Last December, Shell Aviation revealed that it was the first major oil company to develop a lead-free replacement for 100LL.
The lead-free formulation is the result of 10 years of “exhaustive R&D,” according to company officials.
While some worry that large companies will forsake GA as it is such as small segment of the fuels market, Shell officials say that’s not true for them.
“General aviation is an important segment for Shell Aviation,” said Rob Midgley, Shell Aviation’s Global Technical & Quality Manager Aviation Fuels. “We recognize that it is a critical resource for remote communities and an enabler of a number of important activities, such as flight instruction, business travel, agricultural applications and emergency medical services. It is also one of the key building blocks of our industry, as almost all pilots begin their journey in a general aviation aircraft cockpit.”
Midgley noted that the company has a “strong and proud history of firsts in piston aviation, including fueling the first trans-Atlantic flight in 1919, being the first to commercialize 100 Octane fuel in the 1930s, being the first to produce a semi-synthetic multi-grade piston engine oil, and the first to produce dedicated lubricants for both aviation diesel engines and light sport engines.”
He noted that the company’s aim is to “continue leveraging Shell’s extensive technological expertise to support this industry.”
He added that while the company’s new fuel undergoes testing by the FAA, it continues to work with ASTM, OEMs, the industry and consumers “to develop the body of data necessary to achieve this fleet-wide certification as soon as possible.”
Over the past decade, Shell conducted a range of screening tests on more than 3,000 formulations, according to Midgley.
“We also developed a modular engine test stand to aid understanding of both engine and fuel performance and testing in this engine and this, along with full ASTM D910 property testing, has helped narrow this formulation space,” he explained. “This has led to some formulations progressing to full-scale engine testing and flight testing.”
Working alliances were formed to evaluate the new fuel in laboratory engine bench tests by Lycoming Engines and in a flight test by Piper Aircraft.
Shell’s experience over the last 10 years highlights the complexity of approving a new unleaded fuel for general aviation.
“Achieving 100 Motor Octane without the presence of lead is far from trivial,” he said. “This octane rating is substantially higher than that used in the automotive market, perhaps 10 octane points higher than the very best road fuels.”
“Simply achieving octane rating without lead is, in itself, very challenging, however, octane is not the only safety parameter in the fuel specification,” he continued. “There are many other properties and limitations in the specification that have been adopted as a result of our historic experience and so these are also important parameters when considering how to maintain flight safety.”
On top of all that, he noted, is the need to “balance this with the need to use components that are available worldwide at a reasonable cost.”
He noted that it is no accident that the composition of leaded avgas has not changed in decades.
“Despite the challenges for needing dedicated production and distribution facilities to handle leaded fuels, the use of lead has been the most efficient way to meet all of the demands of this fuel,” he said. “Removing lead with as little impact on performance, flight safety and cost is a more complex challenge than many might realize.”
Midgley added that it is too early to tell whether the fuel will be a drop-in replacement for 100LL.
“Further testing will help determine this, but it is certainly Shell’s intent,” he said. “The intent is that the transition would be made such that any unleaded fuel would be introduced to the supply chain in a way that would allow mixing with current 100LL. There is work ongoing with various mixtures of Shell’s unleaded fuel with leaded fuel to determine the performance of these fuel mixtures.”
One perceived cost savings with an unleaded fuel is that it will be able to be distributed through regular supply lines — 100LL, as the only leaded fuel, must be transported separately, which increases costs.
But Midgley cautions that pilots and aircraft owners must remember that the retail price of fuel is dependent on a number of factors and a number of entities, from component manufacturing sources, blending, trading, supply and, ultimately, the airport FBO.
“We are hopeful that some synergies with the movement to unleaded fuels would reduce the cost to supply, however, Shell is not in control of the whole value chain,” he said. “For that reason, it is not possible to give a statement on how this cost saving will be reflected in an end-user price. What does affect the end user price more frequently in the energy market is price elasticity and supply and demand balance, so our objective is to manage the end-user price by working to ensure adequate supply capability and also capitalize on all opportunities to minimize supply side costs.”
Speaking of salt, I believe we need take Mr. Misegades’ statements with much more than a grain of salt, probably more like a truckload of salt.
He continuously pushes his fable that 80% of GA aircraft can burn mogas, clearly ignoring the fact that most of the engines he includes in that 80% could only burn mogas at significantly increased detonation risks. A risk I wouldn’t consider taking unless the engine manufacturers test and endorse the use of mogas in these engines. This has not happened.
Mr. Misegades also ignores the fact that the aircraft than can actually burn mogas consume a minuscule amount of the total avgas consumed. The engines that can burn mogas safely, consume 3 to 8 GPH, while the engines that must burn 100LL consume between 10GPH and 30 GPH. And, the aircraft that must burn 100LL fly a vast majority of the total hours flown by all GA aircraft.
In short, Mr. Misegades’ fable probably equates something more like 10% of the total avgas consumed each year could be replaced with mogas.
However, my biggest concern with Mr. Misegades’ and his fable, is the potential damage he is doing to the entire GA community. The total amount of avgas consumed each year is such a small amount, that splitting it into two groups could doom the whole. Or, just increase the costs for most GA avgas users. This, just to line Mr. Misegades’ pockets. The entire GA community needs to stick together to come to one solution that supports us all, just as AOPA and EAA have endorsed.
And by the way, where in Shell article did Mr. Midgley mention mogas?
There are certainly airplanes and owners that could and might use mogas. I have no problem with those owners trying to get FBOs to make it available.
My issue with Mr. Misegades is that he consistently denigrates other people efforts to find a substitute for 100LL. If he wants to promote mogas, do so, but don’t diss my requirement for 100 octane to burn in my low-time, turboed 335 Hp Continentals.
Wellllllllll then, I don’t have no business promoting mogas but I sure think that mogas is the answer but now speculate that those that sell the mogas STC will be very happy if an expensive replacement for 100LL comes on the market because the poor suckers in my situation will have to buy the STC because we won’t be able to afford the 100LL replacement………………….unless the FAA would give a blanket approval for mogas………..just dreaming.
Well, who are we to believe here? We have a well vetted press release from a senior manager of a billion dollar global company, and a comment from an individual who has a business promoting mogas to FBOs.
Things are not done lightly in large corporations. Shell announcing their efforts at bringing forward a replacement for 100LL required Board approval. Had Mr. Misegades been on the Board, he would know why Shell thinks this could be a profitable business opportunity. Otherwise he knows nothing, but he can speculate.
I think I’m going to find some Shell decals, put them on my engine cowlings and get some for friends.
And, let’s drop the petty politics from the conversation. A Koch brothers company…..? So what!
Mr. Midgley has a long history of spreading false information concerning mogas, so take his statements with a grain of salt. He also failed to mention that Shell in the US stopped making 100LL over twenty years ago due the poor economics, according to GA News blogger and former Shell fuel expert Ben Visser. What we buy as Shell 100LL is made by Flint Hills refineries in Rosemount, MN, one of the great Koch companies. Why would Midgley and Shell now want to start producing a new boutique fuel that is required by less than 20% of the rapidly aging legacy piston fleet? Nearly the whole aviation world outside the U.S. is quickly moving to a mogas/Jet-A solution, but US taxpayers are being forced to pay for another obsolete fuel. We lead from behind, once again.