No GP III base oils actually made in the States

[CATERHAM]

In this month's issue of Lubes 'N' Greases it listed all the GP I, GP II and GP III plants in the world and I was surprised to learn there are no GP III plants in the States.
GP III production has increased a lot in recent years and since most synthetic oils made in the States are GP III based it's all derived from imported oil. That may not be a surprise to some but it was to me.

 

[NHGUY]

No wonder oil costs so much,they have to Valdez/tanker it all in as opposed to getting locally.

 

[4ever4d]

Makes no sense as to why not. It comes as no shock to me but it should.

 

[fdcg27]

I thought at first that this had to be wrong.
Surely someone is producing a Group III baseoil in the United States?
I have searched as best I can, and haven't found a US producer of Grp III.
Most of the world's Grp III appears to be produced in Asia, especially Korea.
Group III is also produced in Russia, and GTL Grp III is now being produced in the Gulf region, with more to come, since the nations of the region have little other need for the natural gas, and there is no practical way of exporting gas, given the rarity of LNG tankers.
I would not have thought that there was no Grp III production in the US, but that appears to be the case.

 

[Donald]

Originally Posted By: NHGUY
No wonder oil costs so much,they have to Valdez/tanker it all in as opposed to getting locally.


The Valdez was sold for scrap in March 2012 for $16 million. In was converted to an ore carrier sometimes after the accident.

But some good did come out of it.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 required owners to phase out single-hulled ships. All but 18 of the world's 560 operating supertankers are now double-hulled, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

 

[Garak]

I wonder if Petro-Canada is a significant Group III base stock supplier for the U.S. Perhaps Imperial Oil up here supplies base stocks to the U.S., too.

 

[fdcg27]

Does PC actually produce Grp III basestocks?
If it does, I'd bet that it supplies them to blenders for the US market.

 

[BobsArmory]

Yet one more sign that America is soon to be a second rate country.

 

[fdcg27]

Right.
Oil refineries are right up there with coal mines and steel mills in defining first rate (or world) countries.
All were fifty years ago, but times do change.
Exporting the environmental effects of certain industries to the developing world is a luxury resulting from economic advantage, not a sign of decline.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Interesting. I remember Castrol telling me that they do not make PAO in the US. I say this because the bottle of SLX in my garage says "Made in USA from domestic and imported products". Hmmmmm. I guess the additives are from US. *shrug*

 

[JHZR2]

If shell, for example is making GTL Grp III+ at their $20B Pearl plant in Qatar, Ican understand. Why? It was a huge capital cost and if that is the most cost-effective place for it, so be it. Perhaps it is better to make it there than transport cryo gas over here.

Of course I prefer US made stuff when the equivalent can and is made here, so I would rather see the majors have plants here to produce.

It is a surprise, but given our lack of care about country of origin and willingness to sell our neighbor's job out for 10c at the wal-mart, I can understand why.

 

[fdcg27]

Exporting industries that impose substatial environmental costs to developing nations more willing to accept those costs makes sense.
Our neighbor may end up in a lower paying job, but at least we won't have to deal with the externalities of heavy polluters, and at least our neighbor won't have some form of cancer by the time he reaches his fifties.

 

[tig1]

What about this Chevron plant in the US?

http://www.klinegroup.com/news/articles/Marketing_Matters_May_June08.pdf

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Does PC actually produce Grp III basestocks?


Yep. Their site advertizes Group II/II+ and Group III pure base stocks for sale.

 

[LeakySeals]

I'm not surprised at all. Plant permits are too costly here if they can be obtained at all. Whether its pushing extended OCI's, crushing used cars that don't get 30 mpg, or refusing to permit a shale oil pipeline, the green planet folks are at war with big oil.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
I'm not surprised at all. Plant permits are too costly here if they can be obtained at all. Whether its pushing extended OCI's, crushing used cars that don't get 30 mpg, or refusing to permit a shale oil pipeline, the green planet folks are at war with big oil.


Rather, most of us are unwilling to accept the degradation in air and water quality that comes with things like shale oil.

 

[dave1251]

You know, I try to stay away from comments like this. But here you go, if having a oil refinery and processing shale oil means, I can pay for my kids education and have a higher quality of life so be it. I am a male, that alone means that if I live long enough I am going to have a form of cancer, also I have no illusions of being immortal and this body will die one day. So go preach your ideal world view to someone else please. I prefer not to read it here.

 

[Hallmark]

Originally Posted By: tig1
What about this Chevron plant in the US?

http://www.klinegroup.com/news/articles/Marketing_Matters_May_June08.pdf


Won't be operational until perhaps early 2013, but it will then be the first domestic source of Group III base stocks.

 

[LeakySeals]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
I'm not surprised at all. Plant permits are too costly here if they can be obtained at all. Whether its pushing extended OCI's, crushing used cars that don't get 30 mpg, or refusing to permit a shale oil pipeline, the green planet folks are at war with big oil.


Rather, most of us are unwilling to accept the degradation in air and water quality that comes with things like shale oil.

You say that, yet you list FIVE cars in your signature. Thats a lot of fuel, lots of oil changes. Nice carbon footprint you have going there fdcg27. Just thinking out loud here..if people didn't have five cars..would we still need shale oil?

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
I'm not surprised at all. Plant permits are too costly here if they can be obtained at all. Whether its pushing extended OCI's, crushing used cars that don't get 30 mpg, or refusing to permit a shale oil pipeline, the green planet folks are at war with big oil.


Rather, most of us are unwilling to accept the degradation in air and water quality that comes with things like shale oil.

You say that, yet you list FIVE cars in your signature. Thats a lot of fuel, lots of oil changes. Nice carbon footprint you have going there fdcg27. Just thinking out loud here..if people didn't have five cars..would we still need shale oil?



Oh come on, you're as bad as the insurance company. To blame someone for owning multiple cars is nothing more than profitmongering by insurance and jealousy by you.

Obviously he cannot drive more than one car at a time, and just because multiple are owned doesn't mean that his yearly total driving is any less or more than yours. Other than a marginally greater amount of waste produced due to more PM, there is no issue.