House ok's bill, re-refine more used motor oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
I think it's irresponsible to say it takes 42 gallons of crude to make 2.5 quarts of lubricating oil. This suggests that the rest of the crude is wasted.


No it doesn't. It comes down to simple reading comprehension and not assuming things. How does it suggest the remaining crude is wasted?
crazy.gif
 
Originally Posted By: SatinSilver
Originally Posted By: Kestas
I think it's irresponsible to say it takes 42 gallons of crude to make 2.5 quarts of lubricating oil. This suggests that the rest of the crude is wasted.

No it doesn't. It comes down to simple reading comprehension and not assuming things. How does it suggest the remaining crude is wasted?
crazy.gif


Probably because of goofy threads like this one, and posters calling the idea "obscene":

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4466095/1
 
Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist
Originally Posted By: sasilverbullet
So does anyone here know how many gallons of crude it takes to make one gallon of dino oil?

It's typically about 1-2% base oil refined from a barrel of crude. So ~1.5% of 42 gallons makes about 2.5 quarts.

So that means it takes roughly 66.67 gallons of crude for each gallon of lube oil.


Can someone break it down for us so we can get rid of the confusion. Are we only considering fractional distillation here, where only 1.5% of the hydrocarbon chains in the entire barrel of crude naturally fall into the viscosity range of lube oil?

If so, how is that fact relevant (ie why are suits repeating that mantra) when virtually all finished lube oils are hydro-cracked and processed to suit?? Would the usable feedstock of a barrel of oil for processing into suitable lube oils then be higher than 1.5%?
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: SatinSilver
Originally Posted By: Kestas
I think it's irresponsible to say it takes 42 gallons of crude to make 2.5 quarts of lubricating oil. This suggests that the rest of the crude is wasted.

No it doesn't. It comes down to simple reading comprehension and not assuming things. How does it suggest the remaining crude is wasted?
crazy.gif


Probably because of goofy threads like this one, and posters calling the idea "obscene":

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4466095/1

Oh jeez, now I feel bad for never having checked back in on that thread after my initial response.
crazy.gif
 
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Originally Posted By: andyd
and re-refining drain oil is bad? Where is the down side? Can it be cracked to make other things?


There is no downside
smile.gif



Especially to the re-refiners profit margins! Re-refiners don't pay to acquire their oil, people pay THEM to haul it off. Re-refiners also get a percentage of their process energy from the collected oil, driving costs down further. They also acquire other useful chemicals like ethylene and propylene glycols which they can flip as eco-frendly coolant. It's quite the business with a great ECO story to sell, also. When the price is right, re-refined is not a bad consumer choice IMO. Safety-Kleen always talks about how their stockpile is becoming more and more synthetic, that can't be a bad thing.
 
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Well, were they not distillers at one time?


Thats probably where he got the idea. Hopefully he starts taking flying lessons real soon.
 
Thus far PCMO re-refining has not been sustainable without government requirement. There is some technology involved that is not used in a typical crude oil refinery called thin film evaporation made necessary by the man-made additives added to base oil to make it into a lubricant. Those must be efficiently removed in order to recover and re-refine base stock suitable for blending into a lubricant once again.

Not all recycled PCMO is found suitable for re-refining. A significant portion of used oil collected by Safety Kleen is blended into fuel oil instead of re-refined. History has shown numerous technologies attempted such as feeding used PCMO to cokers to convert to fuels & petrochemicals with significant later coker unit mechanical integrity problems due to the additives in PCMO.

I have yet to see PCMO at retail priced competitively with PCMO made from virgin stocks, whether it be Valvoline Nextgen or Safety Kleen's product that was on Walmart shelves for a while last decade (excluding clearance sales of course). That indicates to me any cost or energy advantage claimed for re-refined PCMO base stock is only being examined with one eye open.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Well, were they not distillers at one time?


Thats probably where he got the idea. Hopefully he starts taking flying lessons real soon.
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Thus far PCMO re-refining has not been sustainable without government requirement.

I have yet to see PCMO at retail priced competitively with PCMO made from virgin stocks, whether it be Valvoline Nextgen or Safety Kleen's product that was on Walmart shelves for a while last decade (excluding clearance sales of course).

Because no one wants to buy it, not that I feel too badly for them with their low-overhead. I have my suspicions that some re-refiner base oils get into the branded "virgin" chain, where GrII is required but they have a real marketing problem on their hands. Makes sense the gov always wants to swoop in and procure cheap product for fleets but it's also looking like another corporate welfare deal where since re-refiners suffer paltry retail sales, they need legislation just to keep the product moving...
confused2.gif
 
On balance, I support the case for recycling used engine oils, even if this requires government support. This is especially true in the US, a market which has traditionally 'wasted' lube oil by virtue of the traditionally low OCIs employed there.

It has to be said that it is cheaper and far more convenient to make an oil from scratch. Importantly, it is also administratively easier to qualify oils made from fresh base oil against oil specifications. The OEMs, the oil companies & the AddCo's like the system the way it is (for not unreasonable reasons) and aren't the biggest cheerleaders for recycling.

However I do think it's philosophically important in this day and age not to 'waste stuff'. I wouldn't throw away a couple of gallons of gasoline every year, just because I could! Also base oil (typically 90%+ of any engine oil) is, as bulk hydrocarbons go, quite expensive because of all of the complex refining processing it goes through.

On the technical side, although at first I was very anti, when I started to look at recycled base quality, I was surprisingly impressed. There are three reasons. First there is no segregation of feedstock to recycling plants; everything goes into one feed tank. This means recycled base oil usually has a semi synthetic character and is a mix of Group II/III/IV. Second, while most oils don't really heavily oxidise in real life conditions, where they do, it's the most unstable part of the base oil that get zapped and turns to sludge. This stuff gets removed when you recycle base oil. Likewise, any very light volatiles get removed from the oil over a typical OCI. Put all this together and you tend to end up with a part-synthetic, highly oxidatively stable, low Noack recycled base oil.

Don't believe the scare stories. Recycled base oil is IMO quite good stuff for your engine so why not give it a go...
 
Last edited:
Whilst you can recover decent quality base oil from used oil, it's nigh on impossible to recover individual usable additives from it.

So the 10%+ of black gunk that's left over from base oil recycling (a mix of ZDDP, Detergent, Ashless, VII polymer and soot) does probably get dumped in asphalt. Alternatively you might use it as a fuel supplement in cement kilns.
 
Good summary … to meet standards some plants have upgraded GII+ kit so even the low end of the recycled mix is decent stuff. (11 NOACK?) … longer OCI’s are starting to happen … but it was a 3k/3m cult here forever …

Betting they go after oil filters at some point too …
 
Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist
Originally Posted By: sasilverbullet
So does anyone here know how many gallons of crude it takes to make one gallon of dino oil?

It's typically about 1-2% base oil refined from a barrel of crude. So ~1.5% of 42 gallons makes about 2.5 quarts.

So that means it takes roughly 66.67 gallons of crude for each gallon of lube oil.


This still leaves out a variety of key elements.

The other 65.67 gallons of crude that were required to make a gallon of motor oil were used for what? Energy to drive the process? Wastes that went to the incinerator?

I cannot say what fraction of a barrel of oil could be used to make lubricating oil products if that was the major demand. It's not like the other gallons are spent in a wasteful manner.
 
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Thus far PCMO re-refining has not been sustainable without government requirement. There is some technology involved that is not used in a typical crude oil refinery called thin film evaporation made necessary by the man-made additives added to base oil to make it into a lubricant. Those must be efficiently removed in order to recover and re-refine base stock suitable for blending into a lubricant once again.

Not all recycled PCMO is found suitable for re-refining. A significant portion of used oil collected by Safety Kleen is blended into fuel oil instead of re-refined. History has shown numerous technologies attempted such as feeding used PCMO to cokers to convert to fuels & petrochemicals with significant later coker unit mechanical integrity problems due to the additives in PCMO.

I have yet to see PCMO at retail priced competitively with PCMO made from virgin stocks, whether it be Valvoline Nextgen or Safety Kleen's product that was on Walmart shelves for a while last decade (excluding clearance sales of course). That indicates to me any cost or energy advantage claimed for re-refined PCMO base stock is only being examined with one eye open.


It would be interesting to see the process in detail. I have to wonder if there's a lot of expensive adsorbents or other methods to remove additives. Or, if as you mentioned regarding mechanical integrity, they have to amortize plant equipment faster to cover damages?
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Thus far PCMO re-refining has not been sustainable without government requirement. There is some technology involved that is not used in a typical crude oil refinery called thin film evaporation made necessary by the man-made additives added to base oil to make it into a lubricant. Those must be efficiently removed in order to recover and re-refine base stock suitable for blending into a lubricant once again.

Not all recycled PCMO is found suitable for re-refining. A significant portion of used oil collected by Safety Kleen is blended into fuel oil instead of re-refined. History has shown numerous technologies attempted such as feeding used PCMO to cokers to convert to fuels & petrochemicals with significant later coker unit mechanical integrity problems due to the additives in PCMO.

I have yet to see PCMO at retail priced competitively with PCMO made from virgin stocks, whether it be Valvoline Nextgen or Safety Kleen's product that was on Walmart shelves for a while last decade (excluding clearance sales of course). That indicates to me any cost or energy advantage claimed for re-refined PCMO base stock is only being examined with one eye open.


It would be interesting to see the process in detail. I have to wonder if there's a lot of expensive adsorbents or other methods to remove additives. Or, if as you mentioned regarding mechanical integrity, they have to amortize plant equipment faster to cover damages?


Safety-Kleen has a re-refining lube oil process overview for their approach as part of a video on their web site and on youtube. It doesn't show any specialized adsorbents but the man-made additives are permanent poisons for the hydrotreating catalyst. Evidently plain distillation is too violent to reject enough of the man-made additives so thin film evaporation, not a typical step in crude oil refining, is incorporated as a process step. I don't think the capital cost per barrel of throughput is exorbitant on thin film evaporation but perhaps that's the key. I do think thin film evaporation may be significantly more energy intensive per barrel of throughput relative to distillation. Hydrotreating catalyst can undergo several regeneration cycles and be re-used several times if most of the permanent catalyst poisons are removed from the oil before it reaches the catalyst. However each regeneration cycle does some degree of irreparable damage to the catalyst pore structure, so it can't be regenerated indefinitely. This approach thus includes catalyst regeneration costs as well as eventual fresh catalyst purchases and completely spent catalyst metals reclamation and disposal costs. It furthermore requires purchased hydrogen as unlike a typical petroleum refinery there's no integral naphtha reformer or hydrogen plant to generate hydrogen.



There's also a youtube video regarding solvent extraction being used to re-refine used lube oil in Europe, It's shown to use propane as a solvent so it's similar to propane deasphalting technology for a conventional crude oil refinery. No hydrotreating is required of the recovered base oil in this approach. Evidently yields of recovered base stock are similar to Safety Kleen's process.



It would be interesting to see both a capital cost & operating cost comparison for these two technology approaches for the same size re-refinery. Offhand, it would appear proane extraction is a simpler processing scheme with no hydrotreating involved thus no need for hydrogen or catalyst purchases but there isn't really enough detail in either video.

Interestingly, the Yabucoa refinery on Puerto Rico has been converted at least in part for re-refining lube oils from the Caribbean. Sunoco used to produce base oils at that refinery years ago, then it was purchased by Shell around 1991 and run as a more conventional refinery to produce fuels and petrochemical feedstocks, then it was shut down in 2009. They're actually producing their hydrogen electrolytically by cracking water, very energy intensive vs. typical conversion of natural gas and steam to hydrogen and CO2 via steam methane reforming.


http://www.oleinrefinery.com/process-oleinrefinery.html
 
The mechanical integrity issues were at Lyondell when they tried incorporating used motor oils as coker feed. I expect they experienced eutectics not otherwise foreseen from the metallic components of lube oil additives vs. what's present in crude oil, at the severe operating conditions of a coker, but that's an educated guess. I haven't seen a formal writeup. It's mentioned in an article in a prior post I made in this thread, in Link 1.

Here's an overview of delayed coking process. Note the coker main fractionator bottoms are recycled to extinction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_coker
 
Last edited:
This 'it takes so much crude oil to make X litres of virgin base oil' argument is a bit bogus and rather unnecessary. It's a bit like saying it needs a one tonne cow to make X amount of fillet steak. It's axiomatic that you don't breed cattle JUST for the best bits! In fact refining crude oil is very like butchery. The trick is to try and 'use everything' in the most efficient way with the least wastage.

It's a bit gushy for my taste but there's a Safety-Kleen video about waste oil recycling here...

https://youtu.be/XhreBkmfosg

The process engineering is somewhat more complicated than I first imagined. I wouldn't have anticipated having to recover ethylene glycol (antifreeze) from used lubricant. I suspect this isn't so much a case of as it accumulating in the oil over a typical OCI but more a case of waste oil and waste antifreeze being dumped in the same waste collection system at the auto-shop. Also I'm surprised that they hydro-treat given that all US base oil is now all heavily hydro-processed when it's first made. This might be a throw back from the days when Group I was still used.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top