Shell oils with PurePlus technology: any feedback?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: volodymyr
Since you started to talk about the fact that ExxonMobil is trying to use PAO base oils to it's maximum, let's not forget that Shell patented GTL technology, so if ExxonMobil uses it, it has to pay to Shell for every liter of oil produced using GTL.


Yeah, I just don't think it is worth it apparently. Of course other products besides motor oils have always been part of the GTL goal, but it just doesn't seem economically worthwhile. Even when the gas is free.

I'm sure there are other routes to finished products from methane, right?
 
Originally Posted By: volodymyr
Since you started to talk about the fact that ExxonMobil is trying to use PAO base oils to it's maximum, let's not forget that Shell patented GTL technology, so if ExxonMobil uses it, it has to pay to Shell for every liter of oil produced using GTL.


XOM had a GTL plant in the making (and SOPUS does not own the GTL process, it was used by the Germans back in WWII). SOPUS may have patented something pertaining to how their particular GTL process operates but ENEOS and others that are currently making GTL bases aren't paying SOPUS "royalities" to make GTL-based lubes.

XOM had massive cost overruns with their GTL plant project and eventually abandoned it. Their slideshow about VISOM was from the time-frame that they were heavily invested in it and had chosen VISOM as a Group III+ interim product. Once that plan was abandoned it seems they've shifted back to utilizing PAO again in varying quantities along with I assume VISOM. The quantities used seems to vary grade-to-grade.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn

Yeah, I just don't think it is worth it apparently. Of course other products besides motor oils have always been part of the GTL goal, but it just doesn't seem economically worthwhile.


I did some googling to see more comparisons between gtl based oils and other group oils and here is what I found: http://gasprocessingnews.com/features/20...atural-gas.aspx

It looks like this thing is superior to every espect of group 3 oils, isn't it?

Since you touched the economical part of the question, I presume Shell has reached a point where they can produce GTL based oils which are around 30 % cheaper than the group 3 oils like Mobile 1 (at least if I compare prices in Switzerland).

P.S. Some other benefits also listed here: http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/422/gas-to-liquids
 
Also, apparently XOM owns some GTL process patents:

http://ir.exxonmobil.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=115024&p=irol-newsArticle_Print&ID=656225

Quote:
FAIRFAX, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 20, 2004--Syntroleum Corporation (Nasdaq:SYNM) and ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company (EMRE) announced today the execution of an agreement that grants Syntroleum a worldwide license under ExxonMobil's Gas to Liquids (GTL) patents to produce and sell fuels from natural gas or other carbonaceous substances such as coal. Syntroleum has the right to extend the terms of this agreement to its licensees.
ExxonMobil has established a strong proprietary position on the catalysts, processes and products of the AGC-21 Gas to Liquids conversion process. ExxonMobil has been offering to license over 3,500 worldwide patents to ensure that others are not blocked from introducing GTL products into countries in which ExxonMobil holds GTL patents.
Over the last 20 plus years Syntroleum has developed its own proprietary patented air-based Gas to Liquids process which it is utilizing in its Catoosa Demonstration Facility located near Tulsa, Okla. The Syntroleum Process is also the basis for its GTL Barge concept that Syntroleum is using to pursue stranded natural gas around the world.
"This agreement represents a very practical approach to the use of GTL technology," said Ken Agee, Syntroleum's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "We see this as an opportunity to gain freedom to operate under a significant number of GTL patents that can be used cost-effectively to improve certain of our processes."
"ExxonMobil's Gas to Liquids technology is the result of an over 20-year, $600 million research, development and engineering program," said Bill Innes, President, ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company. "This state-of-the-art technology combines the best catalytic process and reactor engineering advances from our research and development organization."
The scope of this agreement includes the fields of syngas production, Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis, product upgrading to make fuels and various processes that relate to these areas. It includes all existing ExxonMobil patents in these areas and future improvement patents in these areas over the next several years.


And the 2007 cancelling of their Qatar GTL plant:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/789b555a-c134-11db-bf18-000b5df10621.html#axzz3fQdUfW39
 
Originally Posted By: volodymyr
I did some googling to see more comparisons between gtl based oils and other group oils and here is what I found: http://gasprocessingnews.com/features/20...atural-gas.aspx

It looks like this thing is superior to every espect of group 3 oils, isn't it?

Since you touched the economical part of the question, I presume Shell has reached a point where they can produce GTL based oils which are around 30 % cheaper than the group 3 oils like Mobil 1 (at least if I compare prices in Switzerland).

P.S. Some other benefits also listed here: http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/422/gas-to-liquids


Is it "better" than other GpIII oils? No one knows. Is it better than Visom? No one knows. Is it cheaper to produce? I'm thinking not, you have to go through all the synthesis steps and then hydrocracking, why not just start from crude in the first place and skip the synthesis?

I only have a minor in chemistry and that makes me quite unqualified to discuss hydrocracking. I mean, I know what it is and I know why they do it, but does the GTL intermediary result in less byproducts? Does it take less steps in some part of the process? I have no idea. But the very fact that GTL (even with low or no-cost feedstock) isn't being pounced on by the producers may be a clue.

I don't think the retail price of finished product in Switzerland is a reliable indicator of the process cost. World distribution costs, governmental taxing, and local preferences likely have a lot to do with the price you pay. I think you have to look at what the industry is doing as a whole instead.

And BTW, ExxonMobil's Visom/PAO blend has been shown to be materially superior to a standard Group III oil.
 
kschachn,

Originally Posted By: kschachn


Is it "better" than other GpIII oils? No one knows. Is it better than Visom? No one knows. Is it cheaper to produce? I'm thinking not, you have to go through all the synthesis steps and then hydrocracking, why not just start from crude in the first place and skip the synthesis?



I guess we will have these questions answered as time goes. Since Shell started to sell GTL oils just ~ 1 year ago and most of the people in Europe do long OCI (15'000 to 30'000 km) when using MB 229.5 we will start to see some UOA soon.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: volodymyr
kschachn,
Originally Posted By: kschachn

Is it "better" than other GpIII oils? No one knows. Is it better than Visom? No one knows. Is it cheaper to produce? I'm thinking not, you have to go through all the synthesis steps and then hydrocracking, why not just start from crude in the first place and skip the synthesis?

I guess we will have these questions answered as time goes. Since Shell started to sell GTL oils just ~ 1 year ago and most of the people in Europe do long OCI (15'000 to 30'000 km) when using MB 229.5 we will start to see some UOA soon.


What will you see on UOAs that will tell you that?
 
Originally Posted By: volodymyr
kschachn,

Originally Posted By: kschachn


Is it "better" than other GpIII oils? No one knows. Is it better than Visom? No one knows. Is it cheaper to produce? I'm thinking not, you have to go through all the synthesis steps and then hydrocracking, why not just start from crude in the first place and skip the synthesis?



I guess we will have these questions answered as time goes. Since Shell started to sell GTL oils just ~ 1 year ago and most of the people in Europe do long OCI (15'000 to 30'000 km) when using MB 229.5 we will start to see some UOA soon.


My own anecdote:

I've run BMW 5w-30, M1 0w-40 and PU 5w-40 in the M5. Of all of those oils, the M1 0w-40 product has the lowest consumption. Sound-wise, it was about the same as the PU 5w-40. The BMW 5w-30 seemed to allow for a bit more valvetrain noise but I'm sure that's of no consequence in the big picture.

After I used up my PU 5w-40, I switched back to M1 0w-40 because of not only the lower consumption but ease of availability and price. The fact that it is now a majority PAO lube is just the icing on the cake.
 
I currently use Shell Helix 10W-60. After 4.5k mi everything through the oil fill hole (in an engine neglected by the previous owner) became spotless while the oil on the dipstick is still quite clear. Kudos for the Active Cleaning Technology. Oil consumption is very low, too.

However, I had it in my freezer along with some PAO-based 10W-60, and the PAO visibly flows faster below 0C. So my next oil will be PAO instead, same price anyways.
 
Originally Posted By: JohnnyMerrill
I currently use Shell Helix 10W-60. After 4.5k mi everything through the oil fill hole (in an engine neglected by the previous owner) became spotless while the oil on the dipstick is still quite clear. Kudos for the Active Cleaning Technology. Oil consumption is very low, too.

However, I had it in my freezer along with some PAO-based 10W-60, and the PAO visibly flows faster below 0C. So my next oil will be PAO instead, same price anyways.


You can't get Helix 10w-60 in the U.S. You're east of Fresno, yet measure temperature in celsius? American cultural thing to talk F. What brand of PAO 10w-60 do you have?
 
Originally Posted By: JohnnyMerrill
I currently use Shell Helix 10W-60. After 4.5k mi everything through the oil fill hole (in an engine neglected by the previous owner) became spotless while the oil on the dipstick is still quite clear. Kudos for the Active Cleaning Technology. Oil consumption is very low, too.

However, I had it in my freezer along with some PAO-based 10W-60, and the PAO visibly flows faster below 0C. So my next oil will be PAO instead, same price anyways.


You can't get Helix 10w-60 in the U.S, its called Pennzoil Ultra 10w-60 here. You're east of Fresno, yet measure temperature in celsius? American cultural thing to talk F. What brand of PAO 10w-60 do you have?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: JohnnyMerrill
I currently use Shell Helix 10W-60. After 4.5k mi everything through the oil fill hole (in an engine neglected by the previous owner) became spotless while the oil on the dipstick is still quite clear. Kudos for the Active Cleaning Technology. Oil consumption is very low, too.

However, I had it in my freezer along with some PAO-based 10W-60, and the PAO visibly flows faster below 0C. So my next oil will be PAO instead, same price anyways.


You can't get Helix 10w-60 in the U.S, its called Pennzoil Ultra 10w-60 here. You're east of Fresno, yet measure temperature in celsius? American cultural thing to talk F. What brand of PAO 10w-60 do you have?


Much easier to get 5 qts. of Helix Ultra than Pennzoil, same thing anyways.

Below the freezing point of water (condensation of ice on the bottle, about 0C, 32F, 273K), PAO-based oil runs faster. Around 0F quite noticeable. The viscosity at 40C and 100C is the same, though.

I have this here: http://www.performatek.com/general/fluids/Agip/AGIPpriceList.htm

PAO and API SL with lots of ZDDP for Italian cars.

Here are some shots after now 5k mi with the Shell:
7sQmwa6.jpg

vL5lToj.jpg


5k done, 7.5k to go.
 
Originally Posted By: JohnnyMerrill
I currently use Shell Helix 10W-60. After 4.5k mi everything through the oil fill hole (in an engine neglected by the previous owner) became spotless while the oil on the dipstick is still quite clear. Kudos for the Active Cleaning Technology. Oil consumption is very low, too.

However, I had it in my freezer along with some PAO-based 10W-60, and the PAO visibly flows faster below 0C. So my next oil will be PAO instead, same price anyways.


Odd, as I saw absolutely zero improvement on the mild varnish in our Expedition with two OCI's of PU 5w-30. This was also from previous owner neglect. The only oil that has touched it was Redline 5w-30
21.gif
 
I run Shell Helix Ultra 5w-40 on all my euro cars.
It is also the cheapest by far fully synthethic oil available here. (Theres one that is slightly cheaper, Castrol but i don't "trust" their claims as much as Shell)
 
I've fallen under GTL spell too.
Fischer-Tropsch process:
(2n + 1) H2 + n CO -> CnH(2n+2) + n H2O

So... oil made from CO and H2, that's synthetic enough for me.

I see no dead dinosaur in here, just carbon monoxyde and hydrogene turning into oil, diesel, kerosene and others. That's Synthesis at it's best, AFAIK.

In theory, it can also be done starting from biomass or charcoal.

Smells like real, usefull, wise, elegant progress, doesn't it?

BTW, one of the other factors of building a GTL plant in Quatar is the fact that those gas resersves on that island are "stranded", it's cheaper to transform them then to transport them.

So I'm running the two GTL oils in the signature, 2000km so far, too soon to conclude, they just turn nice and smooth.

I guess I'm a Shell fanboy at this moment, but I have my reasons:

-I like the high detergent tradition in Shell oils.

-They are also the official Ferrari oil for over 60 years or so (!), recently they've become the BMW's oil too. Business, I know, but anyway... 60 years with Ferrari!

-I'm also impressed by the huge size of Shell's R&D assets, it makes me think that it's not me, the consumer, testing their oil, they've already done that. That's why I'm personally less found of small oil blenders.

-Very affordable, 46€/5L normally, but I had mine for 31€, many promos in supermarkets, down to 29,xx €/5L. That's in France.
And that's fine for my mid-OCI's (~8000 km)

I hope I'll be back with a little review after the OCI's end.
 
Last edited:
All of which gets you what?

Originally Posted By: zveroboy
I've fallen under GTL spell too.
Fischer-Tropsch process:
(2n + 1) H2 + n CO -> CnH(2n+2) + n H2O

So... oil made from CO and H2, that's synthetic enough for me.

I see no dead dinosaur in here, just carbon monoxyde and hydrogene turning into oil, diesel, kerosene and others. That's Synthesis at it's best, AFAIK.

In theory, it can also be done starting from biomass or charcoal.

Smells like real, usefull, wise, elegant progress, doesn't it?

BTW, one of the other factors of building a GTL plant in Quatar is the fact that those gas resersves on that island are "stranded", it's cheaper to transform them then to transport them.

So I'm running the two GTL oils in the signature, 2000km so far, too soon to conclude, they just turn nice and smooth.

I guess I'm a Shell fanboy at this moment, but I have my reasons:

-I like the high detergent tradition in Shell oils.

-They are also the official Ferrari oil for over 60 years or so (!), recently they've become the BMW's oil too. Business, I know, but anyway... 60 years with Ferrari!

-I'm also impressed by the huge size of Shell's R&D assets, it makes me think that it's not me, the consumer, testing their oil, they've already done that. That's why I'm personally less found of small oil blenders.

-Very affordable, 46€/5L normally, but I had mine for 31€, many promos in supermarkets, down to 29,xx €/5L. That's in France.
And that's fine for my mid-OCI's (~8000 km)

I hope I'll be back with a little review after the OCI's end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

bigjl
2019 Mercedes Metris with M274
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Bailes1992
V
0W challenge with passing LL-01
Replies
5
Views
2K
vinu_neuro
D
Any advantage?
Replies
8
Views
2K
dirtydannyd
S
PUP vs Shell gas & truck
Replies
15
Views
982
Merek
V
Highest viscosity euro 40wt oils
Replies
13
Views
669
FCD
Back
Top