OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
So we've all been using GTL based oils for decades and haven't known it? Suddenly 'GTL' doesn't mean nearly as much as I thought it did prior. Well thanks, at least I know now
Yeah, kind of loses its shine eh? Shell uses FT and I think Pearl is the largest plant designed to produce base oils using that process. Mobil has a number of GTL plants IIRC, it's just that none of them produce base oils but rather other stuff, I believe mostly fuels? Their Qatar plant that was supposed to produce base oils and rival Pearl was eventually cancelled due to cost overruns.
I mean, the product of F-T synthesis is fantastic but now I think calling base oils GTL based only on the fact that whatever raw feedstock (from coal to petroleum to wood to cattle carcass) can wind up being called GTL product, just because of the inherent syngas step on the F-T train. Like I'm just wondering now why does the catalyst feedstock physical state even matter enough to make a distinction on the final product, now? Just to remind us how awesome catalysts are?
At least "F-T" identifies the actual process responsible for the high quality output. All this time I was mistakenly under the impression that GTL referred to F-T synthesis (or other valid process) in which the raw feedstock was originally a gas, from source to catalyst, see THAT would be worth mentioning GTL for IMO. Rather any organic matter feedstock of any physical state being used to produce syngas in the F-T process. Indirect liquefaction of coal involves a syngas step and the products, according to this new perspective, can technically be classified as GTL. Now what am I supposed to call actual GTL F-T oils of actual physical gas genesis?!
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Shell bet the farm on Pearl and spent a small fortune on it. I do believe it is the largest GTL plant designed to produced lubricant base stocks in existence. I'm not surprised they are advertising the heck out of it, they have an absolutely obscene amount of money tied up in it and it needs to make product that sells to hopefully recoup that.
Yeah they did, but last I heard (years ago) they weren't struggling too badly what with the methane glut and all. Accoridng to older articles (when the industry was swooning over NG GTL) they tailored their catalysts for shorter chain range of products which is mostly used for "gasoil" aka GTL-FT jet fuel, the same way Exxon is. That's where the sustainability bucks is, with lubricant base oils being low priority at Pearl, but I haven't checked recently what their output is like now.
Sorry I ruined it for you, LOL!
I could be wrong, but I don't believe any of the XOM Natural Gas plants are setup to produce base oils (unless that's a recent change which I speculated on earlier) because they don't utilize FT. They exist/existed primarily to serve the purpose you've already mentioned. I'm honestly not familiar enough with the topic to speak on the logistics of refitting an existing plant/operation to do FT, but based on the cost overruns on XOM's Qatar plant that was cancelled and what Shell has into Pearl, I'm guessing the costs are substantial.
XOM appears to prefer MTG (Methanol to Gasoline) as their syngas process because, as they state:
Originally Posted By: XOM
The most common technologies for converting syngas into liquids incorporate Fischer-Tropsch synthesis or Methanol synthesis (Methanol-to-Gasoline, MTG). Both Fischer-Tropsch and MTG routes can convert synthesis gas to liquid transportation fuels. However, their respective product slates are very different. The Fischer-Tropsch process typically produces a broad spectrum of straight-chain paraffinic hydrocarbons that can be further refined to produce commercial-quality gasoline, jet fuel and diesel. In contrast, MTG selectively converts methanol to one liquid product: ultra-low-sulfur, low-benzene regular octane gasoline. MTG gasoline meets the requirements for conventional gasoline, is fully compatible with refinery gasoline and meets the ASTM D4814 Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel.
That's from here:
https://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/en/pr...oline-synthesis
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
So we've all been using GTL based oils for decades and haven't known it? Suddenly 'GTL' doesn't mean nearly as much as I thought it did prior. Well thanks, at least I know now
Yeah, kind of loses its shine eh? Shell uses FT and I think Pearl is the largest plant designed to produce base oils using that process. Mobil has a number of GTL plants IIRC, it's just that none of them produce base oils but rather other stuff, I believe mostly fuels? Their Qatar plant that was supposed to produce base oils and rival Pearl was eventually cancelled due to cost overruns.
I mean, the product of F-T synthesis is fantastic but now I think calling base oils GTL based only on the fact that whatever raw feedstock (from coal to petroleum to wood to cattle carcass) can wind up being called GTL product, just because of the inherent syngas step on the F-T train. Like I'm just wondering now why does the catalyst feedstock physical state even matter enough to make a distinction on the final product, now? Just to remind us how awesome catalysts are?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Shell bet the farm on Pearl and spent a small fortune on it. I do believe it is the largest GTL plant designed to produced lubricant base stocks in existence. I'm not surprised they are advertising the heck out of it, they have an absolutely obscene amount of money tied up in it and it needs to make product that sells to hopefully recoup that.
Yeah they did, but last I heard (years ago) they weren't struggling too badly what with the methane glut and all. Accoridng to older articles (when the industry was swooning over NG GTL) they tailored their catalysts for shorter chain range of products which is mostly used for "gasoil" aka GTL-FT jet fuel, the same way Exxon is. That's where the sustainability bucks is, with lubricant base oils being low priority at Pearl, but I haven't checked recently what their output is like now.
Sorry I ruined it for you, LOL!
I could be wrong, but I don't believe any of the XOM Natural Gas plants are setup to produce base oils (unless that's a recent change which I speculated on earlier) because they don't utilize FT. They exist/existed primarily to serve the purpose you've already mentioned. I'm honestly not familiar enough with the topic to speak on the logistics of refitting an existing plant/operation to do FT, but based on the cost overruns on XOM's Qatar plant that was cancelled and what Shell has into Pearl, I'm guessing the costs are substantial.
XOM appears to prefer MTG (Methanol to Gasoline) as their syngas process because, as they state:
Originally Posted By: XOM
The most common technologies for converting syngas into liquids incorporate Fischer-Tropsch synthesis or Methanol synthesis (Methanol-to-Gasoline, MTG). Both Fischer-Tropsch and MTG routes can convert synthesis gas to liquid transportation fuels. However, their respective product slates are very different. The Fischer-Tropsch process typically produces a broad spectrum of straight-chain paraffinic hydrocarbons that can be further refined to produce commercial-quality gasoline, jet fuel and diesel. In contrast, MTG selectively converts methanol to one liquid product: ultra-low-sulfur, low-benzene regular octane gasoline. MTG gasoline meets the requirements for conventional gasoline, is fully compatible with refinery gasoline and meets the ASTM D4814 Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel.
That's from here:
https://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/en/pr...oline-synthesis
