Suncor selling its PetroCanada lubricants division

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
16,020
Location
Canada
Really curious if Petro-Canada oils will 'survive' this - they are a tiny player in the market, it would not take much for someone to buy it and fold it into something else...

It's sad - PC makes some of the best oils in the business, and I think were one of the 'pioneers' of the hydrocracking process that creates group II and III base oils.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/e...__lsa=3ab6-202d
 
Wow, this is an interesting development. Anti-competition laws may restrict the list of qualified bids.
I think it would be a good fit for Berkshire Hathaway.
 
They have an extremely strong presence in rural Saskatchewan (and I would assume Alberta and Manitoba) after Shell and then Imperial Oil started to scale back their rural operations. For the sake of the rural consumers, I hope they survive. While they don't have a huge retail presence, obviously, they do have a fair bit of service fill business. Maybe this can get them a better retail position.
 
Are we reading the same article?

Suncor is selling a lubricants manufacturing division which is the world's largest manufacturer of food-grade lubricants, according to the article. Doesn't sound like a small player to me, at least in one category of lubricants.

Suncor owns refineries, and they are not selling any refineries, so they will still be in the oil business. The article, to me, doesn't imply that PetroCan retail automotive oils are affected. The division offered for sale manufactures industrial lubricants, including food and pharma-grade mineral oils. Very different beast than 10W-30.

I don't see anything in there that would threaten the survival of Petro-Canada retail outlets, on the prairies or elsewhere.
 
Are you saying that its lubricant division only makes food grade lubricants and has nothing to do with motor oils or hydraulic fluids, or transmission fluids, or anything else? The point is, we don't know whether this will have an effect at all. That's why this is being discussed.

I was just spitballing the point as to what might happen if selling off the lubricants division would alter how Petro-Canada's lubricants are marketed. And that very well could have an effect on rural dwellers. What if the lubricants division takes the Shell route from some years ago, and decides that it wants to concentrate on retail sales of their lubricants, and simply doesn't supply them to their bulk fuel distributors? If you think this is impossible, go to Nistor's and tell them you want to buy some Pennzoil Platinum or Quaker State. Half the employees there don't even know that Pennzoil-Quaker State is owned by Shell and will simply tell you they sell Rotella and Formula Shell. The other employees who do know will tell you they aren't permitted to sell Pennzoil-Quaker State products, and that you must go through Bluewave.

Or, exactly nothing could happen. They could stick to their distributor, gas station, and service fill type model.
 
Originally Posted By: addyguy
Really curious if Petro-Canada oils will 'survive' this - they are a tiny player in the market, it would not take much for someone to buy it and fold it into something else...

It's sad - PC makes some of the best oils in the business, and I think were one of the 'pioneers' of the hydrocracking process that creates group II and III base oils.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/e...__lsa=3ab6-202d


Exxon Mobil Research & Engineering (EMRE) documents their company's development of lube hydrocracking and other lube hydroprocessing processes to go back to the 1920's (probably as Socony-Vacuum at that time).

LINK

See Figures 3 & 4 in the linked article. Any links you can provide showing PetroCanada predating this?
 
Last edited:
Will Petro-Canada oils survive this? (addguy)
What?
Petro-Canada is the brand name Suncor Energy decided to keep when they bought the company.
I think it highly unlikely the new owner of the lubricant division will make wholesale changes to the brand or supply chain that exists now.
That, as long as an investment group, government or Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund doesn't buy it for short term profit and run the place into the ground.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call them a Tiny player in the market. They have one of the biggest blending plants in Canada - and the base oil refinery.

My understanding is that everything is up for sale - the lubricant's business is a separate entity from Suncor's main business so there has been rumors for years that it would eventually be sold off.

I would assume that whoever buys it gets a contract to fill PetroCanada's Lubricants supply - as they move a lot of product (especially the Duron side of the equation). Could be a good opportunity if a new player wants to enter the Canadian market and needs some guaranteed throughput in a large plant.
 
I've also noticed this on their new www.herecomesPC11.com website:

Quote:
Will PC-11 engine oils be acceptable for gasoline engines?
Passenger Car OEMs do not recommend heavy duty diesel engine oils for gasoline applications. Diesel engines are designed differently than gasoline engines, especially with respect to the catalytic converter, and using a diesel engine oil in a gasoline engine can be detrimental to the performance of the engine.

I wonder if that means they are changing their approach with the CK-4 oils, because all of their current CJ-4 are either SM or SN as well.
 
I think we will see CK-4/SM or SN on the package, but no gasoline OEM certifications such as Dexos I which is now the case.
So no change there. Besides, the do it yourself HDEO in gasoline engines crowd, is small fish in a big pond.

FA-4 will be a mystery.
Maybe it will be the first HDEO not recommended for wet clutch or transmission applications, depending on friction modifiers.
Instead FA-4, PC-11B might be a designated fuel economy Diesel engine oil.
Will FA-4 pass GF-5 or GF-6 in the appropriate SAE grades?
Will CK-4 or FA-4 pass E6 or some currant European OEM specifications?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Solarent
I've also noticed this on their new www.herecomesPC11.com website:

That is interesting, but that's a massive hand-waving answer taken right out of Shell's playbook. Rotella doesn't belong in a gasser, according to them, yet they still get the gasoline rating on the HDEOs.

userfriendly: I don't think the proposed low HTHS HDEOs would pass E6, at least not under the current guise. E6-12 still requires an HTHS of 3.5 or greater. I imagine CK-4 in the high HTHS regime will be okay.
 
Garak;
As Shell pointed out, HDEO may not belong in a "gasser".
Add; especially where LSPI issues exist.
This may be the time and place to remove SM & SN from HDEO labels.
GF-6 is split along HTHS lines (GF-6A & B), further confusing spark ignition applications
in mixed fleet operations, that may have both CK-4 and FA-4 inventories.

More on that here:

http://www.gf-6.com/

http://pceo.com/

I can't understand why all the testing, when a simple "one arm bandit" will do?
 
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
I think we will see CK-4/SM or SN on the package, but no gasoline OEM certifications such as Dexos I which is now the case.
So no change there. Besides, the do it yourself HDEO in gasoline engines crowd, is small fish in a big pond.

FA-4 will be a mystery.
Maybe it will be the first HDEO not recommended for wet clutch or transmission applications, depending on friction modifiers.
Instead FA-4, PC-11B might be a designated fuel economy Diesel engine oil.
Will FA-4 pass GF-5 or GF-6 in the appropriate SAE grades?
Will CK-4 or FA-4 pass E6 or some currant European OEM specifications?


It depends on their DI package choice. My understanding is that if you want the GF-5 then you need to go with a low phos option, as the waivers on 800ppm phos limits will no longer apply. For GF-6 it will come down to detergent choice - so again something that may be technically possible, but more expensive - or maybe even not feasible depending on who the additive supplier is.

Regarding E6, there are some 5W30 CJ-4/E6 products out there, so I would expect that CK-4 would be the same. Garak makes a good point about the minimum HTHS on FA-4 - but I've heard rumors that ACEA might introduce a low HTHS HD Category with the new sequences out later this year.

I hope that whatever happens that PetroCanada (or whoever buys them) doesn't cheap out and downgrade the quality of the Duron product. that's one of my favorite HDEO's.
 
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
Garak;
As Shell pointed out, HDEO may not belong in a "gasser". Add; especially where LSPI issues exist.

With a magnesium package like Delvac 1, I wouldn't be so worried. Besides, I don't have direct injection. The oil companies do also have to remember mixed fleet sales.

I'd pay more attention to Shell's baloney about HDEO in gassers if they did two things. First, put their money where their mouths are and yank the API gasoline spec from all Rotella products. Secondly, make an A3/B4 lubricant widely available on North American shelves in a sensible container size.

As long as I understand the specifications on the oil, as in that it's obvious it's not an old Detroit Diesel type oil with nothing for phosphorus, and other specs match up, I'd still be confident in using HDEO in a gasser. If Mobil yanks the SM specification from Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 tomorrow, I doubt that I'd change anything.

Solarent: Is it hypothetically possible to blend a CJ-4, E7, E9 lubricant or a CJ-4, E6, E7, E9 lubricant in such a way as to be completely unsuitable for gasoline engines? Note that I separated the two options for a reason.
 
Haha;
I picked up straight away in the Q & A, and Shell being hypocritical.
I couldn't help notice their new 0w40 is CJ-4/SN, "but we don't recommend HDEO's in gasoline engines".
OK then, why is SN on the label?

Chevron's answer to the same question was more pragmatic.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Solarent: Is it hypothetically possible to blend a CJ-4, E7, E9 lubricant or a CJ-4, E6, E7, E9 lubricant in such a way as to be completely unsuitable for gasoline engines? Note that I separated the two options for a reason.


The main concern for the use of HDDEO in gasoline engines is the phosphorus levels and the impact it has on poisoning the Catalytic Converter. A typical 15W40 CJ-4 product has around 1100ppm phos vs 800ppm for a GF-5 product. Most consumers wouldn't use a 15W40 in a gasoline engine, so the API was ok with granting a waiver. However now with 5W30, 5W40 and 10W30 HDDEO becoming the standard there is more likely a chance of misapplication (or deliberate application in the case of some BITOGer's) of high phos formulas in gasoine engines. This is why the waiver is going away and you will need E6 level phos (max 800ppm) if you want to claim SN or SM on the fluid.

Hypothetically it is possible to blend something that would be completely unsuitable, although practically its unlikely as most current formulas would not blow up an engine. CJ-4, E7, E9 would be a mid/high-saps formula (max 1200 ppm phos) and would poison the TWC. You are more likely to be OK with E6 performance.

When you start looking at GDI engines, there are more factors at play - so I would probably avoid the use of HDDEO in GDI engines unless I was 100% confident in the detergent/dispersant package would not contribute to LSPI issues.
 
Two products that come to mind are;
Duron UHP 5w30, hths is 3.5, too high for FA-4, but could be SN as it passes E6.
Duron UHP 10w40, also E6, not available in NA, should pass SN.

I found Chevron's new formulations of Delo 400 SAE 10, 20 and 50 interesting.
What do you think they are up to?
 
Agreed but those are both CJ-4 products - what happens when they change to the CK-4 formulas? Based on what they posted in their Q&A they are hinting that PC-11 products would be no longer suitable for gasoline - maybe I'm reading too much into it, but to me that means they might not be able to hit the low phos requirements for E6 on the new products (otherwise SN would not be a problem).

I'm not sure what you mean about the Chevron products.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top