PQIA tests ten 5W-20s - one gets an Advisory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Solarent: Not to speak on behalf of Shell, but I think it's funny how a single isolated test (even done by the good folks at PQIA) and people are declaring that GTL must be being added to PYB... yeah right - I don't believe that for one second.

There could be multiple reasons for these samples to have lower NOACK's that have nothing to do with GTL stocks. If anyone thinks for a second that they would have a high concentration of an expensive synthetic base and then sell it as a conventional - whether or not Shell has a surplus of GTL - they are crazy. There is an entire market for high quality Group III base stocks sold to blenders - if they had extra they would sell it to those of us who wanted to use it to make synthetic products and make top dollar.

And those bemoaning the Nextgen result and blaming it on using rerefined stocks shows a painful lack of understanding of the process. Most re-refined stocks go through the exact same kind of processing that heavy crudes (such bitumous crude) does and they produce base stocks of the same or better quality. If I were to provide you with two samples of base oil made from virgin and rerefined feedstocks I bet there isn't anyone on this board who could tell the difference.


Well stated Sol.

As I stated in post #3243045 there are many ways to formulate a conventional oil and get those kinds of specs without GTL.
 
Originally Posted By: Solarent
And those bemoaning the Nextgen result and blaming it on using rerefined stocks shows a painful lack of understanding of the process.

It doesn't matter. Ashland either botched the job or has some pi.. poor QC.
Either way Ashland put oil on the shelf that does not meet specs printed on the label.
Sorry i don't need to know the process to figure that out.

Originally Posted By: Solarent
If anyone thinks for a second that they would have a high concentration of an expensive synthetic base and then sell it as a conventional - whether or not Shell has a surplus of GTL - they are crazy.


As far as GTL or not how much does it cost Shell to produce as opposed to other base stocks? You made the statement its an expensive stock, i want to know how expensive.
You must be privy to this info or you wouldn't post it right?.
 
I think Ashland had a "flash-in-the-pan" deviation in their blending process.

The re-refined base oil that Ashland uses, at about 50% in their NextGen product, is essentially a very clean GroupII base oil.

The GTL economics analyses I have seen show that GTL base oils run from 1.9 to 2.3 X the price of crude oil derived base oils. They expect the GTL base oil prices to dip below the price of crude base oils in about three years.

They also showed that Shell's GTL refinery capital investment cost should be recouped in about 3.5 years from the sale of ALL GTL products.
 
Okay but there is another way at looking at it.
With manufacturers specs getting more stringent with every passing model year e.g GM Dexos and engines more demanding on motor oil with turbo chargers VVT, VCM and other hard on oil technologies, old school dino may be close to end of life.

SOPUS is investing heavily in GTL in Malaysia and Qatar. Others are following suit, one is planned by Pinto Energy LLC in the US and another by Sasol in Canada.
The abundance of gas and its lower price compared to ground oil is a real motivator.

Shell seems to have the drop on the other big players so IMHO its more than possible they see the writing on the wall for dino and may have a different long term plan.

The evidence shows something has been going on since Nov 2011 when the first low NOAK numbers appeared with Ultra which were also initially written off as a mistake.
Now just going by Shells PDF's they are going though some sort of re labeling process, PP and Ultra looks like it will be combined, so what's to happen to good old PYB and other SOPUS dino oils?

IMHO they wont kill it off but instead may improve it to the point that it meets some of these new specs like DEXOS 1 and GF 6.

IMHO they fully understand that people that change their own oil for the most part don't know or even care what the specs are, they buy what they or their family always did and for many that is PYB or other dino oils.
Other than BITOG the US is the least informed country I have seen regarding engine oils.
We see it here all the time, people howling and crying over a few bucks on a 5qt jug.

Maybe Shell feels it is in their best interest short term to up the ante on its dino line and avoid potential bad press when people buy and use it in newer engines than go for maximum profit.
I think its more than possible we see big changes in the SOPUS line up over the next few years depending on their long term strategy.

Like I said it doesn't matter how good or bad Valvolines base stock is for its re refined products or if its a "flash in the pan".
The bottom line is they turned a oil loose on the retail market that does not meet spec and have neither acknowledged it or recalled it.

That has nothing to do with the process but the companies business practices and QC.
Their actions or lack of are indefensible.

Of course this is all my opinion, that and 2 bucks will get me a medium coffee.
 
I find it interesting that while it appears SOPUS has tinkered with the base stocks on the PYB and QSGB, the add packs are identical to other SN tests of those we've seen. Temporary dump maybe?
 
Quote:
Of course this is all my opinion, that and 2 bucks will get me a medium coffee.


Next time I am in Mittlefrankern I will buy you a cup of coffee.
coffee2.gif
 
Last edited:
I was referring to those two specifically, sorry. QSGB is still over 200ppm boron and about 100 ppm moly just like it has been for a while. PYB the reverse, around 250 ppm moly and about 100 ppm boron, which is what its looked like in its SN version as well in every test I've seen.

Stuff we can't see I have no idea, maybe you do.
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Trav

SOPUS is investing heavily in GTL in Malaysia and Qatar. Others are following suit, one is planned by Pinto Energy LLC in the US and another by Sasol in Canada.
The abundance of gas and its lower price compared to ground oil is a real motivator.

Shell seems to have the drop on the other big players so IMHO its more than possible they see the writing on the wall for dino and may have a different long term plan.

I think the distinction of what is dino and what is synthetic has begun to loose it's technical if not marketing significance.
GP III base oils only cost the formulator less than 50 cents per quart over a GP II oil anyway as per Tom NJ in the following post:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3246866/2

Considering that the use of GP III and GTL base oils makes it easier (read cheaper) for a formulator to meet target specifications I'm sure we will continue to see more of their use in formulating so called conventional motor oils.
It's just another nail in the coffin of the marketing distinction between synthetic and conventional oil that's fostered on the general public when they make the choice of what oil to select when they take their car in for an oil change.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
It doesn't matter. Ashland either botched the job or has some pi.. poor QC.
Either way Ashland put oil on the shelf that does not meet specs printed on the label.
Sorry i don't need to know the process to figure that out.

My point was not that Ashland didn't botch the job - but that people who think re-refined base oil would automatically have a higher NOACK doesn't understand the process. When re-refined oil is used as a feedstock, the final product (the base oil Ashland buys) has the same characteristics as a similar base oil that was made from a "virgin" feedstock. NOACK has much more to do with the viscosity of the base oil and the distillation process then with the feedstock.

Originally Posted By: Trav

As far as GTL or not how much does it cost Shell to produce as opposed to other base stocks? You made the statement its an expensive stock, i want to know how expensive.
You must be privy to this info or you wouldn't post it right?.

Blenders and formulator outside of Shell's team have not yet been able to purchase the Shell GTL stocks. However based on their great specs as a Group III oil - anyone making synthetic oils would love to have the opportunity to work with it. It doesn't make sense for them to be putting it in oil which isn't marketed as synthetic, when there are those of us who would buy their "surplus" GTL (if they even actually have this surplus).

As Mola pointed out by blending high concentrations of Group II with the right PAO or Esters you can get lower NOACK without using a large percentage of synthetic group III base. This seems much more likely to me over changing the PYB formula to basically be a synthetic but still charging the cheaper conventional price(which is what adding a high concentration of the GTL would do).
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Solarent
There could be multiple reasons for these samples to have lower NOACK's that have nothing to do with GTL stocks.

Care to offer any alternative reasons?


From a formulation standpoint I can think of two ways to decrease NOACK with a GroupII:

1. Use a high percentage of low and medium vis GroupII and a very low percentage of very high viscosity PAO,
2. Use a high percentage of low and medium vis GroupII and a very low percentage of high vis polymer ester.

Of course, there are many combinations of various base oils and additive combos that could accomplish this.

OK, I guess I should have asked for alternative likely reasons and not just any reasons.
smile.gif


Wouldn't using PAO or high vis polymer esters be even more costly than using GTL? In addition, SOPUS typically doesn't use PAO or esters in their products, do they? They'd have to go out of their way to specifically purchase these components. On the other hand, they are sitting on a ton of GTL product. So wouldn't it be more likely that it's GTL that they're using here?
 
Exactly QP.
It all comes down to cost.
I wouldn't be surprised if QSAD if not PYB contains some GP II but who cares, it's the performance of the final product that counts and no other "conventional" 5W-20 that we know of comes close.
 
Most PCMO blends with SN contain a significant amount of Group II. In fact some companies don't use Group I at all anymore - part of this is because Group II is readily available and priced very competitively due to oversupply in the market.
 
Quote:
SOPUS typically doesn't use PAO or esters in their products, do they? They'd have to go out of their way to specifically purchase these components. On the other hand, they are sitting on a ton of GTL product. So wouldn't it be more likely that it's GTL that they're using here?


Yes they do use other components.

GTL right now is only about a 3.5 cSt base oil, so other components have to be used to get NOACK down and viscosity and VI up.

As stated before, there are many ways to approach a formulation to meet targeted specs.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
GTL right now is only about a 3.5 cSt base oil, so other components have to be used to get NOACK down and viscosity and VI up.

Yes other components to get the final viscosity but I don't think there is any concern about NOACK, that's one of the big inherent advantages of GTL.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: Doc Holiday
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: Doc Holiday
yet the rest of the specs/#'s isn't in the synthetic ball park.

In what way? TBN is high, viscosity@-30c is much lower with the SOPUS oils.


True, but the VI is 20 less. The VI doesn't look like a Synthetic #. Though they don't list it, I'd like to see the Flash Points. Synthetics are most always a good bit higher.


PU 5w20 SN, PDF dated dec 2011 has a VI of 155 and thats a GTL, sorry i don't see your point.
If anything it shows it may well have a good bit of GTL.


1st, please tell me that GTL stands for as I do not know. 2nd, I'm looking at the Plat. 5W20 TDS, VI is listed as 169. It's dated April 2011 GF-5, SN .
 
Valvoline's response....good or bad? I understand what they are trying to say, but still wondering why everyone else passed the test?? Hmm
Valvoline, a consumer division of Kentucky-based Ashland Inc., tested the product when it was manufactured and found that it met all requirements, said Thom Smith, the company’s vice president of lubricant technology. The discrepancy between Valvoline’s results and PQIA’s results were most likely due to the variability of the ASTM D 5800 test, Smith told Lube Report. “The varied testing results bring to light the industry concern with the ASTM test [D 5800]… and its inherent variability,” Smith wrote in an emailed response. He confirmed that Valvoline also used Procedure B of the Noack test.

Glenn said that PQIA would be willing to engage in a discussion with any relevant stakeholders about the variability of the Noack test if Valvoline believes it is a concern. However, PQIA uses a universal method to test all other samples of oil, he continued, pointing out that the question of variability seems to be separate from the issue at hand, which is that the Valvoline sample failed to meet standards when a slew of others did not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top