wemay
Site Donor 2023
I know it's classified as a GrpIII so if not 'a step forward' then what difference does it make over non-GTL GrpIII base stocks?
Shell's GTL technology: A step up from Group III?
- Thread starter wemay
- Start date
- Status
omg - you've hit on the reason I joined this site!!!
The professors will slaughter me for this, but all I know of tribology, chemistry, and lubricant, it seems to me like yes, GTS is a Group III "+" base stock.
Why? API allows about anything to be used as feedstock - crude, mouse milk, methane, whatever. So.......like most things, the purer you start with, the less contaminant carries over.
One of the few contaminants found in methane wells is H2S, which is normally scrubbed out. So....if one hydrolyzes methane into liquid HC's, one has a purer base stock, no? Less subject to oxidation, creates fewer deposits, etc.
How much better? Depends what is used by others for feed stocks. This, and undoubtedly a slew of dispersant/detergent additive, is why I switched to Pennzoil Ultra from other witches brew's out there. Gone are the days of PAO Group IV (+ ester carrying agent).
*cowering in fear*
The professors will slaughter me for this, but all I know of tribology, chemistry, and lubricant, it seems to me like yes, GTS is a Group III "+" base stock.
Why? API allows about anything to be used as feedstock - crude, mouse milk, methane, whatever. So.......like most things, the purer you start with, the less contaminant carries over.
One of the few contaminants found in methane wells is H2S, which is normally scrubbed out. So....if one hydrolyzes methane into liquid HC's, one has a purer base stock, no? Less subject to oxidation, creates fewer deposits, etc.
How much better? Depends what is used by others for feed stocks. This, and undoubtedly a slew of dispersant/detergent additive, is why I switched to Pennzoil Ultra from other witches brew's out there. Gone are the days of PAO Group IV (+ ester carrying agent).
Last edited:
IIRC GTL are group 5. Could be mistaken very well might be.
It all depends on how you look at it. Each group seems to have there own advantage and disadvantage over other groups. With the exception of group 2&3 being virtually the same thing just refined better.
It all depends on how you look at it. Each group seems to have there own advantage and disadvantage over other groups. With the exception of group 2&3 being virtually the same thing just refined better.
Originally Posted By: 3800Series
IIRC GTL are group 5. Could be mistaken very well might be.
It all depends on how you look at it. Each group seems to have there own advantage and disadvantage over other groups. With the exception of group 2&3 being virtually the same thing just refined better.
GTL is a variant of group III.
IIRC GTL are group 5. Could be mistaken very well might be.
It all depends on how you look at it. Each group seems to have there own advantage and disadvantage over other groups. With the exception of group 2&3 being virtually the same thing just refined better.
GTL is a variant of group III.
What he said...
John.
John.
JHZR2
Staff member
When are people going to learn that grouping really doesn't matter?
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
GTL is a process. It can be used to make a variety of things.
One of its applications is to make Group III+ base stocks.
Which then, apparently is hydrocracked before being made into a finished motor oil.
If GTL feedstocks have to be severely hydrocracked then that explains why the Pearl plant is alone.
GTL is a process. It can be used to make a variety of things.
One of its applications is to make Group III+ base stocks.
Which then, apparently is hydrocracked before being made into a finished motor oil.
If GTL feedstocks have to be severely hydrocracked then that explains why the Pearl plant is alone.
Originally Posted By: 3800Series
IIRC GTL are group 5. Could be mistaken very well might be.
It all depends on how you look at it. Each group seems to have there own advantage and disadvantage over other groups. With the exception of group 2&3 being virtually the same thing just refined better.
Yeah, just give me a Group III or Group III+ and I'll be a happy camper.
IIRC GTL are group 5. Could be mistaken very well might be.
It all depends on how you look at it. Each group seems to have there own advantage and disadvantage over other groups. With the exception of group 2&3 being virtually the same thing just refined better.
Yeah, just give me a Group III or Group III+ and I'll be a happy camper.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
GTL is a process. It can be used to make a variety of things.
One of its applications is to make Group III+ base stocks.
Which then, apparently is hydrocracked before being made into a finished motor oil.
If GTL feedstocks have to be severely hydrocracked then that explains why the Pearl plant is alone.
F-T does make a pretty wide distribution of products, and makes LOTS of waxes. F-T has major heat and recycle issues that drive to special reactor designs, and then the products are severely treated. GTL gets called Grp III because that is where they reside according to chemical functionality. Since they are produced from a reaction that polymerizes CO and H, they cannot be defined as group IV (synthesized hydrocarbon, generally alpha olefin polymers) or V (generally defined as products of reactions of acids and alcohols). Keep in mind that the use of base stock group numbers has changed over time, and some have even been removed!
From the shell patent
Quote:
Suitable base oils for use in the lubricating oil composition of the present invention are Group III mineral base oils, Group IV poly-alpha olefins (PAOs) , Group III Fischer-Tropsch derived base oils and mixtures thereof.
By "Group III" and "Group IV" base oils in the present invention are meant lubricating oil base oils according to the definitions of American Petroleum Institute (API) for category III and IV. These API categories are defined in API Publication 1509, 15th Edition, Appendix E, April 2002.
Fischer-Tropsch derived base oils are known in the art. By the term "Fischer-Tropsch derived" is meant that a base oil is, or is derived from, a synthesis product of a Fischer-Tropsch process. A Fischer-Tropsch derived base oil may also be referred to as a GTL (Gas-To-Liquids) base oil. Suitable Fischer-Tropsch derived base oils that may be conveniently used as the base oil in the lubricating composition of the present invention are those as for example disclosed in EP 0 776 959, """ O "~
It's also pretty telling in terms of what they'd like vs what they can do practically to meet specs.
Quote:
There is a strong preference for using a Fischer- Tropsch derived base oil over a PAO base oil, in view of the high cost of manufacture of the PAOs. Thus, preferably, the base oil contains more than 50 wt.%, preferably more than 60 wt.%, more preferably more than 70 wt.%, even more preferably more than 80 wt.%. most preferably more than 90 wt.% Fischer-Tropsch derived base oil. In an especially preferred embodiment not more than 5 wt.%, preferably not more than 2 wt.%, of the base oil is not a Fischer-Tropsch derived base oil. It is even more preferred that 100 wt% of the base oil is based on one or more Fischer-Tropsch derived base oils. The total amount of base oil incorporated in the lubricating composition of the present invention is preferably present in an amount in the range of from 60 to 99 wt. %, more preferably in an amount in the range of from 65 to 90 wt.% and most preferably in an amount in the range of from 70 to 85 wt.%, with respect to the total weight of the lubricating composition.
So they can get away with meeting viscosity specs including 5w and 0w with a majority stake of these GTL group III bases.
http://www.google.com/patents/EP2398872A1?cl=en
F-T makes lots of waxy byproduct, due to the way plants must be run for thermal control. I've actually been part of a project in the past that was able to adjust the Anderson Schultz flory distribution by having better, innovative methods for thermal management. Those approaches are now licensed last I heard. But regardless, there is lots of post processing to get the right hydrocarbon distribution and wax management from F-T. Those processes are similar between slack wax and F-T wax, which is also likely a reason why they keep them the same.
IIRC, the GTL products are higher than the XHVI slack wax products, so likely drive the group III+ unofficial designation. Remember that vi is one of the main elements of the first three base groups.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
GTL is a process. It can be used to make a variety of things.
One of its applications is to make Group III+ base stocks.
Which then, apparently is hydrocracked before being made into a finished motor oil.
If GTL feedstocks have to be severely hydrocracked then that explains why the Pearl plant is alone.
F-T does make a pretty wide distribution of products, and makes LOTS of waxes. F-T has major heat and recycle issues that drive to special reactor designs, and then the products are severely treated. GTL gets called Grp III because that is where they reside according to chemical functionality. Since they are produced from a reaction that polymerizes CO and H, they cannot be defined as group IV (synthesized hydrocarbon, generally alpha olefin polymers) or V (generally defined as products of reactions of acids and alcohols). Keep in mind that the use of base stock group numbers has changed over time, and some have even been removed!
From the shell patent
Quote:
Suitable base oils for use in the lubricating oil composition of the present invention are Group III mineral base oils, Group IV poly-alpha olefins (PAOs) , Group III Fischer-Tropsch derived base oils and mixtures thereof.
By "Group III" and "Group IV" base oils in the present invention are meant lubricating oil base oils according to the definitions of American Petroleum Institute (API) for category III and IV. These API categories are defined in API Publication 1509, 15th Edition, Appendix E, April 2002.
Fischer-Tropsch derived base oils are known in the art. By the term "Fischer-Tropsch derived" is meant that a base oil is, or is derived from, a synthesis product of a Fischer-Tropsch process. A Fischer-Tropsch derived base oil may also be referred to as a GTL (Gas-To-Liquids) base oil. Suitable Fischer-Tropsch derived base oils that may be conveniently used as the base oil in the lubricating composition of the present invention are those as for example disclosed in EP 0 776 959, """ O "~
It's also pretty telling in terms of what they'd like vs what they can do practically to meet specs.
Quote:
There is a strong preference for using a Fischer- Tropsch derived base oil over a PAO base oil, in view of the high cost of manufacture of the PAOs. Thus, preferably, the base oil contains more than 50 wt.%, preferably more than 60 wt.%, more preferably more than 70 wt.%, even more preferably more than 80 wt.%. most preferably more than 90 wt.% Fischer-Tropsch derived base oil. In an especially preferred embodiment not more than 5 wt.%, preferably not more than 2 wt.%, of the base oil is not a Fischer-Tropsch derived base oil. It is even more preferred that 100 wt% of the base oil is based on one or more Fischer-Tropsch derived base oils. The total amount of base oil incorporated in the lubricating composition of the present invention is preferably present in an amount in the range of from 60 to 99 wt. %, more preferably in an amount in the range of from 65 to 90 wt.% and most preferably in an amount in the range of from 70 to 85 wt.%, with respect to the total weight of the lubricating composition.
So they can get away with meeting viscosity specs including 5w and 0w with a majority stake of these GTL group III bases.
http://www.google.com/patents/EP2398872A1?cl=en
F-T makes lots of waxy byproduct, due to the way plants must be run for thermal control. I've actually been part of a project in the past that was able to adjust the Anderson Schultz flory distribution by having better, innovative methods for thermal management. Those approaches are now licensed last I heard. But regardless, there is lots of post processing to get the right hydrocarbon distribution and wax management from F-T. Those processes are similar between slack wax and F-T wax, which is also likely a reason why they keep them the same.
IIRC, the GTL products are higher than the XHVI slack wax products, so likely drive the group III+ unofficial designation. Remember that vi is one of the main elements of the first three base groups.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Thank you JHZR2. I researched but could find nothing like what you've postedl
Kudos to JHZR2!!!
It is as I deduced - GTL produces Group III+ quality base stock (recall that API Base Stock Groups define MINIMUM quality levels, such as % saturated hydrocarbons, etc.).
This MAY help explain SOPUS's touting of the cleaner pistons from the Sequence III engine test.
This is why I changed from Mobil 1 to PU - not that there is anything WRONG with Mobil 1 - just that I think PU is a better product for equivalent money.
It is as I deduced - GTL produces Group III+ quality base stock (recall that API Base Stock Groups define MINIMUM quality levels, such as % saturated hydrocarbons, etc.).
This MAY help explain SOPUS's touting of the cleaner pistons from the Sequence III engine test.
This is why I changed from Mobil 1 to PU - not that there is anything WRONG with Mobil 1 - just that I think PU is a better product for equivalent money.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
When are people going to learn that grouping really doesn't matter?
Humans are biologically programmed to put all things in their world into groups, but I'm confident you already knew that. Since it's no longer essential as a survival skill, we've turned that instinct to other thing like engine oil base stocks.
We just can't help ourselves, we have to group everything.
When are people going to learn that grouping really doesn't matter?
Humans are biologically programmed to put all things in their world into groups, but I'm confident you already knew that. Since it's no longer essential as a survival skill, we've turned that instinct to other thing like engine oil base stocks.
We just can't help ourselves, we have to group everything.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Like JHZR2 mentioned, the grouping may not be of any significance when the different brands still meet the same certifications and approvals. Just being curious all the same.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
When are people going to learn that grouping really doesn't matter?
Then how else do you explain why Mobil conventional oil Group II does not perform nearly as well in Boundary Lubrication (BL) as Mobil1 synthetic Group III ? The graph below is from a research project at Oak Ridge National Labs with GM, and they accidentally showed a result that Mobil wishes nobody sees:
Mobil conventional has a comparable, if not more, additive package density as Mobil1 synthetic. Further proof that Group matters is when you notice German Castrol 0w30 or 0w-40 performs to LL-01 and MB 229.5 without any boron or moly helper additives, so we're left with the conclusion Group matters. Still not convinced? How do you explain why NO dexos1 oils are Group II ?
When are people going to learn that grouping really doesn't matter?
Then how else do you explain why Mobil conventional oil Group II does not perform nearly as well in Boundary Lubrication (BL) as Mobil1 synthetic Group III ? The graph below is from a research project at Oak Ridge National Labs with GM, and they accidentally showed a result that Mobil wishes nobody sees:
Mobil conventional has a comparable, if not more, additive package density as Mobil1 synthetic. Further proof that Group matters is when you notice German Castrol 0w30 or 0w-40 performs to LL-01 and MB 229.5 without any boron or moly helper additives, so we're left with the conclusion Group matters. Still not convinced? How do you explain why NO dexos1 oils are Group II ?
Last edited:
Bingo, Crawfish Tails!!
Base Stock & lubricant FILM STRENGTH are critical to wear prevention, much less oxidation resistance & longevity.
I choose a better base stock based on the evidence I have seen to date = GTL for Group III. Provides excellent film strength (according to 540 RAT's tests) and optimum cleanliness, according to SOPUS's Sequence III test results.
Similar price to M1, good enough for moderate OCI's.
What's not to like?
Base Stock & lubricant FILM STRENGTH are critical to wear prevention, much less oxidation resistance & longevity.
I choose a better base stock based on the evidence I have seen to date = GTL for Group III. Provides excellent film strength (according to 540 RAT's tests) and optimum cleanliness, according to SOPUS's Sequence III test results.
Similar price to M1, good enough for moderate OCI's.
What's not to like?
Just answering the OP's original question, I've not seen any solid evidence that GTL is really that fantastic. Intuitively it seems a cleaner base stock, with very very little waxy stuff left in it would perform better, so its preferable, I'd guess anyway.
LubricatusObsess, remember those SOPUS cleaner piston marketing items were there before GTL hit the scene.
LubricatusObsess, remember those SOPUS cleaner piston marketing items were there before GTL hit the scene.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
