TEL Factory

traumamed said:
Not really into the whole personal attack thing you got going on here. If I need melodrama, I'll go talk to my pre-teen.

Anyway, it seems you have missed my point all along. This has nothing to do with "being green," or what my (well-informed) opinion of TEL's toxicity is, or any study or pseudo-study that is out there. That is why I haven't bothered citing anything. It does not matter. You are reciting indignations that do nothing to solve the issue at hand.

The point is that 100LL may well be forced out of production due to voluntary discontinuation of one of its key ingredients by a private sector entity.
Click to expand...


No personal attack, and if I was wrong tell me, however one who puts food on their family table flying is going to have a different prospective than someone who does this for a hobby

dmspilot said:
Guess it's okay to poison people and reduce their IQ as long as they don't die. Braindead logic. You must be a victim of its effects.
Click to expand...
No one is being poised to the point of any discernible effect, no one’s IQ is getting lower

Unless you have a -non debunked- study you like to link to that says otherwise
 
RyanShort1 said:
I disagree with the framing. It is essentially a function of excessive government oversight that prevents some other laboratory from filling the vacuum.

Maybe somewhere in a remote part of Africa someone will start up a new TEL lab?
Click to expand...

I did not include a regulatory constraint. The only constraint I put was the current constraint of 1 required ingredient is made solely by 1 company in the world.

For the customer base, how do they force manufacturing of that 1 thing to continue?
 
JOhnH said:
I agree that this is a national security issue. But the issue isn't whether we have TEL factories in the US. The issue is that we are dependent on TEL in the first place. And this issue has been known for decades and yet we drag our feet still. We now have an unleaded fuel that loves engines but may perhaps have an issue with paint. Addressing that issue would be much more beneficial than creating new sources for TEL.
Click to expand...


Thing is there is no issue with 100ll, it’s proven and it just works

If they want a alternate because it will make them FEEL good to not have the dirty word “lead” in the name, whatever, but until they make a alternative that is as harmless to aircraft as 100ll, works the same as 100ll without modification, and is priced the same or less, it’s just not a honest conversation, as can be seen by their dishonest practices from all the studies they cook the numbers on and were later debunked when a little light was shined on them.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
You are wrong. These are reasons that TEL was offshored, why my company sold Octel, and why we closed 18 chemical plants over the last 25 years. You are debating just for the sake of taking the opposing view. It’s fun. But you lose this one :)
Click to expand...

Perhaps what made sense back then no longer makes sense in 2025
 
TCABM said:
I did not include a regulatory constraint. The only constraint I put was the current constraint of 1 required ingredient is made solely by 1 company in the world.

For the customer base, how do they force manufacturing of that 1 thing to continue?
Click to expand...
If there is a sufficient market, then someone, somewhere, should be interested in supplying it to the market.
 
TEL (tetra ethyl lead) does not equal 100LL. TEL is an ingredient in 100LL at about 2.12 grams/gallon. One can argue about the toxicity of 100LL or the impact of GA's use of 100LL on the areas around an airport. The TEL itself is highly toxic and very challenging to manufacture. That's why there is one global supplier. Separately, the process to qualify an alternate supplier to the oil majors that make 100LL is long and arduous as well as the permitting to build a plant to produce it the US. One can argue the whole impact of 100ll on the environment, but there is 0 chance that another TEL plant will be built in the US and an only slightly higher chance of an alternate supplier (like China, where some is currently made) would ever be an approved supplier. The majors (XOM, Shell etc) would just abandon production.
 
The environment saving people I will never understand. You shut down domestic production of things because it is "dirty" and "bad for the environment", but the demand and need is still there. Production moves to India or some other country where the environmental regs are nonexistent outside of a bribe structure.
 
Move the production to central Africa. Anything goes, there.
 
traumamed said:
It is probably a pipe dream to think TEL is going to be produced in the US again. I'm just trying to be realistic here.

There is always a slippery slope. No worries though, it isn't going to come to that. 100LL won't need to be legislated away. It is just going to cease to exist.

The fact is that 99% of Americans couldn't care less about 100LL. It would not surprise me if more than 50% of Americans don't even know what 100LL is. The loss of availability of 100LL might not even make the mainstream media if it happened in the middle of a relatively busy news cycle. If/when Innospec stops producing TEL, no one in Washington is going to waste their political capital on trying to bring TEL production back to the US.
Click to expand...
I think your statistics are highly optimistic. I’d guess that easily 99.9% of Americans couldn’t care less. And probably more than 99% don’t know what it is, even if they know a GA pilot.
 
I have no idea what you’re talking about lol
 
EdFred said:
Move the production to central Africa. Anything goes, there.
Click to expand...

I’ve been to a decent amount of Africa, when it comes to anything that will hurt eco tourism they are VERY protective.
 
Jim K said:
That extra wing on the airplane tho :rofl:
Click to expand...
I figured you had just finished your RV too quickly, maybe after drinking too much TEL, and used a picture of it for the ad.
 
Roller said:
Too much of ANYTHING is bad, the tiny trace in 100LL is a nothing burger

Study after study after study show this

The only ones that show otherwise were skewed and proven so in many studies and lawsuits

There is ZERO logical scientific reason to try to ban 100LL
Click to expand...
You think logic has anything to do with it? :loco:

Airports are constantly under attack by neighbors. Leaded fuel makes a VERY easy target to fan the flames of rage and get the airport shut down. Whether it has any basis in reality is irrelevant. Perception is reality.

And they won't need to ban 100LL. It'll go away because the lead won't be available to put in it any more. Single supplier, tiny market.
 
Roller said:
I’ve been to a decent amount of Africa, when it comes to anything that will hurt eco tourism they are VERY protective.
Click to expand...
I've been over there too. I wasn't suggesting slapping it in the middle of the Serengeti, Kalahari, or the Okovango.
 
EdFred said:
I've been over there too. I wasn't suggesting slapping it in the middle of the Serengeti, Kalahari, or the Okovango.
Click to expand...

I’d wager china or India would make more sense for something like that
 
Roller said:
I’d wager china or India would make more sense for something like that
Click to expand...
You can already get TEL from China. They likely sell it to the two countries that still use lead in automotive gasoline; Iraq and Yemen. There is no way the US and Western oil majors will qualify any other supplier beyond Innospec. They'll just exit the business and that will be that for 100LL. Just not worth the aggravation and the environmental liability.
 
We were looking at possibly buying a PA-46 in the next 5-10 years. I suppose that's going to be out since a turbocharged Continental or Lycoming won't be able to burn anything available?
 
I'm not sure how the national security aspect factors in. The military has already switched to turbine for primary training (Texan II) so it burns Jet A, just like the rest of the fleet.
 
Hang 4 said:
There is no way the US and Western oil majors will qualify any other supplier beyond Innospec. They'll just exit the business and that will be that for 100LL.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree. There is money to be made. People will find a way and someone will find a way to make or import TEL if it comes to that.

All (cough) you need to do is buy the feed blend from say Exxon and the TEL from Wang Chung or whoever is selling it, certify your suppliers and process and start printing money. Do that in a half dozen locations across the country and you're set for distribution.
 
kyleb said:
Not sure I agree. There is money to be made. People will find a way and someone will find a way to make or import TEL if it comes to that.

All (cough) you need to do is set up a plant where you can store the feed blend and TEL, blend and store the resulting fuel, buy the feed blend from say Exxon and the TEL from Wang Chung or whoever is selling it, certify your suppliers and process, pay for all that, and start printing money. Do that in a half dozen locations across the country and you're set for distribution.
Click to expand...
FTFY. How much money have you invested and how much fuel would you have to sell to recoup that?
 
kyleb said:
Not sure I agree. There is money to be made. People will find a way and someone will find a way to make or import TEL if it comes to that.

All (cough) you need to do is buy the feed blend from say Exxon and the TEL from Wang Chung or whoever is selling it, certify your suppliers and process and start printing money. Do that in a half dozen locations across the country and you're set for distribution.
Click to expand...
Hi, ExxonMobil sales. I'd like to buy some aviation fuel base stock. Base stock? We sell 100LL. Kyleb - no just the base stock, I have my own TEL.
Sound of phone hanging up.
 
Hang 4 said:
Hi, ExxonMobil sales. I'd like to buy some aviation fuel base stock. Base stock? We sell 100LL. Kyleb - no just the base stock, I have my own TEL.
Sound of phone hanging up.
Click to expand...
No. Your premise was they are hypothetically out of the 100 LL business because of TEL. If that's the case, why wouldn't they sell base stock?
 
kyleb said:
No. Your premise was they are hypothetically out of the 100 LL business because of TEL. If that's the case, why wouldn't they sell base stock?
Click to expand...
Why would they bother making it? Low volume, exorbitant liability trail, where they don't control the final product? Those companies have enough torches and pitchforks going after them. They're pretty risk averse.
 
EdFred said:
We were looking at possibly buying a PA-46 in the next 5-10 years. I suppose that's going to be out since a turbocharged Continental or Lycoming won't be able to burn anything available?
Click to expand...
Well, g100ul will work fine. In 5 years we should know. What octane was the Comanche certified to run on?

Hang 4 said:
Hi, ExxonMobil sales. I'd like to buy some aviation fuel base stock. Base stock? We sell 100LL. Kyleb - no just the base stock, I have my own TEL.
Sound of phone hanging up.
Click to expand...
In theory, 94UL + Chinese TEL = bootleg 100LL. Of course, swift says they are going to cease 94ul.
 
Hang 4 said:
Why would they bother making it? Low volume, exorbitant liability trail, where they don't control the final product? Those companies have enough torches and pitchforks going after them. They're pretty risk averse.
Click to expand...
Yet they still make and sell it with TEL included. It is all about the bucks. Petroleum companies are in it for a profit. Until that changes, there is a price where they will sell base stock assuming they are no longer in the retail business of Avgas.
 
I suspect a lot of this is going to hinge on how things go with g100ul. If there's a large demand for 100LL someone will strike a deal, probably in the form of a price increase for TEL and production will continue.

I still think widespread g100ul adoption won't take place without some agency like the FAA getting behind it and pushing in the form of incentives or subsidies to get small airports across the country to adopt it. That's all assuming that the various issues we're hearing about with the fuel aren't either resolved or found to be overstated. At the speed the FAA moves 5 years doesn't seem like nearly enough time.
 
Jim K said:
Well, g100ul will work fine. In 5 years we should know. What octane was the Comanche certified to run on?


In theory, 94UL + Chinese TEL = bootleg 100LL. Of course, swift says they are going to cease 94ul.
Click to expand...
91/96 for NA
100/130 for turbocharged
according to the TCDS.

100/100LL for the PA-46
 
Last edited:
Pleasance confirmed the comments to AVweb, saying the company told him it will continue to make TEL at least until the congressionally mandated end date for 100LL availability of 2030. He also said Innospec wants to get out of the TEL business and "is motivated for the transition to unleaded fuel to be successful."
Click to expand...
Based on the above excerpt from the article, 100LL will be around for a while. 2030 or a viable alternative is widely available, whichever does last.
 
EdFred said:
We were looking at possibly buying a PA-46 in the next 5-10 years. I suppose that's going to be out since a turbocharged Continental or Lycoming won't be able to burn anything available?
Click to expand...
Just get one of the whiny stinky ones... JetProp or Meridian or Mx00.
 
Jim K said:
Well, g100ul will work fine. In 5 years we should know. What octane was the Comanche certified to run on?


In theory, 94UL + Chinese TEL = bootleg 100LL. Of course, swift says they are going to cease 94ul.
Click to expand...
Or just buy some methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) and add it to the UL94. Good antiknock properties, not as toxic as lead.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Or just buy some methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) and add it to the UL94. Good antiknock properties, not as toxic as lead.
Click to expand...

I used this on a street/strip car in the early 1990s and ended up with misfiring within a tankful. Plugs had a matte almost sandy orangish color coating. Might have used too much or the wrong air/fuel ratio. Never went back.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Or just buy some methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) and add it to the UL94. Good antiknock properties, not as toxic as lead.
Click to expand...
Some of the PAFI/WAGLE fuels tried this. Massive plug fouling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top