S-oil's Ultra-S Grp III oil?

[shiny]

Conoco-Phillips uses "Ultra-S" oil by Korea's S-oil for their Group III basestock (in Kendall and Motorcraft synthetic and syn-blends). From the link:

Quote:
http://baseoil.phillips66.com/EN/products/grp3_base_oils/Pages/index.aspx

"Using state-of-the-art all-hydroprocessed technology, S-Oil converts crude oil molecules into extremely pure colorless Ultra-S base oils that have a very high viscosity index and are virtually free of aromatics, polar compounds and sulfur."

That sounds similar to Pennzoil's clear, ultra pure "PurePlus" GTL base oil. How do they compare chemically and performance-wise?

 

[901Memphis]

Very different chemically than GTL. Pennzoil is making the base oil from natural gas by creating the exact chains of hydrocarbons they desire while Ultra-S is still derived from crude.

Pennzoil told us an analogy about muddy water... You can take muddy water and filter it to be drinkable but wouldn't you rather distill the steam into clear pure water, similar to how they do GtL.

Performance differences would be insignificant overall I'm guessing but without both data sheets handy it's hard to compare.

 

[shiny]

Interesting. I was thinking that the finished product might be as pure on a molecular level as Pennzoil's product, regardless of how it's sourced. I'm not arguing, I'm just curious.

 

[CT8]

You have to wonder which oil would let the engine last as long as it is going to last. With out falling for all the hype and marketing and especially when our ill-conceived notions get in the way of facts.

 

[weasley]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Very different chemically than GTL. Pennzoil is making the base oil from natural gas by creating the exact chains of hydrocarbons they desire while Ultra-S is still derived from crude.

Pennzoil told us an analogy about muddy water... You can take muddy water and filter it to be drinkable but wouldn't you rather distill the steam into clear pure water, similar to how they do GtL.

Performance differences would be insignificant overall I'm guessing but without both data sheets handy it's hard to compare.


Sorry, but most of that is wrong.

Chemically, the output of a "regular" Group 3 hydrocracking process is pretty much the same as from the GTL process. The main difference between the GTL base oil and a regular Group 3 is where the starting material came from. With a 'regular' one you refine materials out of crude oil then feed it to a hydrocracker to get the output. With the GTL base oil they take natural gas, convert it to a waxy substance then feed that into the hydrocracker to get pretty much the same output.

And this water thing is a HUGE factual and scientific fail from Shell/Pennzoil. The refinery process evaporates and then distils the base oil. So using their analogy, if you took muddy river water and boiled it, then condensed the steam, you would get perfectly pure water. This is exactly how refining works - you don't 'filter' base oil out of crude oil.

 

[Shannow]

weasley, so the GTL is akin to the old Shell XHVI slack wax, but the "wax" is made from NG ?

 

[weasley]

In broad terms, yes.

 

[Shannow]

So it really could have come from syngas produced from coal and be the same finished product...just not as attractively marketed.

 

[shiny]

So how is S-oil's "Ultra-S" different from Shell/Pennzoil's GTL final product? Is it like crude oil products wherein the molecules are different sizes, or like the synthetic oils wherein all the molecules are the same size?

 

[Solarent]

Shell has done a really good job with their new "pure plus technology" on the bottle of marketing their base oil as a competitive advantage to the end-user/consumer.

In reality the statements they make about the benefits of GTL - Purity, Water White, synthetic like quality could be said (and in fact is said) about a whole range of Group III base oils.

If you want to know just look at the descriptions of any following:
PetroCanada Purity base oils
Chevron ISOSYN technology'
Neste Nexbase
SK Yubase
XOM VISOM
etc
etc
etc.

 

[shiny]

So there's basically little difference in the final product? Do any of them have markedly different properties e.g. higher VI or HTHS or lower NOACK or something that makes them perform better?

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: shiny
So there's basically little difference in the final product? Do any of them have markedly different properties e.g. higher VI or HTHS or lower NOACK or something that makes them perform better?


+1

Solarent;

Are there any, at all advantages performance wise to the GTL base stocks as compared to all of the other 'run of the mill' group 3 base stocks (let alone compared to group 4/5 PAOs/POEs)??

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
Shell has done a really good job with their new "pure plus technology" on the bottle of marketing their base oil as a competitive advantage to the end-user/consumer.

In reality the statements they make about the benefits of GTL - Purity, Water White, synthetic like quality could be said (and in fact is said) about a whole range of Group III base oils.

If you want to know just look at the descriptions of any following:
PetroCanada Purity base oils
Chevron ISOSYN technology'
Neste Nexbase
SK Yubase
XOM VISOM
etc
etc
etc.


Here's some old Shell literature from their 1997 product data sheet in my collection of old stuff...it's the slack wax "mineral with the performance of a synthetic", as it was advertised back in the day.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...k_-#Post3471384

 

[weasley]

The GTL stuff is very good Group 3. One big advantage it holds for Shell is that it monetises a gas field in Qatar, a region where not a lot of gas gets used. Compressing and exporting it as LNG is one option but has its drawbacks. Turning it to a saleable liquid makes it easy to ship and plug straight into a global market. Remember, a lot of it gets turned to fuel rather than base oil.

 

[Shannow]

weasley,
that's (been) the plan for some remote Oz gas fields...liquify it and ship by road train/tanker rather then build or wait to have built a pipeline.

One company is planning on creating the syngas underground, and liquify the resultant.

 

[SR5]

So if GTL is just a very good Group 3, with regular Group 3 being pretty much the same. What about the very low NOACK values we have been seeing with some of the recent Shell/Pennzoil products, which many (including myself) though was due to new GTL base stock being used.

Not arguing with you, just asking for your view. I thought GTL was special, but I may have to reconsider that position.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Wow, the NOACK difference between PYB 10w-30 and QSGB 5w-30 is nuts!!!

4.4% vs 11.4!!


Just a NOACK summation:
PYB 10w-30: 4.4%
QSGB 5w-30: 11.4%
GTX 10w-40: 11.0%
Havoline 10w-40: 13.1%
Safeway 5w-30: 12.7%
Peak 5w-30: 14.4%
Accel 5w-30 14.9%



From:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3863603/1

 

[freshcopedawg]

Originally Posted By: SR5
So if GTL is just a very good Group 3, with regular Group 3 being pretty much the same. What about the very low NOACK values we have been seeing with some of the recent Shell/Pennzoil products, which many (including myself) though was due to new GTL base stock being used.

Not arguing with you, just asking for your view. I thought GTL was special, but I may have to reconsider that position.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Wow, the NOACK difference between PYB 10w-30 and QSGB 5w-30 is nuts!!!

4.4% vs 11.4!!


Just a NOACK summation:
PYB 10w-30: 4.4%
QSGB 5w-30: 11.4%
GTX 10w-40: 11.0%
Havoline 10w-40: 13.1%
Safeway 5w-30: 12.7%
Peak 5w-30: 14.4%
Accel 5w-30 14.9%



From:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3863603/1


NOACK for Pennzoil Platinum 5W30 is 10.1.
Ultra 5W30 NOACK is 11.5.