A US court has blocked one of the crude "environmentalist" attempts over there to force the end of 100LL regardless of the economic consequences.
Together with the apparent imminent demise (at viable commercial levels, anyway) of 91UL, maybe we will have 100LL for quite a while longer.
If the 100LL crisis had resulted in more R&D going into avtur burners, the above would be bad news, but I don't think there is any mileage in that direction anyway. Turbines will never be cheap enough for light GA, and diesels are already available but need more years to prove themselves long-term.
I think Hjelmco in Sweden is still going strong. But what can one expect when EU taxes UL91 the same way it taxes leaded gas. Consumers are literally paying for lead emissions they do not make.
I guess this attitude sums up how EU sees GA. It's a group that comes with unnecessary pollution and otherwise is of no use to the society what so ever.
Please excuse my optimism. 
EDIT: It should be UL96 as pointed out below, not UL 91.
Isn't that 96UL?
I wonder what they put in to bring it up from 91 (100LL without the lead) to 96?
Yes sorry. It's UL96.
It's business as usual in the US - 'environmental' groups have been entertaining themselves in this manner for many years at both Federal and state level, never with any effect on Avgas except wasting the tax payers money.
Paying more tax for leaded fuel makes about as much sense as refusing to pay taxes because government hasn't supplied us with an alternate to 100LL. The cost of government employees and contractors does not vary with what kind of fuel we burn.
Government appointing itself as the happy recipient of taxes on that basis is altogether too much like State religion, an unpleasant European tradition that seems to have nine lives.
There are two octane measurement systems: RON (research octane number) and MON (motor octane number). The former is used for car fuels and determined using a research engine in a standard setup (100 = n-heptane). The latter is used for aviation fuels and determined in a more demanding research engine with higher RPM, hot fuel, variable ignition times etc. and is generally 10-20 points lower than RON.
So always be careful. I think Hjelmco use RON (96UL) whereas Total use MON (91UL). AVGAS 100LL has 100 MON and around 115 RON. What is sold as "Aral Ultimate 102" in Germany has a MON of 88.
And adding further confusion, Mogas in the US is sold with a pump octane number that is the average of RON and MON. That gives the same Mogas a lower pump octane number in the US. Apparently both test procedures have merit in determining performance in an engine.
However, AIUI, the Swedish 96UL is approved for a lot of engines including my IO540-C4D5D but 91UL isn't, as yet.
So it would not appear that 96UL has a lower octane than 91UL.
Hjelmco calls it 91/96UL and my guess it that it coresponds to 96 RON, 93 AKI and 91 MON.
Peter, from what I can read out of this Lycoming pdf your engine is approved for 91 MON octane.
