Whenever a new problem or crisis arises in general aviation, it reminds me of two elephants mating.
The first step is total panic, followed by complete chaos with trees uprooted, huge dust storms, and everything flying everywhere. And when the dust finally settles, nothing happens for 22 months.
In the case of an unleaded 100LL replacement, it is more like 22 years, but you get the picture.
The industry has been working on this problem in earnest for more than 25 years and should have been aware of the potential for the problem for about 50 years.
But now that there is a potential solution with the approval of General Aviation Modification Inc.’s G100UL, the FAA is still going to study the problem some more.
I would like to congratulate GAMI on receiving an STC for all general aviation piston engines in the FAA’s database.
But think about that for a few minutes. If it is approved for all piston engines, why the need for a STC? Why can’t most pilots just start using it once it becomes available?
The only reason that I have heard is that the FAA wants to leave the door open for further evaluation of the unleaded fuels from Shell and Swift Fuels. This may lead to a more competitive avgas marketplace, I would guess.
The GAMI fuel is just a two-component blend, but for now one of those components has to be shipped from overseas, which could be a problem with the current shipping situation. And the other component is a highly refined alkylate product.
One potential problem is that the people who run oil refineries do not like boutique blends or products.
An Insider’s Look at Refineries
In the mid-1990s when I was with Shell, I was called into the head office for a meeting on the upgrades needed to the leading system at our refinery that was producing 100LL. I thought I was prepared with the cost for the system and the profit derived from the marketing of 100LL. But the refinery people were very well prepared.
In an oil company, it is not just one big happy family. It is more like numerous different companies under one roof.
The E&P or exploration and production group punch holes in the earth and produce the crude oil. This is transferred to the manufacturing or refining group to make into saleable products. And then the marketing group sells the product.
This means that the refinery group has to “buy” the crude from E&P, refine it, and sell it as a finished product to the marketing division.
This system works well for most high-volume products like automotive fuel, diesel, Jet A, and so on.
But small batch blends like avgas do not fit into the normal operating procedure.
In addition, if a mistake is made in the blending process, mogas and diesel fuel may cause a stalled vehicle, which is no big deal.
Even Jet A is tolerant of mistakes because the product is co-blended with products from other refineries, and a jet engine will burn anything as long as it can be pumped.
But with avgas, an off spec fuel can bring down a plane quickly — and that will make the national news even if no one is hurt.
When I got into the meeting, the refinery people had a lot of data, such as the cost to maintain and run the distilling operation to produce aviation alkylate. They also talked about the cost of the dedicated blend, storage, and shipping.
Now I know that the production of an unleaded avgas will be a little less costly than that for 100LL, but the separate handling system will be much the same.
And then there is the liability cost associated with the production of avgas. And that is very large.
Do you remember the huge problem Chevron had with the contamination of its avgas on the west coast in 1994? More than 1,000 general aviation pilots in Northern California bought the fuel, which was improperly mixed at the company’s plant in Richmond, California.
The Shell refinery personnel were very aware of the cost. The charge back for all of those aircraft engines and service went to the refinery operation. This liability exposure was something the refinery people were not willing to bear.
As a result of the meeting, Shell discontinued the production of any avgas fuel or component.
I doubt that many refineries will be willing to jump into this business just because of the absence of lead, unless they can be a sole supplier for a large area with little or no competition.
Great article! The author does a fantastic job of pointing out how large, vertically integrated oil companies function. Meanwhile, GAMI and other industry groups continue their own slow suicide by insisting that the world in general adapts to them and not the other way around.
Their efforts would be much better spent looking for ways to burn the fuel the markets offer, instead of trying to develop a fuel that the market won’t offer – at least not at a price anybody will be willing to pay.
The technologies that will allow our antique aircraft engines to burn premium unleaded gasoline (such as electronic ignition systems, direct gasoline injection systems, and water-injection systems) are well known. They will simply have to be adapted by industry and subsequently approved by our infamous regulators. Unfortunately, if history is a guide the adaptation of such $500 systems will turn them into $20,000 systems, and the approval process will probably take 22 years. And unfortunately, there will be plenty of inside-the-box-only “thinkers”, who will argue that it can’t be done at all. On well…..
So the STC is NOT for allowing the developer of the product to re-coup their costs to bring the product to market? That is a new one on me. Pulse reading the state of production seems correct with this article at least. CA is trying to kill petroleum at large. Niche market fuels like AV gas are in trouble.
I worked for Mobil and Exxon in the marketing department. I know from experience that Ben did an excellent job of describing how the big oil companies work.
The fact that aviation gasoline is such a small part of the gasoline sales means that it is more of a nuisance rather than anything. That coupled with the current threat from BIG Government to eliminate almost all gasoline cars is causing a revolution in the gasoline business. All AVGAS sales are declining so if you were the head of a large oil company you would question spending capital, High cost capital I might add, due to the increasing interest rates and expected recession. Hang on for a bumpy ride General Aviation.
I have been reading – (and even talked with on 2 occasions) – Ben Visser for several years and have found his writings about fuels – (and especially oils) – and their effect and relationship to all engines very informative and educational – – – as for elephants – maybe he should rethink and refrain from using analogies.
I find this article useless.
The author has a “guess” or two.
The author has an anecdote about his time at Shell and a reminder of a Chevron difficulty from three decades ago.
The author mentions some elephants in Africa.
What the heck?
If aviation were based on information such as this, we would all simply sit in our hangars and imagine flying.
Many do exactly that .
Oh my! An inconvenient truth.
Why should a company produce AvGas unless the Profit greatly exceeds the potential liability?