PAO properties compared to GTL? (Pennz PUP)

Status
Not open for further replies.
We have covered the decisions made in Qatar before … Western companies don't get to make decisions alone there - and when the government says allocate to LNG production that's what you're going to do. There is huge demand in places like S. Korea and Japan … these mega contracts carry serious penalties when supply is not met.

The majors all hold thousands of GTL/LNG patents … yet there is no rush by any of them to follow what Shell did …
Then comes the discussion over the Strait of Hormuz -vs- current and future pipelines to avoid that risk along with who shares the huge cost (and risks) of keeping the waterway open.
Complicated area to do business …
 
Originally Posted by 4WD
We have covered the decisions made in Qatar before … Western companies don't get to make decisions alone there - and when the government says allocate to LNG production that's what you're going to do. There is huge demand in places like S. Korea and Japan … these mega contracts carry serious penalties when supply is not met.

The majors all hold thousands of GTL/LNG patents … yet there is no rush by any of them to follow what Shell did …
Then comes the discussion over the Strait of Hormuz -vs- current and future pipelines to avoid that risk along with who shares the huge cost (and risks) of keeping the waterway open.
Complicated area to do business …

Not only that, Shell shelved plans to build another large scale GTL plant in Louisiana.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan



PAO is far better than GTL, which is considerably better than Group III, which is better than Group II.



PAO is not "far better" than GTL, one of the things about GTL is that it's performance is very close to that of PAO, but costs a lot less to produce.

In fact, if you read at the very beginning of this thread, Molakule says the following quote:

Quote
I think the GTL compares very well to PAO
 
Originally Posted by demarpaint
According to this thread: Oil MFG Doesn't Matter. Can we also take from it the base stock doesn't matter much either?

Ha! Yes, these are almost becoming anti-BITOG.
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by Gokhan
PAO is far better than GTL, which is considerably better than Group III, which is better than Group II.
PAO is not "far better" than GTL, one of the things about GTL is that it's performance is very close to that of PAO, but costs a lot less to produce.

In fact, if you read at the very beginning of this thread, Molakule says the following quote:
Quote
I think the GTL compares very well to PAO

This is quite arguable. Some put the GTL very close to the PAO; others put it very close to the plain Group III.

I think it depends (1) on the particular GTL base stock and/or (2) the property you're looking at.

For example, thinner Shell Pearl GTLs have poor NOACK -- 40% for 2.6 cSt, 12% for 4.1 cSt, while 2% for 7.6 cSt.

As far as the oil oxidation is concerned, which determines the length of the OCI and engine-deposit formation, GTL is nowhere near PAO.

As far as the protection against wear is concerned, which in large part is affected by the viscosity index of the base stock, GTL is probably comparable to PAO.

Arguably, my BOQI can tell you how GTL compares overall to PAO and other base oils.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted by dave1251
I wonder if the average poster here is aware GTL is a byproduct?


So is whey, yet it is most efficient protein source. What's the point?
 
Originally Posted by dave1251
I wonder if the average poster here is aware GTL is a byproduct?

Well GTL is actually a process, and the GTL lubricant base stocks are actually a portion of the unconverted oil, higher boiling than diesel, that is seperated via the vacuum distillation column, with the vacuum distillation column bottoms recycled to the reactor feed for another opportunity to be cracked into lower boiling higher value products, almost to extinction (there's typically a small purge stream to prevent high concentrations of polynuclear aromatics in the recycled unconverted oil, but I'm not sure the GTL process produces polynuclear aromatics, so it may be the remaining unconverted oil is recycled to extinction at the Bintulu and Pearl facilities).

So really for the Pearl facility, it's mote scvurate to say the GTL lube stocks are deliberately targeted extra products because a standalone fuels hydrocracker simply has a main atmospheric distillation column with some polishing strippers, and routes all the atmospheric column bottoms product as unconverted oil back to the reactor feed. Additional capital, operating, and maintenance costs associated with the vacuum column aren't a free ride.

Here's a link to a summary on a standalone fuels hydrocracking by the EIA I also posted years,ago for Molakule's education. In the simplified flow fiagram shown, insert a block for vacuum distillation in the recycle gas oil stream with lube base stocks coming out the top and sides and the remaining recycled gas oil coming out the bottom to better represent the portion of the Pearl facility that converts the high molecular weight material produced from natural gas into useful products.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9650

In an integrated petroleum refinery with both hydrocracking technology and fluid catalytic cracking technology, there's a greater synergy to route some or in most cases all the hydrocracker unconverted gas oil to the fluid catalytic cracking unit feed, as the FCCU process works extremely well on cracking high molecular weight parrafins into different lower boiling higher valued substances especially olefins like ethylene and propylene, and routing FCCU cycle oils in the diesel and heavier boiling range to the hydrocracker feed as these streams are high in aromatics which in turn means they have low cetane value compared to hydrocracker distillate fuels.

Again, there's an option to place a vacuum distillation column in the hydrocracker unconverted gas oil stream to produce lube stocks with this configuration if desired, but that scheme isn't very common.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Gokhan
VII-free GTL xW-30? I doubt it. I don't think they make thicker GTL than the 7.6 cSt.

http://abpetrochem.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/AB-BOOKLET-2018NEWEST-VERSION.pdf


Note the words I used
mid 80s
Shell XHVI - it was their slack wax process.

Rotella T back at turn of the century was reputed to be 90% XHVI, 10% GrI...so yes, VII free 15W30 was what they sold.

Here's an excerpt from one of the old product catalogues back in the day...I kept it.

DOC020914-02092014162444-0001-1 (1).JPG
 
Yeah, I believe Shell XHVI is their Bintulu, Malaysia, GTL, which has been in production long, long before their Pearl, Qatar, GTL. The main difference between the two is that, in the final stage of the processing, Bintulu GTL uses solvent dewaxing versus the catalytic dewaxing of Pearl GTL. Neither dewaxing technique has an obvious advantage to the other but the Pearl plant has a much higher capacity.

XHVI seems to have a little higher NOACK but also a little higher VI.

They don't seem to have a higher than 8.3 cSt XHVI though. So, it would have to have a small amount of VII to push the KV100 up to around 10 - 11 cSt. Probably just a few percent.
 
Probably just some thick group 1 to get the viscosity up a tad...Mobil was using and defending GrI "carrier oils" in the 80s.
Back in the day, the XHVI was advertised as "Mineral OIl with the performance of a synthetic"
XMO 15W30 was advertised as a premium Mineral
XMO-Hi (ad below) was a 40 grade, and I think 10W, and sold as their premium...definitely VM added.

XMO Hi.jpg
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
Probably just some thick group 1 to get the viscosity up a tad...Mobil was using and defending GrI "carrier oils" in the 80s.

That makes sense.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Yeah, I believe Shell XHVI is their Bintulu, Malaysia, GTL, which has been in production long, long before their Pearl, Qatar, GTL. The main difference between the two is that, in the final stage of the processing, Bintulu GTL uses solvent dewaxing versus the catalytic dewaxing of Pearl GTL. Neither dewaxing technique has an obvious advantage to the other but the Pearl plant has a much higher capacity.

XHVI seems to have a little higher NOACK but also a little higher VI.

They don't seem to have a higher than 8.3 cSt XHVI though. So, it would have to have a small amount of VII to push the KV100 up to around 10 - 11 cSt. Probably just a few percent.

On the contrary, catalytic dewaxing provides higher yield by chemically altering the structure of less desirable molecules to the structure of more desirable molecules, while solvent dewaxing can only solvate what desirable molecules are already present plus leaves some traces of solvent behind in the extracted product. Hence the trend to less solvent dewaxung and more catalytic dewaxing, including Shell shutting down a world scale solvent dewaxing operation in The Netherlands a few years ago that had been in operation a very long time.

https://www.icis.com/explore/resour...-oil-refinery-closures-to-change-market/

I beleive the Shell XHVI process is similar to the later XOM Visom process, and not GTL technology. However IIRC the Shell XHVI process uses solvent dewaxing along with hydrocracking.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1160814
 
Last edited:
Everything you wanted to know about GTL but you were afraid to ask.

From "Synthetics, Mineral Oils, and Bio-Based Lubricants: Chemistry and Technology" edited by Leslie R. Rudnick.

There are even what I call base-oil-quality index (BOQI) curves -- that is NOACK vs. CCS -- in the last page.

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]
 
The links are broken for me,
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Everything you wanted to know about GTL but you were afraid to ask.

From "Synthetics, Mineral Oils, and Bio-Based Lubricants: Chemistry and Technology" edited by Leslie R. Rudnick.

There are even what I call base-oil-quality index (BOQI) curves -- that is NOACK vs. CCS -- in the last page.

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top