What are GTL base stocks? How do they compare to PAOs and GpIIIs? 

It is, but PAO uses ethylene gas, not methane gás. This methane is extracted from natural gas or wax as in so called Shell GTL (Group III+).

@@tomasnokechtesledger1786 Mobil invented GTL, before Shell? That was from natural gas. G IV PAO = Polymerized, Alpha Olefin (Full, natural, HC molecules) Is Mr LE being sponsored?

@@lesliedsouza4077 Different processes, since PAO don't use Fisher-Tropish, I'm affraid. Mr. LE IS LEGET anyway. He's a great internet asset with an absurd knowledge, we get for free. Let's Be more thankful for him. I learn more from Mr. Le in 6 months that from Mr. Molakule in 16 years on BITOG.

Hi Mr D'Souza. There's a couple of things to tease out in your question. Let's do technical first: Yes, PAOs are start their life as ethylene, which is a gas. However, "GTL" is a specific industry term for liquids formed from natural gas. As a raw feedstock, ethylene is "purer" than natural gas, which accounts for many of the performance differences between the two, but natural gas is much cheaper, which account for the differences in price. PAO, and especially mPAO is always going to come out on top in pure performance terms, but for price/performance ratio GTL probably has the edge. Second, let's address the history. The basics of the GTL process were discovered in the 1920s by the two gentlemen that give their names to the Fischer-Tropsch process. However, the process of converting CO and H2 into higher c-number molecules was inefficient (~40%). Several companies did R&D work in the 1980s, specifically around finding catalysts that improved efficiencies up to around 80%. Exxon and Shell seemed to be the frontrunners in these technologies; post-merger ExxonMobil looked at up to 10 sites for GTL plants and from what I understand they settled on one in Qatar. I believe Shell's main GTL plant in Qatar was intended to be a JV between the two, but ExxonMobil backed out to focus their capital in LNG facility investments, which they felt would be more profitable for their natural gas assets. Since then, Shell has built a smaller facility in South East Asia and a few other companies have built smaller ones, but Pearl GTL in Qatar continues to dominate the market. Thirdly, let's talk about the future of GTL. Building a GTL plant is extremely capital-intensive, and as ExxonMobil showed you have to make a decision between converting gas to liquid products, or building an LNG plant to sell LNG. The economics of both options are very different. If you want to sell GTL lubricant base oils you also need two things: access to a gas field and a base stocks company. This leaves only three players in Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron. ExxonMobil and Chevron have displayed no interest, so that leaves the GTL market to Shell, who really have no incentive to build new facilities. As the only player, if demand for GTL products increases they can just raise their prices. Finally, let's talk sponsorships. RU-vid is governed by USA consumer law and all sponsored content must be disclosed (you'll often see a "includes paid promotion" watermark on such videos). None of my videos to date have been sponsored, nor is the channel. As much as I would like to earn a little money, I feel there's more value in the channel remaining "brand agnostic" so that the focus is on technologies rather than specific products. For this reason, I have no intention to accept paid sponsorships in future; I might make an exception if a lab or oil testing company approached me just because it would give me access to technical resources that I think would be useful to the audience, but lubricant brands are off the table. Hope that clears up a few things.

Hi! Thanks for your kind words. To be honest, Mr Molakule is clearly more knowledgable about lubricants and formulations than I am - it's just that the BITOG forum is not the most efficient way to teach. I think that's where it's really the RU-vid platform that holds the advantage.

Thanks for the feedback! Funnily enough I'm a former Mobil LE myself. And you're right - intuitively it doesn't make sense - it's just based on some experimental data that I've seen.

Wow, heavy weights oil heada around here...

Yeah that'd definitely help. The lack of transparency in the industry is a little alarming. We get a full list of ingredients for food we eat - why not lubricants?

Never gonna happen

Penrite is the only Australian brand I've seen that's pretty transparent on zinc/phosphorus/calcium content of their oils, about the only data you'll get from anyone else is simple viscosity/cold flow test results.

Yes! Very true, I neglected to mention solubility but you're right. Not needing a co-base is a big advantage. Would it be too much of a stretch to suggest you might work in the base stock industry? If so, would you like to come on as an interview guest? Or maybe someone you work with? lubrication.explained@gmail.com

Yeah GTL has a very good price/performance ratio.

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks!

I believe that the percentage is vanishingly small, purely because crude oil refining is cheaper. In certain location like South Africa it makes sense but you need a specific set of conditions to make it work - access to gas but not oil, and a decent diesel market that is far away from most refineries.

I haven't seen any data personally, but I'd assume Aromatics based on their ring structure and polarity.

I believe it’s 100% GTL but I could be wrong.

I think technically yes - but there are probably more efficient methods to turn ethanol or methanol into higher MW hydrocarbons.

Keep dreaming, buddy