Will 100LL really stop in 2029/2030?

Domenick said:
Personally, I think the paint, seals, and bladders issue was definitively demonstrated by Michael Luvara in his video series. Jeff Hall posted this in #5 above, but it seems to have gone unnoticed. I've watched them all, and I am convinced.
Click to expand...
Commissioning a laboratory to conduct and document a series of tests to conclusively prove whether or not G100UL causes issues with paint/seals/bladders would not be very difficult I would think, and would be a worthwhile investment for George. If he's right, any claims that his fuel causes damage could be decisively refuted simply by posting the results of third party scientific testing.

That such an obvious solution to the problem has not been tried may speak to the possibility that there is indeed fire behind all the smoke.
 
I'm beginning to think 100ll going away won't much matter to me.
From around 2009 to 2024 my annuals went from less than $2k to almost $4k.
I miss those days.

My old mechanic retired and in 2025. With a new mechanic, my annual was over $10k. Ok I thought. The new guy is good and knows Bonanzas so he probably found stuff the old mechanic let go. Next year shouldn't be so bad.

Next year (2026) my annual was $17k with no real big issues. Just hundreds of small things that all cost 2 to 3 times what my old guy charged.

Now, I just picked up my plane after an oil change with analysis. $525. For an OIL CHANGE! I recently extended my oil change interval from 25 hours to 35 hours, but that is still $15/hour.

I might not be able to be able to afford 100ll if this keeps up.
On the positive side though, with unleaded fuel I shouldn't have to change the oil so often.
 
Domenick said:
Personally, I think the paint, seals, and bladders issue was definitively demonstrated by Michael Luvara in his video series. Jeff Hall posted this in #5 above, but it seems to have gone unnoticed. I've watched them all, and I am convinced.
Click to expand...
Seems that way at least. One thing that I haven't seen tested unless I missed it is how sealant in wet wing tanks holds up.

Something interesting I came across while doing some google searching...
When replacing seals or O-rings in the fuel systems of aircraft or engines operating on
G100UL Avgas replace Buna N or nitrile fuel system components with components
made of silicone or fluoropolymer elastomers (such as Viton) where practical.
When replacing flexible fuel hose assemblies utilize tetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) lined
hose assemblies per TSO C53a or TSO C140 where practical.
Click to expand...

That kind of implies to me they at least have some inkling of an issue. It also reinforces my opinion that the problem is solvable by overhauling fuel systems and changing how we approach fuel spills, minor seeps, leaks, etc. If I'm right then this all still viable, it will just come with a little frustration for aircraft owners. Don't love it, but if all I have to do a tank re-seal and pay my A&P to replace a bunch of o-rings/fuel lines I can live with it.
 
Half Fast said:
Well, the material compatibility testing GAMI did themselves was reviewed and approved by the FAA. Here's the report:
Click to expand...
That testing does seem pretty conclusive, especially appendix G1-G2 fuel tank sealant. My only question would be, why do the coupons seem to be very soft/elastic, while the sealant for the original tank sealant seems pretty hard when George is poking at it.
 
Domenick said:
Personally, I think the paint, seals, and bladders issue was definitively demonstrated by Michael Luvara in his video series. Jeff Hall posted this in #5 above, but it seems to have gone unnoticed. I've watched them all, and I am convinced.
Click to expand...
It's probably not good form to reply to one's own post, but I forgot to add a note, and the note needs a context.
Michael Luvara has been posting at Piper Forum:

His first post is page 1, #22.
 
Last edited:
Domenick said:
Personally, I think the paint, seals, and bladders issue was definitively demonstrated by Michael Luvara in his video series. Jeff Hall posted this in #5 above, but it seems to have gone unnoticed. I've watched them all, and I am convinced.
Click to expand...

Michael is presenting at AirVenture to discuss his testing.

I’m also very concerned about new fuels attacking the proseal in my fuel tanks. And beyond that, I’m waiting to see results of mixing all combinations of the proposed fuels, with and without 100LL. For example, Swift, VP, and 100LL all mixed?
 
Jeff Hall said:
...I’m waiting to see results of mixing all combinations of the proposed fuels, with and without 100LL. For example, Swift, VP, and 100LL all mixed?
Click to expand...
I'm not a fuel expert, so my question is: If engine timing for a certain brand of 100UL fuel has to be adjusted differently than the timing 100LL requires, how can that 100UL brand of fuel be successfully mixed with 100LL?

[I feel like I'm having a flashback of the old VHS vs BetaMax days.]
 
I know this will go nowhere, but what if someone created a new VLL (Very Low Lead) version of 100ll.
But that would be a compromise, and practically nobody compromises on any thing any more.

Ben Franklin was right:
"We must all hang together or we will all hang separately,"
Click to expand...
 
cowman said:
It also reinforces my opinion that the problem is solvable by overhauling fuel systems and changing how we approach fuel spills, minor seeps, leaks, etc. If I'm right then this all still viable, it will just come with a little frustration for aircraft owners. Don't love it, but if all I have to do a tank re-seal and pay my A&P to replace a bunch of o-rings/fuel lines I can live with it.
Click to expand...
It is solvable with fuel system overhauls. The same changes (seal & bladder materials) would permit fuel with ethanol (corner mart pump gas) too. The challenge is the cost of "certified" alternative parts, and the cost to replace them. I'm not aware of an alternative bladder material that is certified for instance, so one would need to be certified. If the FAA cared they could fast track approving these changes and greatly reduce the costs. But they don't.
tspear said:
That was a good reference. But it was not in this thread; and how the reference article focused more (at least to me), that regardless of the regulatory environment, TEL production is coming to an end due to business reasons.

Tim
Click to expand...
What gets confused through miss leading information is that the regulations are the business reason. If your product is outlawed you can't have a business. I overhaul these types of production plants for a living. It's not hard.
JimBirk said:
I'm not a fuel expert, so my question is: If engine timing for a certain brand of 100UL fuel has to be adjusted differently than the timing 100LL requires, how can that 100UL brand of fuel be successfully mixed with 100LL?

[I feel like I'm having a flashback of the old VHS vs BetaMax days.]
Click to expand...
The timing adjustment is "retarding" the timing. Making the sparkplug fire later in the cycle to increase the margin for detonation. This adjustment will be fine with any other fuel with equal or greater detonation margin (higher octane). The tradeoff is reduced horsepower.
 
tspear said:
That was a good reference. But it was not in this thread; and how the reference article focused more (at least to me), that regardless of the regulatory environment, TEL production is coming to an end due to business reasons.

Tim
Click to expand...
Innospec's asset to produce TEL is old, worn out and expensive to run. The margin they make on sales is small both on a percentage and absolute $ basis. They have been reserving for shutting it down for quite some time. It will require significant cost to shut down, but once done will eliminate a large cost and liability exposure to what is now a chemical company that focuses on other sectors. Very much like companies that spin off or shut down segments of their businesses that are non-core. Selling the business is not an option as the assets are near end of life and the income stream won't justify rebuilding them.
As an aside, TEL is very toxic, far more toxic than lead itself. In that form it is highly lipophilic so it can more easily penetrate the blood/brain barrier. This is more of a factor for those who manufacture and transport pure TEL which gets a bit lost in the discussion.
The regulatory pressure is just one more nail in the coffin.
 
JOhnH said:
I know this will go nowhere, but what if someone created a new VLL (Very Low Lead) version of 100ll.
But that would be a compromise, and practically nobody compromises on any thing any more.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of compromise.

Setting aside the arguments that "there is no quantity of lead that does not do harm to humans" and "some engine damage will result from lower levels of lead",

If the company making TEL stops making TEL, then all you're doing is kicking the can down the road a little bit because the world will still eventually run out of TEL. One of the reasons the company making TEL is getting out of making TEL is because the market is too small to be worth the investment in the plant that makes the product. Shrinking the market further will not make that (or any other) company more excited to invest.
 
Domenick said:
Personally, I think the paint, seals, and bladders issue was definitively demonstrated by Michael Luvara in his video series. Jeff Hall posted this in #5 above, but it seems to have gone unnoticed. I've watched them all, and I am convinced.
Click to expand...
It's hard to rationalize the difference between his (Luvara) testing results and GAMI's. FAA was pretty thorough, did a lot of the same testing and supervised the testing in-person. I do find it odd that so many are ready to accept one random guy on the internet's results over the FAA's. I'm not saying Luvara is wrong or deceitful, just not clear on his motivation or any potential bias in the methodology.
There is a large difference in aromatic content from batch to batch of 100LL and it would be helpful to understand what the fractions are in Luvara's 100LL base as well as the G100UL. Here's where true independent testing would be helpful. Certify the fuels being tested, the materials being tested and the methodology.
The signal to noise ratio on this one is really bad right now.
This is my main beef with GAMI, they need to do something to get this issue addressed in a conclusive way. It might cost them some money, but having millions of dollars of barely selling fuel in a tank in Louisiana isn't going to get them there.
 
Hang 4 said:
Innospec's asset to produce TEL is old, worn out and expensive to run. The margin they make on sales is small both on a percentage and absolute $ basis. They have been reserving for shutting it down for quite some time. It will require significant cost to shut down, but once done will eliminate a large cost and liability exposure to what is now a chemical company that focuses on other sectors. Very much like companies that spin off or shut down segments of their businesses that are non-core. Selling the business is not an option as the assets are near end of life and the income stream won't justify rebuilding them.
As an aside, TEL is very toxic, far more toxic than lead itself. In that form it is highly lipophilic so it can more easily penetrate the blood/brain barrier. This is more of a factor for those who manufacture and transport pure TEL which gets a bit lost in the discussion.
The regulatory pressure is just one more nail in the coffin.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, part of this just isn't true. If the regulations hadn't been passed Innospec would have been maintaining the plant instead of setting aside reserves for shutdown. I manage this type of maintenance on industrial plants. And have been involved in restoring shuttered plants after purchase by a new company. I know it's fantasy but if the regulations went away, someone would keep it running. The US market isn't big, but if it was allowed to continue globally, the market is plenty to keep one plant going.

Also the toxicity is way over blown (supported by actual studies of airport areas). Far worse chemicals are used to make fuel today (HF Alky for instance). I've worked for years in plant's where annual blood tests are required because of the lead exposure. Never showed an elevated level. Cell phone and wifi radiation will kill everyone long before the tiny amount of lead expelled from aircraft.

I fully understand nothing will change, and 100ll will go away. I just want everyone to understand the truth about why.
 
Hang 4 said:
It's hard to rationalize the difference between his (Luvara) testing results and GAMI's. FAA was pretty thorough, did a lot of the same testing and supervised the testing in-person. I do find it odd that so many are ready to accept one random guy on the internet's results over the FAA's. I'm not saying Luvara is wrong or deceitful, just not clear on his motivation or any potential bias in the methodology.
There is a large difference in aromatic content from batch to batch of 100LL and it would be helpful to understand what the fractions are in Luvara's 100LL base as well as the G100UL. Here's where true independent testing would be helpful. Certify the fuels being tested, the materials being tested and the methodology.
The signal to noise ratio on this one is really bad right now.
This is my main beef with GAMI, they need to do something to get this issue addressed in a conclusive way. It might cost them some money, but having millions of dollars of barely selling fuel in a tank in Louisiana isn't going to get them there.
Click to expand...
100%. Braley also had videos of painted panels sitting in g100ul with no damage. I'm not sure what Luvera's motivations are, but he sure seems to have an axe to grind. I would not at all be surprised to hear that Swift is behind him. Braley appears to be his own worst enemy on this. Nothing but bad news for the last year. I haven't been keeping up with the thread over on beechtalk. Has he said much there recently?

The other thing I don't get... timing changes are casually mentioned as a solution to the lower octane non-gami fuels. Last i checked, backing off timing is going to reduce horsepower, and reducing horsepower reduces performance. How is that going to work with all of these poh performance tables? Are we going to recertify every airframe?
 
Jim K said:
The other thing I don't get... timing changes are casually mentioned as a solution to the lower octane non-gami fuels. Last i checked, backing off timing is going to reduce horsepower, and reducing horsepower reduces performance. How is that going to work with all of these poh performance tables? Are we going to recertify every airframe?
Click to expand...
Exactly, the same resolution, and result, could be accomplished with reduced compression or manifold pressure. Although, if it's a very small timing change (I think it is for the swift fuel), I think the loss of horse power is minimal. Likely no more than the hp variation from engine to engine.
 
Jjackh01 said:
Respectfully, part of this just isn't true. If the regulations hadn't been passed Innospec would have been maintaining the plant instead of setting aside reserves for shutdown. I manage this type of maintenance on industrial plants. And have been involved in restoring shuttered plants after purchase by a new company. I know it's fantasy but if the regulations went away, someone would keep it running. The US market isn't big, but if it was allowed to continue globally, the market is plenty to keep one plant going.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, that's your opinion, not a fact. That asset is sized to manufacture TEL for the global automotive industry, which they did until the global ban. It's a miniscule part of their overall business and an environmental and safety headache (the plant itself, not TEL for avgas)
Jjackh01 said:
Also the toxicity is way over blown (supported by actual studies of airport areas). Far worse chemicals are used to make fuel today (HF Alky for instance). I've worked for years in plant's where annual blood tests are required because of the lead exposure. Never showed an elevated level. Cell phone and wifi radiation will kill everyone long before the tiny amount of lead expelled from aircraft.
Click to expand...
Read what I wrote, I was speaking about the toxicity of TEL itself and the implication of that on the plant workers and the downstream supply chain. This is a big part of the reason Innospec wants out. I agree that aviation is not a significant source of lead exposure.
 
Jim K said:
100%. Braley also had videos of painted panels sitting in g100ul with no damage. I'm not sure what Luvera's motivations are, but he sure seems to have an axe to grind. I would not at all be surprised to hear that Swift is behind him. Braley appears to be his own worst enemy on this. Nothing but bad news for the last year. I haven't been keeping up with the thread over on beechtalk. Has he said much there recently?

The other thing I don't get... timing changes are casually mentioned as a solution to the lower octane non-gami fuels. Last i checked, backing off timing is going to reduce horsepower, and reducing horsepower reduces performance. How is that going to work with all of these poh performance tables? Are we going to recertify every airframe?
Click to expand...
That's an interesting thought of Swift motivating Luvara. I absolutely would not put it past swift do pull something like that. I remember very early on that he objected to G100ul before it was even available at his airport. Before any issues were known, he was objecting. I will point out that he has also shown favorability towards vp and their fuel by posting their progress results. Those results however leave something to be desired as it only says testing was completed or in progress on a specific engine. So it seems unlikely he was on the Swift payroll.

Edit: he is a test pilot and engineer for Wisk, an evtol air taxi according to his LinkedIn. So he's not completely unbiased.

His most recent video which featured fuel testers and all showed signs of staining or degradation. Between that video and is video of what happens to ezturn fuel lube, its pretty damning against g100ul. Someone, and I can't remember who used a clear tape like prop guard around their fill necks. The tape would stain. But the underlying paint underneath was still pristine. So it seems you could prevent the staining. But if it makes proseal soft and turns ez turn to gel, Im not sure how you can remedy that.

It is interesting the AOPA baron with an original and repaired bladder that was leaking did not show damage to paint, aside from the staining. I don't believe they were running g100ul exclusively in that tank however. Only used it for that engine when it was available.

When timing changes were brought up for 100r and 100e over on piper forum, Luvara was very dismissive of that. Responding "Important to note that there has been no mention of all HP engines requiring a timing change. It sounds like only for a small percentage of engines and nothing definitively published yet. And even with that change, HP remained the same on the numbers VP’s UL100E released."

This despite the fact VP/lyondell has said they're doing detonation testing to find the optimal spark advance. And has been open to the possibility that they may have to retard timing to get a better detonation margin.

The 100e results he posted. If theres a timing change to for detonation margin, there will be a hp decrease. He can't be a performance expert on the fuel. Especially when this is the only "data" that has been released. More a progress report than actual data. Gami on the other hand has the most advanced test cell for these engines. And I'd be curious how VP/Lyondell (and swift for that matter) was doing their testing. When UND had valve recession issues, it was Gami's cell that was used.
IMG_4269.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Hang 4 said:
Respectfully, that's your opinion, not a fact.
Click to expand...
Agree, it is my opinion from a perspective with industry knowledge. I understand TEL is a small part of their business and they may not want the challenges. But I've maintained chemical plants that are older with much lower margins. I could conceive one of those operators gladly purchasing the plant and continuing to producing TEL if regulations weren't making it illegal in fuel. Just my perspective and opinion.
Hang 4 said:
Read what I wrote, I was speaking about the toxicity of TEL itself and the implication of that on the plant workers and the downstream supply chain. This is a big part of the reason Innospec wants out. I agree that aviation is not a significant source of lead exposure.
Click to expand...
I did read and do understand. That's why I referenced HF akly, one of many very dangerous chemicals and substances produced every day. I've also worked where arsenic, cyanide, cadmium, selenium, and many others are present. All these hazards are controllable with engineering, processes, and PPE. Controllable but not eliminated. We still loose many people each year (2 this year fairly close to me), producing the things that allow us to argue over first world problems.
 
Jjackh01 said:
Respectfully, part of this just isn't true. If the regulations hadn't been passed Innospec would have been maintaining the plant instead of setting aside reserves for shutdown. I manage this type of maintenance on industrial plants. And have been involved in restoring shuttered plants after purchase by a new company. I know it's fantasy but if the regulations went away, someone would keep it running. The US market isn't big, but if it was allowed to continue globally, the market is plenty to keep one plant going.
Click to expand...
Not to pile on too much :), but I did a bunch of work in the chemicals industry that included M&A and exiting obsolete business. Innospec revenue basically equals the global market for TEL. There's no way to justify a $250 million asset making $20 million in revenue with a gross profit of only $1.7 million. I don't know their plant layout specifically, but their capacity is far greater (like 20x) than the current avgas demand. Let's say they have multiple process modules and only need to renovate one. It will require a total rebuild as the TEL process corrodes the equipment. The $250 million asset was built decades ago and has been depreciated so it was likely a lot more to build as new. Toss out a number of $50 million to update, which I think is low. A simplistic payback on that would be almost 30 years. Even without the regulatory pressure, that's a lousy deal.
Hang 4 said:
Innospec is a roughly 1.8 billion gross revenue specialty chemical company. 2019 was the last year they reported TEL business separately. TEL revenue was $21 million with a gross profit of $1.7 million. The assets they use to produce it, used to produce TEL for the entire automotive fuel base, so it's a non trivial plant to shut down. (They currently have an impairment on the book of $63 million, most of which is the UK TEL site). As an asset, it was on the books for roughly $250 million in 2019 when they stopped reporting the TEL business separately. There's no way they want to keep producing TEL any longer than they have to. Once they close that plant, their financial operations look a whole lot better.
Click to expand...
 
Hang 4 said:
Not to pile on too much :), but I did a bunch of work in the chemicals industry that included M&A and exiting obsolete business. Innospec revenue basically equals the global market for TEL. There's no way to justify a $250 million asset making $20 million in revenue with a gross profit of only $1.7 million. I don't know their plant layout specifically, but their capacity is far greater (like 20x) than the current avgas demand. Let's say they have multiple process modules and only need to renovate one. It will require a total rebuild as the TEL process corrodes the equipment. The $250 million asset was built decades ago and has been depreciated so it was likely a lot more to build as new. Toss out a number of $50 million to update, which I think is low. A simplistic payback on that would be almost 30 years. Even without the regulatory pressure, that's a lousy deal.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen these numbers but $20m a year sounds low. Maybe right for the US market, but how much would Russia, India, China, Africa and others consume without the global bans? Ethyl Chloride is no more corrosive than many other chemicals we make every day. A turnaround (what we call these repairs) on a single unit like this would be between $15- $20 million. Certainly not a great ROI if $1.7 million a year is accurate.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Sorry, but you lost all credibility with that statement.
Click to expand...
I do believe that statement, "Cell phone and wifi radiation will kill everyone," was an analogy to illustrate the relative harmlessness of lead emissions from 100LL.

Now you may not agree with that opinion, but let's not erroneously ascribe analogy/sarcasm to another's belief.
 
Racerx said:
That's an interesting thought of Swift motivating Luvara. I absolutely would not put it past swift do pull something like that. I remember very early on that he objected to G100ul before it was even available at his airport. Before any issues were known, he was objecting. I will point out that he has also shown favorability towards vp and their fuel by posting their progress results. Those results however leave something to be desired as it only says testing was completed or in progress on a specific engine. So it seems unlikely he was on the Swift payroll.

Edit: he is a test pilot and engineer for Wisk, an evtol air taxi according to his LinkedIn. So he's not completely unbiased.

His most recent video with features fuel testers and all showed signs of staining or degradation. Someone, and I can't remember who used a clear tape like prop guard around their fill necks. The tape would stain. But the underlying paint underneath was still pristine.

When timing changes were brought up over on piper forum, he was very dismissive of that. "Important to note that there has been no mention of all HP engines requiring a timing change. It sounds like only for a small percentage of engines and nothing definitively published yet. And even with that change, HP remained the same on the numbers VP’s UL100E released."

This despite the fact VP/lyondell has said they're doing detonation testing to find the optimal spark advance. And has been open to the possibility that they may have to retard timing to get a better detonation margin.

The 100e results he postedView attachment 153052
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about the guy. Just seemed like he came out of nowhere and his level of vitriol against GAMI was matched only by D'Acosta...who is the last guy in the world I would want in charge of Avgas. I also would not only not be surprised, but would in fact expect, Swift to do something like that. Maybe he really loves GA and wants to help, but it seems like finding solutions would be more productive than relentlessly attacking the only current semi-viable solution.
 
Domenick said:
I do believe that statement, "Cell phone and wifi radiation will kill everyone," was an analogy to illustrate the relative harmlessness of lead emissions from 100LL.

Now you may not agree with that opinion, but let's not erroneously ascribe analogy/sarcasm to another's belief.
Click to expand...
Thanks for saying that so I don't have to. It was an illustrative analogy.
 
JOhnH said:
Thanks for saying that so I don't have to. It was an illustrative analogy.
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks. I understand illustrative analogy, I just couldn't spell it for my own defense haha.

It seems I'm a fan of 100ll which isn't true. There are great benefits to the engine by eliminating lead from fuel. To my mind the stated health benefits are dubious at best. It's just frustrating to me to have govt dictate yet another decision for us vs letting us decide. It's also frustrating to have the same entity controlling the ability to make viable alternative solutions.

Maybe they could take a bit of the corn subsidies and re-direct to making fuel system changes in GA aircraft. And add E85 pumps at airports. Cleaner oil, cooler CHT's, and more power with higher compression. And the increase ethanol sales would go back to the corn farmers. What's not to like hahaha.
 
Jjackh01 said:
I haven't seen these numbers but $20m a year sounds low. Maybe right for the US market, but how much would Russia, India, China, Africa and others consume without the global bans? Ethyl Chloride is no more corrosive than many other chemicals we make every day. A turnaround (what we call these repairs) on a single unit like this would be between $15- $20 million. Certainly not a great ROI if $1.7 million a year is accurate.
Click to expand...
I pulled it from the 2019 10K from Innospec. They stopped reporting TEL as a segment after that year. They are the only manufacturer of TEL, with the exception of some alleged Chinese suppliers. Having done business in China, I'm highly doubtful any of those companies can make more than sample quantities of TEL. $20 million is at least 95% of the global market. The piston market in the geographies you mention is miniscule and most of them source from Innospec. When there were multiple suppliers of TEL, Innospec covered Europe and the third world. They had deep relationships in those countries and got in a bit of trouble bribing the government in Iraq and Indonesia during the time TEL was being phased out globally.

I agree the industry is used to and very capable of working with hazardous stuff and I have also lost friends to accidents and chemical incidents. That doesn't change the fact that working with TEL has risks that a $1.7 gross profit doesn't really justify. The fixed costs associated with the former scale of that business means that the net profit is likely negative.

Innospec's challenge is the scale of their site is designed for making TEL in the 100's of millions of metric tonnes. The global market in 1980 was over 600 million metric tonnes, but at that time there were three major suppliers. Working backwards from the Global 100LL market of ~800 million gallons at 2.2 grams of TEL per gallons, I come up with an annual production of TEL of 1,760 metric tonnes. Innospec at one time had three plants, now down to one, but even with that math, say 1/3 of 600 million tonnes, so 200 million, three plants (assuming equal capacity), so 66 million/plant. So current production is infinitesimal compared to capacity. They likely manufacture in campaigns to make what's needed and the plant sits idle for a significant time during the year. Even assuming they have multiple modules or reactors (not sure of the right terminology for that) it's a real loser and the only value in delaying total phase out is to allow for greater reserves for the shutdown and plant/site remediation.
 
I thought I read somewhere that Innospec already had plans for the existing site. This is why Innospec was stating shutdown will happen in 2028 or 2029 which is over a year before the current regulatory deadline.

Tim
 
Jim K said:
I don't know anything about the guy. Just seemed like he came out of nowhere and his level of vitriol against GAMI was matched only by D'Acosta...who is the last guy in the world I would want in charge of Avgas. I also would not only not be surprised, but would in fact expect, Swift to do something like that. Maybe he really loves GA and wants to help, but it seems like finding solutions would be more productive than relentlessly attacking the only current semi-viable solution.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't care a gnat's a$$ about any ****ing contest between Swift and GAMI. I'll give my money to whoever can sell me fuel that doesn't crap up my airplane.

Similarly, I don't care if Swift or anyone else is incentivizing someone to find fault with GAMI's fuel. If the fuel is safe, then there will be no faults to find. Conversely, if the fuel can crap up some parts of my plane, I want to know about it, regardless of whether that info comes from heaven's own angel Gabriel or the devil himself.

At some point there is truth: The fuel will eat up certain paints and soft goods with a certain amount of exposure, or it won't. I don't care who gives me that information or what their motivations are, as long as the info is true and not fabricated.

If there are problems with GAMI's fuel, exposing them is not counter-productive. Pretending that they don't exist and calling it "semi-viable" would be.
 
tspear said:
I thought I read somewhere that Innospec already had plans for the existing site. This is why Innospec was stating shutdown will happen in 2028 or 2029 which is over a year before the current regulatory deadline.

Tim
Click to expand...
Unless they've done an exceptional job of minimizing lead contamination in the immediate vicinity, their 'plans' may be nothing more than flattening the structure and covering it with an impermeable environmental cap.

About 40 miles from us, the site of the former Bunker Hill Mine's mill and smelter complex rests under a cap that is close to 2 miles long, maybe 70' high. The EPA determined there was way too much lead contamination to remediate.
 
Last edited:
Jim_R said:
I'll give my money to whoever can sell me fuel that doesn't crap up my airplane.
Click to expand...
And I'll give my money to whoever can sell me fuel that doesn't derate my airplane.

My issue isn't with pointing out flaws, my issue is with throwing some stuff in a jar, calling it science, and posting it on youtube. I've been pretty disappointed with Braley through all this as well. A year ago I would've said "what are we waiting for, GAMI has the solution"; At this point, I'm kind of on board with the EAGLE wait and see approach. George seems to be more interested in talking about how mistreated he was than tackling the paint damage problems and bad PR they've generated. In the end though, I'd sooner deal with paint issues and replacing some o-rings than reduced performance, if it comes to that.
 
GaryM said:
Unless they've done an exceptional job of minimizing lead contamination in the immediate vicinity, their 'plans' may be nothing more than flattening the structure and covering it with an impermeable environmental cap.

About 40 miles from us, the site of the former Bunker Hill Mine's mill and smelter complex rests under a cap that is close to 2 miles long, maybe 70 high. The EPA determined there was way too much lead contamination to remediate.
Click to expand...
That's what is usually done. The other option is changing the configuration of the equipment to make something else. This may be more likely in this case. Refineries and chemical plants all use the same equipment (towers, exchangers, boilers, etc.), just configured differently.
 
Feel free to ignore, but it's been fun for me to dig into Innospec. Here's a description of the manufacturing process and the site capacity from an environmental filing to update one of the boilers that provide process steam. It sounds like a nasty process.

The main purpose for the activities at the installation is the production of lead alkyls for use as anti-knock fuel additives. The installation can be divided into four key areas. These are the lead alloying process, the lead alkyl process, the boiler house and the effluent treatment plants. In the lead alloy process lead and sodium are melted and blended to give a lead sodium alloy. This alloy is then flaked to a specific thickness to enhance the reaction in the subsequent stage. In the lead alkyl process, chloroethane reacts with the flaked alloy in autoclaves to produce tetraethyl lead (TEL). The resulting reaction mass undergoes steam distillation to recover crude TEL. Subsequently, the TEL is blended with lead scavengers, such as dibromoethane (DBE), to prevent lead accumulation in engines, resulting in the final product called Motor Fuel Anti Knock compounds. Dyes are added for customer distinction, and the product is pumped into bulk storage vessels before being packaged into various containers based on customer specifications. Other activities include the incineration of metal process plant contaminated with sodium, lead alkyl recovery from refinery sludges, providing 1,2 dibromoethane (DBE) storage and tanker filling services for a third party and the directly associated activity ‘blending external fuel additive products not produced at the installation’. The installation has a production capacity of 12500 tonnes/annum of tetra ethyl lead.

I might be off a decimal place in my calculation of 1,750 metric tonnes of sales. Either way it's tiny compared to what they used to produce.

I'm not posting this stuff as a GAMI fan, but more to put a hard stake in the Innospec will keep making TEL.
 
Jjackh01 said:
That's what is usually done. The other option is changing the configuration of the equipment to make something else. This may be more likely in this case. Refineries and chemical plants all use the same equipment (towers, exchangers, boilers, etc.), just configured differently.
Click to expand...
Parts of the process are very corrosive to the process equipment. I doubt the autoclaves can be re-used for example. There's also the issue of lead contamination in the process equipment. My guess is it will be the new parking lot for the new HQ building that's going up. The boilers could feed a different process area, but the rest is likely junk.
 
I'll take a cut at summarizing where I believe we are. As I posted earlier the signal to noise ratio on this is awful right now. If I was explaining it for the first time;
- There have been issues with G100UL out in the market
- These issues got on to several pilot forums and got amplified. By that I mean it's hard for someone to understand the true scope of these issues as there is not firm data on the number and severity
- Luvara's youtubes have been accepted by many as "Science" - they may or not be correct, but there's not been any way to validate them.
- GAMI has just whined and name called vs being definitive about the issue or providing a way to refute it. Pictures of planes with 100LL leaks is interesting but not informative
- Swift had jumped all over GAMI's problems to the point where their website basically says "our stuff is not G100UL". They don't seem to spend a lot of time on what it is - e.g. does it derate my airplane's power? They are also toast if they don't win being the unleaded supplier of choice as there's no reason to buy 94UL (Their sole fuel product now) once a 100 octane alternative exists
- Lyondell/VP racing seems to be the high road supplier and the only F500 company in the mix. They are also cagey about detonation in higher compression engines.

We need an unleaded solution
- Innospec will be out
- The Chinese suppliers are 90% fictional and getting any oil major to use them is highly unlikely.
- Airport opponents are using lead as a reason to shut down airports. Whether that is justified or not has little relevance, it's just one more nail in the "for the children" coffin
- Lead has a real impact on engine life and maintenance. GAMI testing shows much lower contaminants in fuel analysis, oil change intervals can go up and valve guides and spark plugs will have less lead bromide contamination
- The path we are on now isn't working. On paper, EAGLE should be a good path, but the Reagan in me is skeptical that they will get to a solution in time.
 
Hang 4 said:
Parts of the process are very corrosive to the process equipment. I doubt the autoclaves can be re-used for example. There's also the issue of lead contamination in the process equipment. My guess is it will be the new parking lot for the new HQ building that's going up. The boilers could feed a different process area, but the rest is likely junk.
Click to expand...
You could very well be right. All depends on the economics of this specific plant's equipment. Process equipment that handles corrosives usually is designed with appropriate metallurgy to cope. And is usually repaired/ repurposed with weld overlay of an appropriate metallurgy. Autoclaves are just refractory lined pressure vessels (like a lot of process equipment). Demo the refrac, make any needed weld repairs, and repack the refractory is very common we're doing two heaters next month where I am now. Incidentally we're also going into a lead lined precipitator for inspection and repairs. Qualified lead welders are harder to come buy than pipeliners, but they're out there haha.

I appreciate you digging into the details. A while back when I first noticed this issue being discussed I couldn't even find who or where the TEL producer in question was. TEL is used for a few other things (very minimal few). So I'd wager someone else in the world makes it. But it's too frustrating sifting through all the TEL is the devil search results to find real data. -Edit, you added info on this in your last post, thanks.
 
Hang 4 said:
I'll take a cut at summarizing where I believe we are. As I posted earlier the signal to noise ratio on this is awful right now. If I was explaining it for the first time;
- There have been issues with G100UL out in the market
- These issues got on to several pilot forums and got amplified. By that I mean it's hard for someone to understand the true scope of these issues as there is not firm data on the number and severity
- Luvara's youtubes have been accepted by many as "Science" - they may or not be correct, but there's not been any way to validate them.
- GAMI has just whined and name called vs being definitive about the issue or providing a way to refute it. Pictures of planes with 100LL leaks is interesting but not informative
- Swift had jumped all over GAMI's problems to the point where their website basically says "our stuff is not G100UL". They don't seem to spend a lot of time on what it is - e.g. does it derate my airplane's power? They are also toast if they don't win being the unleaded supplier of choice as there's no reason to buy 94UL (Their sole fuel product now) once a 100 octane alternative exists
- Lyondell/VP racing seems to be the high road supplier and the only F500 company in the mix. They are also cagey about detonation in higher compression engines.

We need an unleaded solution
- Innospec will be out
- The Chinese suppliers are 90% fictional and getting any oil major to use them is highly unlikely.
- Airport opponents are using lead as a reason to shut down airports. Whether that is justified or not has little relevance, it's just one more nail in the "for the children" coffin
- Lead has a real impact on engine life and maintenance. GAMI testing shows much lower contaminants in fuel analysis, oil change intervals can go up and valve guides and spark plugs will have less lead bromide contamination
- The path we are on now isn't working. On paper, EAGLE should be a good path, but the Reagan in me is skeptical that they will get to a solution in time.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why people expect the FAA to come out with an official “approved” 100LL replacement. My guess is that they’ll simply let the existing fuels which have been approved battle it out in the market. If that results in a decimation of parts of the piston GA fleet, it probably wouldn’t break the Administrator’s heart.

Each FBO can decide if they want to stock GAMI, Swift, or Mogas, or something else, and each airplane owner would have to evaluate whether or not they can still effectively base at their current airport.
 
Jim K said:
And I'll give my money to whoever can sell me fuel that doesn't derate my airplane.

My issue isn't with pointing out flaws, my issue is with throwing some stuff in a jar, calling it science, and posting it on youtube. I've been pretty disappointed with Braley through all this as well. A year ago I would've said "what are we waiting for, GAMI has the solution"; At this point, I'm kind of on board with the EAGLE wait and see approach. George seems to be more interested in talking about how mistreated he was than tackling the paint damage problems and bad PR they've generated. In the end though, I'd sooner deal with paint issues and replacing some o-rings than reduced performance, if it comes to that.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm ignorant about some aspect of this but I don't even feel like o-rings and fuel lines should be that big of a deal to change out. I know there are going to be some sticking points with stuff like fuel bladders and maybe some fuel components needing either kits for field overhauls or having to be sent in but... rubber parts deteriorate with age normally anyway right? We eventually have to replace stuff anyway don't we? Is all that really that much worse than other maintenance issues we frequently run into? Like I keeping saying it's not as if there won't be any pain there but it's a path forward if we don't find anything better.

And again there are other possibilities, who knows maybe something will get announced later this month at Oshkosh. There are a few years left and no doubt we'll see some big developments in the nearish future.
 
Jim K said:
In the end though, I'd sooner deal with paint issues and replacing some o-rings than reduced performance, if it comes to that.
Click to expand...
If the biggest problem turns out to be that we just have to take some extra care not to spill it on the paint, then sure, that's not so bad.

But if it can turn certain o-rings into sludge that gunk up other stuff, or if it turns out that a few thousand planes have bladders or fuel tank sealants that degrade and cause leaks or gum up fuel distribution systems, then that might be as big a deal to me as derated performance is to you.

Whether problems like that are first discovered by guys in bunny suits in a Class 1 cleanroom or a guy in his garage, I don't care. My plane essentially lives in a garage, not a laboratory.
 
AlleyCat67 said:
Each FBO can decide if they want to stock GAMI, Swift, or Mogas, or something else, and each airplane owner would have to evaluate whether or not they can still effectively base at their current airport.
Click to expand...

It's not just a basing concern. So far, I haven't heard of anyone demonstrating that the various unleaded fuels are fungible with each other. If I fill up with GAMI gas at my home drome, then fly a few hundred miles to an area where only Swift is available, I have a real problem if the two fuels aren't compatible with each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top