PYB & QSGB with Group III base - not just a fluke?

[HKPolice]

Ok so we all know that when PQIA tested 5w20 conventional oils, the PYB & QSGB stood out with very low NOACK & a very good low temp -30C viscosity which can only be explained by the use of Group III base stocks.

http://www.pqiamerica.com/Feb2014/consolidated5w20ALL.html

The most popular theory is that Shell had an over supply of GTL base stocks & maybe some lucky batches were made with it instead of a regular Group II base.

I have a different theory. I believe that it wasn't just a few lucky batches, but maybe up to 50% of all PYB & QSGB are made with a Group III+ base.

My reasoning:

-Group III+ base stocks have a VI of at least 140 which is very close to the 155 VI of the oils tested
-Regular Group II base has a VI of 80-119 which means a lot of VI improvers must be added to reach 155 VI
-More pour point depressants must be used with regular Group II to get the low temp performance up to spec

It might be cost effective to just use a Group III+ base stock in PYB & QSGB which doesn't require the use of VI improvers for "dino spec" oils of only ~155 VI. Also, not requiring as much pour point depressants to achieve low temp specs is another cost saver.

On paper it looks like the only differences between PYB & PP is that PP has more VI improvers in it which also increases NOACK from 6.5% to ~10%, and maybe a higher TBN to support longer drain intervals.

 

[Rand]

I'm not sure that conclusion can be drawn from that data.

 

[HKPolice]

It's more than just a fluke, why would Shell use a Group III base in both PYB & QSGB? Why not just 1 brand for 1 batch if they were just getting rid of excess GTL stock? They must be doing this a lot more often than just 1 batch and the only reason would be that overall costs are similar. The cost of additives alone can be as high as 40% of the finished product.

 

[Y_K]

If that's true, it may be the case of selling the same or similar products in different packaging and different marketing. As an example,automakers do that all the time, don't they?

 

[MolaKule]

Viscosity Index Improvers (or viscosity modifiers), can make any VI index you want, so that conclusion isn't valid.

 

[Clevy]

It's tough to draw any definite conclusions from the viscosity index without being in the office when such decisions are made.

My guess and it's only a guess is that shell's costs are lower using their in house derived gtl basestocks and they use it in their lower tiered oils based purely on costs.
And if that's the case that makes PYB and qsad the best conventionals on the market today,and the best value in regular priced oil.
Just think. Shell can't market their conventionals as having a synthetic component. If they did it would make their blends redundant and lose profit based on the higher price blends can command.
If everyone knew PYB was actually a blend then who would buy and spend more on their advertised blends.
Chaos would insue and Revolution would result.
K well maybe not but you get my point.

 

[Turk]

PYB FTW.

 

[Danh]

I
Originally Posted By: Clevy
It's tough to draw any definite conclusions from the viscosity index without being in the office when such decisions are made.

My guess and it's only a guess is that shell's costs are lower using their in house derived gtl basestocks and they use it in their lower tiered oils based purely on costs.
And if that's the case that makes PYB and qsad the best conventionals on the market today,and the best value in regular priced oil.
Just think. Shell can't market their conventionals as having a synthetic component. If they did it would make their blends redundant and lose profit based on the higher price blends can command.
If everyone knew PYB was actually a blend then who would buy and spend more on their advertised blends.
Chaos would insue and Revolution would result.
K well maybe not but you get my point.


Except that the MSDS for PYB (5W-20, at least) says the composition is "Highly refined mineral oil and additives". Shell's GTL products have said composition is "Fischer-Tropsch" (gas to oil) or a "blend of synthetic esters..." . I don't think lying on an MSDS is an option, so I'd say no GTL in PYB.

Plus, when SOPUS was disclosing Noack volatility for products, GTL Platinum and New Ultra were in the 8-10% range. What sense would it make to have entry level oils significantly better in this respect than their flagship products?

 

[bigt61]

Shell have a lot of product. It might be cheaper for them to just use it in everything.

"Pearl GTL is the world's largest gas-to-liquid GTL plant, located in Ras Laffan Industrial City, near Doha, Qatar. With 140,000 barrels per day"

Up to 1.6 billion cubic feet per day of wellhead gas from 22 offshore wells is converted to gas-to-liquids using Shell’s proprietary Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis (SMDS) process, built on 3,500 patents. From this, a range of high-performing GTL products is created, from gasoil, kerosene and base oil to naphtha and normal paraffins for the petrochemicals industry.


The Pearl GTL plant has 24 reactors, weighing 1,200 tonnes a piece. They each contain 29,000 tubes full of Shell’s cobalt synthesis catalyst, which speeds up the chemical reaction. If placed end to end, the tubes would stretch from Doha to Tokyo, while the combined surface area of the catalyst is almost 18 times the size of Qatar. The catalyst comes in the form of pellets that are as small as grains of rice.

The vast surface area is due to the catalyst’s many nano-sized inner channels, which make it highly porous so that huge volumes of gas can be exposed to the catalysts’ chemically treated surface, accelerating the speed of reaction.

http://www.shell.com.qa/en/products-services/pearl.html

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Y_K
If that's true, it may be the case of selling the same or similar products in different packaging and different marketing. As an example,automakers do that all the time, don't they?
They call it "badge engineering".

 

[CATERHAM]

It certainly isn't a "fluke" that SOPUS is undoubtedly using GTL base oils in part to formulate their so called for conventional oils since they are swimming in the stuff.
AFAIK their MSDS aren't required to reflect an upgraded GP III substitution.

As a consumer the only question I would have is how consistently SOPUS is doing this since it is unofficial? We know they did it for their 5W-20 of a year or so ago but are they still and what about their 5W-30? We got lucky with PQIA and their comprehensive VOA testing that includes Noack and CCS but it's not something we can afford to do ourselves.

 

[HKPolice]

Originally Posted By: Danh
I
Originally Posted By: Clevy
It's tough to draw any definite conclusions from the viscosity index without being in the office when such decisions are made.

My guess and it's only a guess is that shell's costs are lower using their in house derived gtl basestocks and they use it in their lower tiered oils based purely on costs.
And if that's the case that makes PYB and qsad the best conventionals on the market today,and the best value in regular priced oil.
Just think. Shell can't market their conventionals as having a synthetic component. If they did it would make their blends redundant and lose profit based on the higher price blends can command.
If everyone knew PYB was actually a blend then who would buy and spend more on their advertised blends.
Chaos would insue and Revolution would result.
K well maybe not but you get my point.


Except that the MSDS for PYB (5W-20, at least) says the composition is "Highly refined mineral oil and additives". Shell's GTL products have said composition is "Fischer-Tropsch" (gas to oil) or a "blend of synthetic esters..." . I don't think lying on an MSDS is an option, so I'd say no GTL in PYB.

Plus, when SOPUS was disclosing Noack volatility for products, GTL Platinum and New Ultra were in the 8-10% range. What sense would it make to have entry level oils significantly better in this respect than their flagship products?


MSDS change isn't required when an upgrade is used and especially if they're not using Group III all the time.

I just realized that there is ANOTHER additive they can skip or use less of in PYB /w a Group III+ base: ANTIOXIDANTS. It's a well known fact that Group III bases are more resistant to oxidation than Group II and certainly for a "dino spec" oil Shell can skip most if not all antioxidant additives.

Lower NOACK in PYB & QSGB is due to the absence of VI improvers which PP needs to reach their higher target VI. The lower or lack of antioxidants may also play a role in the NOACK difference.

 

[WobblyElvis]

Maybe this will add confusion.

Here in Canada, Shell makes the oils sold at Canadian Tire under the Motomaster name. Motomaster Formula 1 is a so called conventional oil with a "synthetic" additive. What does this mean?

 

[Danh]

Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Originally Posted By: Danh
I
Originally Posted By: Clevy
It's tough to draw any definite conclusions from the viscosity index without being in the office when such decisions are made.

My guess and it's only a guess is that shell's costs are lower using their in house derived gtl basestocks and they use it in their lower tiered oils based purely on costs.
And if that's the case that makes PYB and qsad the best conventionals on the market today,and the best value in regular priced oil.
Just think. Shell can't market their conventionals as having a synthetic component. If they did it would make their blends redundant and lose profit based on the higher price blends can command.
If everyone knew PYB was actually a blend then who would buy and spend more on their advertised blends.
Chaos would insue and Revolution would result.
K well maybe not but you get my point.


Except that the MSDS for PYB (5W-20, at least) says the composition is "Highly refined mineral oil and additives". Shell's GTL products have said composition is "Fischer-Tropsch" (gas to oil) or a "blend of synthetic esters..." . I don't think lying on an MSDS is an option, so I'd say no GTL in PYB.

Plus, when SOPUS was disclosing Noack volatility for products, GTL Platinum and New Ultra were in the 8-10% range. What sense would it make to have entry level oils significantly better in this respect than their flagship products?


MSDS change isn't required when an upgrade is used and especially if they're not using Group III all the time.

I just realized that there is ANOTHER additive they can skip or use less of in PYB /w a Group III+ base: ANTIOXIDANTS. It's a well known fact that Group III bases are more resistant to oxidation than Group II and certainly for a "dino spec" oil Shell can skip most if not all antioxidant additives.

Lower NOACK in PYB & QSGB is due to the absence of VI improvers which PP needs to reach their higher target VI. The lower or lack of antioxidants may also play a role in the NOACK difference.


The MSDS in question is from Feb 2014, long after the PQIA report and well into the SOPUS GTL era. So this should reflect the ongoing composition of the product.

 

[Oily_hair]

Originally Posted By: WobblyElvis
Maybe this will add confusion.

Here in Canada, Shell makes the oils sold at Canadian Tire under the Motomaster name. Motomaster Formula 1 is a so called conventional oil with a "synthetic" additive. What does this mean?


Here is what the CT website has as the description of the synthetic additive.

- Formula 1 Conventional Motor Oil is a premium motor oil with synthetic Wearguard®, ®, an anti-wear additive that bonds to engine parts, providing outstanding protection during cold start-ups and against thermal breakdown for longer engine life
- Provides protection in extreme high temperatures
- Removes harmful deposits and acids for a cleaner and longer lasting engine
- Meets North American warranty requirements for U.S., European and Japanese cars and light trucks with gasoline and gasoline turbo-charged engines where API SN and earlier API categories are specified
- Meets ILSAC GF-5 Energy Resource Conserving standard

 

[WobblyElvis]

The benefits provided by this "synthetic additive" sound a lot like the those provided by synthetic oil.

 

[wemay]

This would be epic and your reasoning follows a plausible path, but CATERHAM's question of consistency also persists.