when is fully synthetic is NOT a fully synthetic!

[kschachn]

Thank you!!!

The reason I asked was because of what forum member kschachn posted on page 2 of this thread (Please see the quote below) about XOM doing the exact same thing as Castrol did prior to 1999. It is certainly possible that I am simply ignorant to this, IF this is true, but I am definitely not going to just accept what "Kenny from Danville" says without some sort of an attempt of verification. Nothing personal to kschachn.

Group III base stocks are Group III base stocks regardless of the origin. Annex E even states this in the document. The argument is Group III vs. PAO, not an argument over the origin of the non-PAO product.

 

[ripcord]

2021 Group III + Additives > 2000 PAO + Additives

 

[MolaKule]

There's a PDF or PowerPoint document from XOM explaining the reasoning,
pros and cons of that change from the earlier 2000s. I'm certain it's linked
several times on this forum. That question has been discussed plenty of times
on bitog, or let's say, it has been beaten to death.

And I can no longer locate that PPT presentation from XOM.

Now in 2008, XOM did file a patent in which they stated a base oil mixture with a ratio of ~ 50% PAO and ~ 50% F-T (GTL) base oil yielded much lower deposits (using the same additive ratios) than did other base oil mixtures. I assume the F-T (GTL) base oil was the, "VISOM."

Paragraph [027], Page 8 in the patent reads as follows;

"In the present invention, the weight ratio of Group III to Group IV base oil may be in the range of from about 80:20 to 20:80, often from 60:40 to 40:60 and preferably 50:50."

WO2008127569A2 - Synthetic lubricating compositions - Google Patents

patents.google.com

 

[kschachn]

And I can no longer locate the PPT presentation from XOM.

Now in 2008, XOM did file a patent in which they stated a base oil mixture with a ratio of ~ 50% PAO and ~ 50% F-T (GTL) base oil yielded much lower deposits (using the same additive ratios) than did other base oil mixtures. I assume the F-T (GTL) base oil was to be designated, "VISOM."

See paragraph [027], Page 8 in the patent:

WO2008127569A2 - Synthetic lubricating compositions - Google Patents

patents.google.com

Is this it?

https://physics.usc.edu/Undergraduate/temporary/mobil-1-new-live.pdf

 

[OVERKILL]

And I can no longer locate that PPT presentation from XOM.

Now in 2008, XOM did file a patent in which they stated a base oil mixture with a ratio of ~ 50% PAO and ~ 50% F-T (GTL) base oil yielded much lower deposits (using the same additive ratios) than did other base oil mixtures. I assume the F-T (GTL) base oil was the, "VISOM."

Paragraph [027], Page 8 in the patent reads as follows;

"In the present invention, the weight ratio of Group III to Group IV base oil may be in the range of from about 80:20 to 20:80, often from 60:40 to 40:60 and preferably 50:50."

WO2008127569A2 - Synthetic lubricating compositions - Google Patents

patents.google.com

VISOM wasn't GTL from what I recall, it was a very high purity Group III that was designed to be a bridge to GTL, as XOM was still planning on bringing their own GTL plant online at that point (which they later abandoned).

 

[MolaKule]

VISOM wasn't GTL from what I recall, it was a very high purity Group III that was designed to be a bridge to GTL, as XOM was still planning on bringing their own GTL plant online at that point (which they later abandoned).

I was referring to the patent language in the referenced patent which indicated it was a GTL process:

"[009] In an F-T synthesis process, a synthesis gas comprising a mixture of H2 and CO is catalytically converted into hydrocarbons, usually waxy hydrocarbons (referred to as F-T wax) that are generally converted to lower boiling material by process comprising hydroisomerisation and optionally dewaxing. These proces are well known by the person of ordinary skill in the art.

[010] The process of making a lubricant base oil from an F-T wax may include preliminary treatment(s). Treatment to remove any sulfur and nitrogen compounds is not normally needed because F-T waxes have only trace amounts of sulfur or nitrogen. However, F-T waxes may benefit from prehydrotreatment to remove oxygenates.

[011] Particularly favorable processes that can be used for the production of the FT Group III oil are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,594,172; 4,943,672; 6,046,940; 6,475,960; 6,103,099; 6,332,974; and 6,375,830.

[012] F-T base stocks have a beneficial kinematic viscosity advantage over conventional Group II and Group III base stocks and base oils. Such F-T base stocks and base oils can have significantly higher kinematic viscosities, up to about 20-50 mm /s at 1000C, whereas by comparison commercial Group II base oils can have kinematic viscosities, up to about 15 mm /s at 1000C, and commercial Group III base oils can have kinematic viscosities, up to about 10 mm /s at 1000C. The higher kinematic viscosity range of F-T base stocks and base oils, compared to the more limited kinematic viscosity range of Group II and Group III base stocks and base oils, in combination with the instant invention can provide additional beneficial advantages in formulating lubricant compositions.

[013] The F-T Group III oils used in the present invention are characterized as having predominantly paraffinic components and are further characterized as having high saturates levels, low-to-nil sulfur, low-to-nil nitrogen, low-to-nil aromatics, and are essentially water-white in color. The preferred F-T base oils have less than 0.1 wt% aromatic hydrocarbons, less than 20 wppm nitrogen containing compounds, and less than 20 wppm sulfur containing compounds, The FT oils more often have a nominal boiling point of 3700C+..."

 

[OVERKILL]

That 2nd slide highlights it, VISOM was a precursor to GTL, they classified it as Group III+.

 

[OVERKILL]

I was referring to the patent language in the referenced patent which indicated it was a GTL process:

"[009] In an F-T synthesis process, a synthesis gas comprising a mixture of H2 and CO is catalytically converted into hydrocarbons, usually waxy hydrocarbons (referred to as F-T wax) that are generally converted to lower boiling material by process comprising hydroisomerisation and optionally dewaxing. These proces are well known by the person of ordinary skill in the art.

[010] The process of making a lubricant base oil from an F-T wax may include preliminary treatment(s). Treatment to remove any sulfur and nitrogen compounds is not normally needed because F-T waxes have only trace amounts of sulfur or nitrogen. However, F-T waxes may benefit from prehydrotreatment to remove oxygenates.

[011] Particularly favorable processes that can be used for the production of the FT Group III oil are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,594,172; 4,943,672; 6,046,940; 6,475,960; 6,103,099; 6,332,974; and 6,375,830.

[012] F-T base stocks have a beneficial kinematic viscosity advantage over conventional Group II and Group III base stocks and base oils. Such F-T base stocks and base oils can have significantly higher kinematic viscosities, up to about 20-50 mm /s at 1000C, whereas by comparison commercial Group II base oils can have kinematic viscosities, up to about 15 mm /s at 1000C, and commercial Group III base oils can have kinematic viscosities, up to about 10 mm /s at 1000C. The higher kinematic viscosity range of F-T base stocks and base oils, compared to the more limited kinematic viscosity range of Group II and Group III base stocks and base oils, in combination with the instant invention can provide additional beneficial advantages in formulating lubricant compositions.

[013] The F-T Group III oils used in the present invention are characterized as having predominantly paraffinic components and are further characterized as having high saturates levels, low-to-nil sulfur, low-to-nil nitrogen, low-to-nil aromatics, and are essentially water-white in color. The preferred F-T base oils have less than 0.1 wt% aromatic hydrocarbons, less than 20 wppm nitrogen containing compounds, and less than 20 wppm sulfur containing compounds, The FT oils more often have a nominal boiling point of 3700C+..."

Interesting, because they seem to contradict that in the slide I just posted (2nd one) from the presentation?

 

[MolaKule]

Is this it?

https://physics.usc.edu/Undergraduate/temporary/mobil-1-new-live.pdf

Yes, thanks, I believe that is the one and it was pages 27-30 that caused all of the "commotion."

 

[Tifosi]

Group III base stocks are Group III base stocks regardless of the origin. Annex E even states this in the document. The argument is Group III vs. PAO, not an argument over the origin of the non-PAO product.

Not sure how you went off on a tangent on this. My question is, can you back up your statement that prior to 1999, XOM had been doing the exact same thing Castrol did by advertising their Syntec, a Group III based oil as a fully synthetic oil. So far, the only evidence of this is an allegation from Castrol.

 

[kschachn]

Not sure how you went off on a tangent on this. My question is, can you back up your statement that prior to 1999, XOM had been doing the exact same thing Castrol did by advertising their Syntec, a Group III based oil as a fully synthetic oil. So far, the only evidence of this is an allegation from Castrol.

It was in response to what you were commenting on.

So what exactly is your interest in Mobil? Your comments here seem familiar, have you been around before?

 

[aquariuscsm]

Not sure how you went off on a tangent on this. My question is, can you back up your statement that prior to 1999, XOM had been doing the exact same thing Castrol did by advertising their Syntec, a Group III based oil as a fully synthetic oil. So far, the only evidence of this is an allegation from Castrol.

Not sure if this is the info you want, but some years ago Mobil published a secret white paper that got leaked out that stated Mobil 1 oils were moving from pao base stocks to Visom Group 3 base stocks unknowingly to their customer base. My opinion on this is "Pot, meet kettle", but with that said, I do like M1 oils and used M1 15W-50 almost exclusively in my 300ZX.

My understanding of pao, is that it has zero lubricity properties over crude, and that where it shines, is a lower pour point over crude (which I may be totally wrong).

 

[OVERKILL]

Not sure if this is the info you want, but some years ago Mobil published a secret white paper that got leaked out that stated Mobil 1 oils were moving from pao base stocks to Visom Group 3 base stocks unknowingly to their customer base. My opinion on this is "Pot, meet kettle", but with that said, I do like M1 oils and used M1 15W-50 almost exclusively in my 300ZX.

LOL! Way to sensationalize, it wasn't a white paper, it was a presentation and I posted two screenshots from it earlier in the thread.

 

[aquariuscsm]

LOL! Way to sensationalize, it wasn't a white paper, it was a presentation and I posted two screenshots from it earlier in the thread.

Haha yeah I'm just re posting old info that was posted here time and time again. It was always called a "white paper" by many posters (whatever a white paper is haha I always think of paper and being "white" unless it's construction paper).

 

[aquariuscsm]

I remember MJ from XOM telling me the "new" silver cap 15W-50 (that replaced the red cap) was a group 4 and 5 mix base oil.

 

[OVERKILL]

Haha yeah I'm just re posting old info that was posted here time and time again. It was always called a "white paper" by many posters (whatever a white paper is haha I always think of paper and being "white" unless it's construction paper).

A white paper is a technical document, usually geared toward technical people, not the public or people that might not be intimately familiar with the subject matter.

The XOM presentation was somewhat technical in nature, but not deeply. Here's the opener:

And the first slide:

 

[OVERKILL]

I remember MJ from XOM telling me the "new" silver cap 15W-50 (that replaced the red cap) was a group 4 and 5 mix base oil.

Technically Mobil still uses those bases, but also Group III now (mostly GTL). You'll get a blend of PAO, POE, AN's and Group III in varying concentrations depending on the lube.

 

[930.engineering]

View attachment 83470
View attachment 83471

So as a bottom line, there's just not enough PAO supply for everyone.
.

 

[Tifosi]

Not sure if this is the info you want, but some years ago Mobil published a secret white paper that got leaked out that stated Mobil 1 oils were moving from pao base stocks to Visom Group 3 base stocks unknowingly to their customer base. My opinion on this is "Pot, meet kettle", but with that said, I do like M1 oils and used M1 15W-50 almost exclusively in my 300ZX.

My understanding of pao, is that it has zero lubricity properties over crude, and that where it shines, is a lower pour point over crude (which I may be totally wrong).

No, that not what kschachn was saying. According to kschachn, Mobil was marketing their Group III oil as fully synthetic oil BEFORE 1999, which is something that I am not aware of. I believe what you and Overkill have there are basically the result from the 1999 Castrol-Mobil dispute and XOM's responds to NAD's ruling/clarification. Please note that XOM did not exist until November 30 of 1999, that's when Exxon and Mobil merged into one company.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Please note that XOM did not exist until November 30 of 1999, that's when Exxon and Mobil merged into one company.

I still have an unopened quart of pre-XOM Mobil 1 15W-50 red cap