This begs the question as to what happened with GAMI’s 100UL fuel. This PDF article is nearly 4 years old.
There are various claims posted around the place saying that refineries don’t like 100LL because it contains lead and they have to carefully separate the plant used to produce it from plant used to produce other fuels. It is claimed this won’t be necessary when the lead is removed. But surely the industry has to prevent cross-contamination anyway?
AFAIK, GAMI didn’t (and still doesn’t) have any political support within the FAA (unlike Swift), so that certification testing etc. takes ages. It is indeed my impression that while GAMI has great engineers, they completely lack “political” skill, an indispensible virtue in the certified aircraft business.
All bona fide aviation fuels have to have dedicated handling. Remember they can be used for public transport. That means that truck deliveries have to only carry one product, avgas/Jet in order to avoid cross contamination. Ships and pipeline are a little different. At all stages in the process there has to be traceability. Loadings to and from a ship have to be traceable with a certificate of analysis. The despatch tank must have a current analysis of it contents. Truck loadings are assumed to have the analysis of the despatch tank and the truck barrel is dedicated to avoid cross contamination.
Pipelines are difficult as they are often common. Jet fuel is commonly moved by pipeline. If the pipeline has moved diesel there have been multiple cases of jet fuel being contmainated with Biodiesel in Europe. Biodiesel is an ester which has a polar group that is surface active. The biodiesel molecules cling the the pipe wall and a flushed off by jet or mogas.
Once lead is outt of a refinery it is out for good. In Europe there are very few facilties that can still handle lead. I would only see lead as a liability thesedays. The risk of a spill/ incident would outweigh any value generated by small volume Avgas sales. See my earlier posts.
I would agree with the above.
Looking at the aircraft market, I think it is safe to say that even in, say, twenty years time, the majority of all piston engine aircraft will still be with engines using petrol, not diesel.
So, some type of Avgas will “always” be there (at least where GA plays a role), be it 100LL or 100UL or whatever.
And, as you confirmed, due to specialised handling and the small market, any avgas will always cost the same or probably more than 100LL. See UL91; I don’t agree with Peter who basically says that TOTAL wants to “screw” people by overpricing it. I rather think they simply cannot sell it for any less and still make a small profit.
So, to all those who always moan about the high price of 100LL, listen: It won’t get any better.
So if you ask me, I quite like 100LL 
(and no, I am no environmentalist…)
Comparing a boutique fuel like 91UL with mogas is not really possible. If you were to delve into the economics of either you would realise that neither make any money for the refiners. I have said it before and will say it again. Bulk fuels and refining are a low margin business. The average European refiner barely breaks even on mogas. They are lucky to achieve a GROSS margin of $5 per barrel on every barrrel processed. Often it is much less and these margins have persisted for decades. Out of that margin they have to pay for all of the refinery overheads, storage, maintenance and compliance. Soon they will have to pay for carbon emissions. Successive governments and especially some truly woeful EU legislation has made matters worse. Due to asymmetric fuel taxation diesel is now outselling gasoline by 2:1 leaving a huge gasoline surplus in the EU refining pool. Diesel is now short, and getting shorter as refineries close, requiring the import of over 50 million tonnes of Jet and Diesel into the EU per year, mainly from Russia and the ME. Our refining industry in Europe is basically dying.
I personally did not think 91UL would fly. When I started flying it was still possible to obtain 80/87 which soon died off due to low demand. I knew the company that produced it, Carless, and they did not make any money. The harmosnistion of hydrocrabon duties which brought Avgas into the same bracket as mogas was the death bell in my opinion. Realisitically there is room for only one grade of Avgas. Trying to slice and dice this into different grades will mean only bigger losses. I will predict in the meantime that 100LL will continue for the time being as it can be used in both recreational and commerical flying. But. either 100 LL will be legislated out or it will dwindle until the point that either the TEL producer quits or the refiners loose interest.
Better that it is legislated out with a final date given. That will drive the impetus to get a new product approved and into the market and force the switch. The downside is that it will cost, but there is no other solution. Think back, it was done with unleaded mogas; it could be done with unleaded Avgas but there will be a price, and the smaller the market the higher the price.
I find it hard to believe somebody is running a big business on which they don’t make money and continue to do so for years.
A lot of companies say publicly they are losing money on Activity X but then they carry on doing it, for decades.
It is what I would do in my own business too, if I was in a competitive situation and had customers objecting to my price increases. I would be for ever telling them how hard up I am. I am also not going to visit them in my private jet, etc
I find it hard to believe somebody is running a big business on which they don’t make money and continue to do so for years.
The joys of “marginal costing” in economics. The question whether something makes a profit or a loss is a highly complex one in a larger business and depends on how they do the accounting. Often an activity does not make a profit but contributes to covering common costs and that serves enough purpose. However, the fact that a new player has entered the 100LL market in Europe (Warter from Poland) tells us that at least this company thinks that there is money to be made.
Better that it is legislated out with a final date given. That will drive the impetus to get a new product approved and into the market and force the switch.
I’m all for it. Outlaw lead in aviation fuel and we will see a lot of good things happen. Do nothing and we’ll be stuck with our crappy 1950s technology forever.
we will see a lot of good things happen
But… who is going to pay?
As with any regulatory restriction, the “vermin of society” is going to be all over it, making money out of those caught up.
It doesn’t matter where you look in the world we live in – there are people who love new restrictions and who find ways to screw money out of the victims.
Look at Mode S. Did we get loads of people making low cost transponders? Of course not. Anyway the hoped-for market never happened because Mode S ended up not being mandatory for VFR OCAS (in general) in the major markets. Look at ROHS (lead free solders, basically) – solder prices have gone up some 5×. A wonderful profit opportunity. No wealth is created; it is just transferred around, usually to those who overtly or covertly lobbied for the regulation.
With 100LL, I don’t think regulation is going to work. If the USA bans it (which will not happen – until a complete 100UL replacement is found and certified) then a European company can continue making it.
If Europe bans it then nothing will happen because the European market is almost irrelevant, and it will just kill much of GA, dumping all the turbocharged aircraft (like yours) onto the scrap heap. In reality, two things would happen:
My earlier comments on TOTAL were based on their aggressive tactics e.g. giving away bowsers. I am sure they hoped airfields will drop 100LL. Most airfields can’t afford to stock both fuels.
I’m all for it. Outlaw lead in aviation fuel and we will see a lot of good things happen. Do nothing and we’ll be stuck with our crappy 1950s technology forever.
Sure, some progress would be good.
But do you believe that the long term replacement for 100LL will be incompatible with today’s engines? I don’t think it will be.
It will not be, because there would be a very small market for incompatible fuel, right?
