTL

[addyguy]

So, with this new base oil, will SOPUS continue producing their 'XHVI' slack-wax produced group III+, or will this new GTL base oil completely replace it?

Also, Tom, can you set out some differences, besides production process, of these two base oils - both are group-III+, so both should perform the exact same, or no?

Thanks for all you info and input!

 

[Tom NJ]

I don't have any information on Shell's production strategy, but with demand increasing for high performance base oils I would expect Shell would continue production of their Group III+.

Performance wise, there is little data available that represents actual GTL current production quality. I have not yet found a Shell data sheet for their GTL, and they may not publish one for some time since sales to the merchant market is still a year away. That said, from the older data I have seen I would expect GTL stocks will be very similar to slack wax based Group III+ base oils, with minor differences correctable with additives.

PAO will maintain its advantages in low temperature flow and volatility, but GTL and Group III+ have the potential to meet or exceed PAO in most other areas.

In spite of small property differences in the base oils, I would expect finished motor oils based on GTL, Group III+, and PAO to be in the same class of performance with the additives causing greater differences than the base oils.

Tom NJ

 

[Solarent]

Thanks for all this great info Tom!

I also am not aware of Shell's specific production strategy but as far as I know there has not yet been any change to the production quantities of the slack wax based Group III+ so I don't think they will be disappearing anytime soon.

Your last comment I agree with 100%. I have always maintained that the combination of additives have more of an effect on oil performance than base oils. (not that base oil isn't important because it is, but a lot can be done with the right combination of additives.)

 

[pbm]

Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
Did you mean EOP Tom? That's what I always thought it was.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=258398


Thanks Tom in NJ and Indymac....I remember reading about EOP's back then.
Do we know why SOPUS stopped using them in PP? I don't remember it being discussed much here on BITOG.

 

[avss1]

Data from Shell GTL presentation.

Code:
Shell Group III base oil 4 cSt 8 cSt

Vk,100oC, cSt 4.0 7.5

VI 135 145

Vd, Cold Crank (-30oC), mPa.s 990 4985

Vd, Cold Crank (-35oC), mPa.s 1749 9100

Pour point, oC -30 -24

Noack volatility, % wt 12 3

Flash point (D-93), oC 215 240





Mack T 12 HDDEO low SAPs HDDEO low SAPs API CJ-4

SAE 5W-30 SAE 5W-30 limits

current Shell GTL



phosphorous (%wt) 0.05 0.05



av. top ring

weight loss(mg) 85 54 105 max.



av. liner wear

(micro meters) 21.3 14.5 24 max.



Oil consumption

(grams/hour) 64.3 54 85 max.

 

[OldCowboy]

I notice that the Cold Crank Viscosity on the 8 cSt oil is reported at temperatures below its pour point. Is this correct??

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
I notice that the Cold Crank Viscosity on the 8 cSt oil is reported at temperatures below its pour point. Is this correct??

It can be. Pour Point is a very low shear rate test (oil flows under its own weight) while the CCS test employs much higher shear rates (mechanical cranking). Think Jello - it will not pour but you can easily stir it with a spoon.

Tom NJ

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: avss1
Data from Shell GTL presentation.

Code:
Shell Group III base oil 4 cSt 8 cSt

Vk,100oC, cSt 4.0 7.5

VI 135 145

Vd, Cold Crank (-30oC), mPa.s 990 4985

Vd, Cold Crank (-35oC), mPa.s 1749 9100

Pour point, oC -30 -24

Noack volatility, % wt 12 3

Flash point (D-93), oC 215 240





Mack T 12 HDDEO low SAPs HDDEO low SAPs API CJ-4

SAE 5W-30 SAE 5W-30 limits

current Shell GTL



phosphorous (%wt) 0.05 0.05



av. top ring

weight loss(mg) 85 54 105 max.



av. liner wear

(micro meters) 21.3 14.5 24 max.



Oil consumption

(grams/hour) 64.3 54 85 max.

Thanks for this data! Getting very close to PAO.

PAO Data Sheet

Tom NJ

 

[addyguy]

Tom,

I know I mentioned this earlier, but can you comment more on the group-II+ oil SOPUS will be producing from this process?

IIRC, it is a very thin group-II+ base oil, so I'm assuming it will be a part of the formulation for 5W-20 'conventional' oils going forward, as demand for 20-weights will just continue to grow?

 

[avss1]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ

Thanks for this data! Getting very close to PAO.
Tom NJ

Everybody is waiting for actual data. I posted Shell data presented at the ICIS Conference in 2010.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Tom,

I know I mentioned this earlier, but can you comment more on the group-II+ oil SOPUS will be producing from this process?

IIRC, it is a very thin group-II+ base oil, so I'm assuming it will be a part of the formulation for 5W-20 'conventional' oils going forward, as demand for 20-weights will just continue to grow?


I have not seen any data on the Group II base oil other than it is 3 cSt. It may be a side or rectified stream from the process containing more ring compounds, thus dropping the VI below 120.

5W-20 (and 0W-20) oils can be made from the 4 cSt Group III+ stream, perhaps with some PAO depending on the additive system. I suspect the Noack on a 3 cSt Group II base oil would be too high by itself for SN/GF-5 - perhaps intended to be used as a blend stock or for other applications.

Tom NJ

 

[bluesubie]

Thanks for the info Tom!

Maybe they'll have an oil naming contest for the new products!

-Dennis

 

[avss1]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ

I suspect the Noack on a 3 cSt Group II base oil would be too high by itself for SN/GF-5 - perhaps intended to be used as a blend stock or for other applications.
Tom NJ

some years ago I tested Nexbase 3030:
KV100=3,0 cSt
VI=110
Noack=45,9%
CCS-30oC = 810
PP = -43oC
FP COC = 180oC

So no way to blend engine oils due to high Noack (IMO).
This stock is a good one for ATF, hydraulic etc.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: avss1
Noack=45,9%

That's even higher than I expected! A 3.0 cSt polyol ester is 22%. I agree there appears to be no room for this Group II base in a motor oil.

Tom NJ

 

[CATERHAM]

Red Line's 2wt race oil has interesting spec's:
KV100 3cSt
VI 136
NOACK 65%

By comparison their 5wt race oil:
KV100 4.6cSt
VI 134
NOACK 12%

These oils are POE/PAO blends. One would think the 65% NOACK of the 3.0cSt oil is a typo but apparently not.

 

[Tom NJ]

Could be correct. If the finished oil is 3 cSt, the base oil blend is probably lighter as the DI package is quite viscous. And if it contains 2 cSt PAO the Noack would be sky high.

Tom NJ