PAO properties compared to GTL? (Pennz PUP)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Compared to GTL, PAO brings a major advantage in low temperature fluidity, and a small advantage in oxidative stability.

Compared to PAO, GTL brings a major advantage in cost, and small advantages in VI, additive solubility, seal compatibility, and lubricity.

They are comparable in thermal stability, coking tendencies, volatility, and hydrolytic stability.

Most of these differences can be mitigated through additive technology and blending with other base oils, except cost.

Tom NJ/VA
 
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
With the supposed test being Ashland - I think we have the answer in Synpower
laugh.gif

Syn power with maxlife Technology !
 
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Here's my twopenneth worth...
I'm sure there were lots of reasons why Shell, and Shell alone, went down the path of GTL base oil but I suspect reduced cost over PAO was the main driver.


That was my hunch, also....

I couldn't HELP but think the Pearl GTL was a long term investment so that Pennz/SOPUS wouldn't have to bother with purchasing blending stocks from anyone else.

They probably saw some marketing potential, as well.
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Compared to GTL, PAO brings a major advantage in low temperature fluidity, and a small advantage in oxidative stability.

Compared to PAO, GTL brings a major advantage in cost, and small advantages in VI, additive solubility, seal compatibility, and lubricity.

They are comparable in thermal stability, coking tendencies, volatility, and hydrolytic stability.

Most of these differences can be mitigated through additive technology and blending with other base oils, except cost.

Tom NJ/VA


This is EXACTLY what I was looking for, Thank You - Tom!
 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Here's my twopenneth worth...
I'm sure there were lots of reasons why Shell, and Shell alone, went down the path of GTL base oil but I suspect reduced cost over PAO was the main driver.


That was my hunch, also....

I couldn't HELP but think the Pearl GTL was a long term investment so that Pennz/SOPUS wouldn't have to bother with purchasing blending stocks from anyone else.

They probably saw some marketing potential, as well.


Market timing however was poor in the collapse of crude oil price. The differenyial price between crude oil as a carbon source and natural gas collapsed and GTL is more energy intensive than refining crude oil. Creating the synthesis gas is a very enfothermic process.

Shell as a company is providing increasingly greater emphasis toward natural gas development vs petroleum refining. Here's a recent article about a Shell refinery attempted sale in Denmark.

https://www.upi.com/Shells-departure-from-Denmarks-refining-business-canceled/6761514894800/

Both Shell and SASOL had plans to build GTL plants in Louisiana before the crude oil price collapse. SASOL is instead now entering the US petrochemicals business with an ethylene cracker and associated glycols plants.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Compared to GTL, PAO brings a major advantage in low temperature fluidity, and a small advantage in oxidative stability.

Compared to PAO, GTL brings a major advantage in cost, and small advantages in VI, additive solubility, seal compatibility, and lubricity.

They are comparable in thermal stability, coking tendencies, volatility, and hydrolytic stability.

Most of these differences can be mitigated through additive technology and blending with other base oils, except cost.

Tom NJ/VA


Tom,

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you wrote except one thing...

GTL base oil SHOULD have had a major cost advantage over PAO. However, even with 'free' natural gas feed, the plant must struggle to be economic with crude oil prices being as low as they are. Also, there's the minor matter of the cost of the Qatar plant. According to Wikipedia, it's projected to top out at an eye-watering $US 24 billion!! There's a reason why this is a one-of-its-kind plant (Bintutu is more a pilot plant / technology demonstrator and the last time I asked, the huge South African Mossel Bay GTL refinery was losing gargantuan amounts of money!). I suspect, if conventional rules of economics were applied, GTL base oil would be hopelessly uneconomic vs conventional PAO and simply not exist.

Don't get me wrong. As a chemical engineer, I'm amazed by the ingenuity of this technology. That said, I was similarly impressed by The Concorde which for all its grace and technical achievement was just a huge white elephant with wings!
 
Last edited:
PAO production capacity has been expanded since the time of the article posted earlier in this thread. Chevron Phillips has completed their Cedar Bayou expansion.

http://www.cpchem.com/en-us/news/Pages/Chevron-Phillips-Chemical-Announces-PAO-Expansion.aspx

CP PowerPoint Link (older)

https://fuelsandlubes.com/exxonmobil-launches-new-grade-of-metallocene-pao/

With sustained reduced crude oil prices coupled with expanding ethylene production capacity from the surfeit of NGL's produced by fracking, I personally foresee economics of PAO production growth to be more favorable than GTL production growth for lubricant base stock but I could be wrong. Other Group III will remain strong, it's just GTL plant economics I see as particularly weak right now.
 
I’ll throw some gas on the fire here.

The fact that many thing Shell’s GTL oil is the best thing since sliced bread just proves how effective marketing can be.

On the Valvoline example earlier, they did. Synpower is no longer made. It is now called Valvoline Advanced Synthetic in conjunction with the new d1g2 certificate. Marketing wins again.
 
Thanks sonofjoe. Having been retired for 10 years I am out of date on production economics.

As I understand it, the vast majority of production from Qatar is fuel, to which they can allocate most of the cost of operations and price the GTL as they wish in accordance with their marketing strategy. Likewise the can allocate much of the capital costs to various corporate budget lines if they wish. Cost and price are not always directly proportional. Shell appears committed to the long term viability of this facility and now need to price the output to market as needed to move volume.
 
And whaddaya know, in the PAO world, the big are getting bigger right in the heart of all the new ethylene production capacity being built and coming on-stream. Ineos announcing commitment to more PAO production.

https://fuelsandlubes.com/ineos-oligomer...te-bayou-texas/

CP finished its new polyethylene plant ahead of startup of its new steam cracker, which will be used to produce primarily merchant ethylene for the open market.

https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2017...ld-ocean-texas/

CP Ethylene Cracker Startup Link
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Thanks sonofjoe. Having been retired for 10 years I am out of date on production economics.

As I understand it, the vast majority of production from Qatar is fuel, to which they can allocate most of the cost of operations and price the GTL as they wish in accordance with their marketing strategy. Likewise the can allocate much of the capital costs to various corporate budget lines if they wish. Cost and price are not always directly proportional. Shell appears committed to the long term viability of this facility and now need to price the output to market as needed to move volume.


And one cannot ignore that while XOM leverages their significant PAO capacity, they also invested very heavily, and lost plenty, on at least one GTL facility that never saw the light of day in Qatar. Shell's veracity to continue on with Pearl despite the cost tripling by the end was apparently not something XOM was willing to duplicate. One could argue that Shell had more to gain from soldiering on than XOM, as leveraging Pearl for lube oils was part of the plan for the get-go, XOM's plant was, IIRC, designed to produce diesel. However, the roadmap that we saw on here some time back showed Visom as an intermediary with the ultimate transition to GTL being the end-game. We even thought we saw that coming into play with Mobil FS 0w-40 having, for a stint, FT base showing up in the MSDS. That has now been replaced with PAO.

Would be interesting to see if Mobil now has an updated roadmap
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
PAO production capacity has been expanded since the time of the article posted earlier in this thread. Chevron Phillips has completed their Cedar Bayou expansion.

http://www.cpchem.com/en-us/news/Pages/Chevron-Phillips-Chemical-Announces-PAO-Expansion.aspx

CP PowerPoint Link (older)

https://fuelsandlubes.com/exxonmobil-launches-new-grade-of-metallocene-pao/

With sustained reduced crude oil prices coupled with expanding ethylene production capacity from the surfeit of NGL's produced by fracking, I personally foresee economics of PAO production growth to be more favorable than GTL production growth for lubricant base stock but I could be wrong. Other Group III will remain strong, it's just GTL plant economics I see as particularly weak right now.



I agree. PAO might be relatively expensive but when you make PAO base oil, it's the ONLY thing you make. The 'problem' with the GTL process as I see it is not the base oil fraction (basically the heavy junk that's left over!) but the lighter products you make. Yes the diesel fraction is sulphur-free and very high Cetane but so what? How much of a genuine premium can you get for this stuff, especially when you consider it's in 'the wrong place' and will require shipping somewhere (a refinery with a surfeit of FCCU gasoline?) for that premium to be realised.

It's going to be interesting to see how OW-xx PCMOs fare going forwards. The OEMs love them because they confer fuel economy benefits during your engine's warm-up phase. But OW-xx oils are the primary driver for both PAO & GTL base oils so everything being equal, they should be significantly more expensive to blend.

Now here's the thing. The OEMs, whatever they may think & say, don't actually PAY for my engine oil! The OEMs are also extremely coy about what the day-to-day economic benefits of 0W20 are, relative to a cheaper 5W20, or dirt cheap 10W20. If people ever twig that they're getting played for suckers and are being 'forced' towards shelling out on expensive 0W-xx oils which benefit the OEMs way more than they do themselves, well people might just revolt!

I'll be the guy standing on top of the barricade throwing rocks!!
 
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
It's going to be interesting to see how OW-xx PCMOs fare going forwards. The OEMs love them because they confer fuel economy benefits during your engine's warm-up phase. But OW-xx oils are the primary driver for both PAO & GTL base oils so everything being equal, they should be significantly more expensive to blend.

Now here's the thing. The OEMs, whatever they may think & say, don't actually PAY for my engine oil! The OEMs are also extremely coy about what the day-to-day economic benefits of 0W20 are, relative to a cheaper 5W20, or dirt cheap 10W20. If people ever twig that they're getting played for suckers and are being 'forced' towards shelling out on expensive 0W-xx oils which benefit the OEMs way more than they do themselves, well people might just revolt!

I'll be the guy standing on top of the barricade throwing rocks!!

That is dependent on location though, here in the US a 0W-XX oil is still relatively inexpensive. Especially with extended drains the overall incremental cost over the lifetime of the vehicle is negligible, particularly so if you do your own work.
 
Just checked...

Here in the UK, a 5 litre (5.3 US quarts) can of Petronas Synthium 0W20 (what the dealer puts in my Suzuki) costs £59 ($US 79.65) from Euro Car Parts. Think this is Group III and not even PAO! I personally would regard that as expensive.

PS - I know it's cheaper off eBay but you never know what it is you're actually buying...
 
Last edited:
Geez, get one of us to buy it here and send it over
laugh.gif


If I had to pay that kind of money for daily driver oil, I'd change it maybe every 5 years ... By-pass filtration would be a must
laugh.gif
 
Last edited:

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
PAO production capacity has been expanded since the time of the article posted earlier in this thread. Chevron Phillips has completed their Cedar Bayou expansion.

http://www.cpchem.com/en-us/news/Pages/Chevron-Phillips-Chemical-Announces-PAO-Expansion.aspx

CP PowerPoint Link (older)

https://fuelsandlubes.com/exxonmobil-launches-new-grade-of-metallocene-pao/

With sustained reduced crude oil prices coupled with expanding ethylene production capacity from the surfeit of NGL's produced by fracking, I personally foresee economics of PAO production growth to be more favorable than GTL production growth for lubricant base stock but I could be wrong. Other Group III will remain strong, it's just GTL plant economics I see as particularly weak right now.



I agree. PAO might be relatively expensive but when you make PAO base oil, it's the ONLY thing you make. The 'problem' with the GTL process as I see it is not the base oil fraction (basically the heavy junk that's left over!) but the lighter products you make. Yes the diesel fraction is sulphur-free and very high Cetane but so what? How much of a genuine premium can you get for this stuff, especially when you consider it's in 'the wrong place' and will require shipping somewhere (a refinery with a surfeit of FCCU gasoline?) for that premium to be realised.

It's going to be interesting to see how OW-xx PCMOs fare going forwards. The OEMs love them because they confer fuel economy benefits during your engine's warm-up phase. But OW-xx oils are the primary driver for both PAO & GTL base oils so everything being equal, they should be significantly more expensive to blend.

Now here's the thing. The OEMs, whatever they may think & say, don't actually PAY for my engine oil! The OEMs are also extremely coy about what the day-to-day economic benefits of 0W20 are, relative to a cheaper 5W20, or dirt cheap 10W20. If people ever twig that they're getting played for suckers and are being 'forced' towards shelling out on expensive 0W-xx oils which benefit the OEMs way more than they do themselves, well people might just revolt!

I'll be the guy standing on top of the barricade throwing rocks!!


I agree. It seems the availability of simpler, less,expensive formulations is becoming more difficult to find in the USA.
Submission to implied authority is a terrible trait.
 
Thing is, the 0W-xx oils seem pretty robust and can go 10,000 miles (if no fuel dilution), so they become the darlings. Used to be that wide viscosity spreads were a no-no. But, with the 0W's they are becoming the thing to reach for for many vehicles.

Of course out here, SAE 30 HD works well too, so maybe we will not ALL jump on the 0W band wagon
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Just checked...

Here in the UK, a 5 litre (5.3 US quarts) can of Petronas Synthium 0W20 (what the dealer puts in my Suzuki) costs £59 ($US 79.65) from Euro Car Parts. Think this is Group III and not even PAO! I personally would regard that as expensive.

PS - I know it's cheaper off eBay but you never know what it is you're actually buying...

Yeah, here for Mobil 1 0W-whatever it is about 1/3 that cost at Walmart. Even Canada has significantly higher prices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
Oil (re)selection for GDI
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
burbguy82
Y
ACEA A3/B4 oils still relevant in 2024 for Turbo GDI 'High performance' Engines? - Hyundai ElantraN
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
edyvw
PlayfulBird
Gladiator 2020 3.6 Pentastar (Import from US to Germany) Oils and Advice
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
9K
PlayfulBird
BigTimeTA
Using M1 FS 5w40 in a dry clutch 150cc mopped
Replies
12
Views
2K
ZeeOSix
AEHaas
  • Locked
Thin vs Thick Discussion, Chapter 6
Replies
3
Views
5K
4WD
Back
Top