This story was updated June 18, 2024, with comments from ASTM:
In early May 2024 I accepted an invitation from Shell Oil Co. to attend a seminar on aviation product updates by the Aeroshell products team at the Shell Technology Center in Houston, Texas.
The presentations covered a number of subjects, including lubricants and aviation fuels.
The aviation fuels presentation was very interesting, as well as very open and frank. Presented by the head of the fuels research program, his talk ended on the subject of Shell’s 100 octane unleaded fuel candidate.
He expressed the idea that their unleaded fuel candidate had a few technical problems that could be corrected.
But he added that the decision to get out of the FAA’s Piston Engine Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) testing program was purely business and not technical in any way.
That got me to thinking: A lot has been written about who is developing 100 unleaded avgas fuels, but we should look at who is NOT working on a candidate fuel.
The four largest oil companies — Shell, Exxon, Chevron, and BP — control a majority of the hydrocarbon business in the United States. The fact that they are not looking into an unleaded avgas should tell us all something.
Part of this may be concerns about liability, but there may also be concerns about profitability.
But an important consideration here as we attempt to transition to an unleaded fuel for general aviation is that GA may need these large oil companies. That’s because they have the production capacity and the infrastructure needed to economically supply every airport in every state in the U.S.
I know that some companies, like AvFuel, have an extensive network, but these networks may not cover every FBO.
One solution that has been mentioned is that maybe the large oil companies will produce 100UL under a license. This brings up the old controversy of approval by ASTM or FAA STC.
The advantage for an ASTM specification is that it would have the blessing of the engine manufacturers as to their warranties. An ASTM spec also has liability protection that an STC does not. This very well could be a deal breaker for the large oil companies with deep pockets.
However, ASTM officials clarify that “there is no such thing as ASTM approval or any advantage thereof.”
“ASTM International convenes stakeholders and experts to create voluntary standards in various topic areas, but the way those standards are used in the market is beyond our mission,” ASTM officials said. “ASTM test methods set technical limits and parameters that are used to evaluate fuels so that organizations can demonstrate conformance to the specification. It does not conduct these evaluations and does not approve or certify products in this area.”
Why is ASTM approval so difficult to obtain?
Let me give you an example. In the 1990s a gentleman from Cessna put forth the idea that for GA to continue — and maybe even grow — it would need to utilize fuel from the automotive pool and not depend on a boutique or specialty fuel. So he tried to get an ASTM spec for 85 octane auto fuel for general aviation aircraft.
Usually, a new specification takes a couple of years to go through the approval process.
He fought for more than 12 years to get it passed. At every vote there were negative ballots that claimed he should do this or that change — plus claiming he should add this test or that limit.
Let me tell you that they “should” all over him.
You may ask why the hassle?
I believe it was monetary. The oil companies did not want to see their small but profitable business reduced by more competition from less expensive auto fuels.
And the same problem exists with a spec for an unleaded 100 octane fuel. The oil companies do not want their very profitable 100LL business to give way to a less profitable and probably more expensive product with increased liability. Having worked for an oil company for more than 30 years, I can understand the logic.
When the EPA released its final determination in October 2023 that emissions of lead from aircraft that operate on leaded fuel “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act,” it got the FAA and general aviation moving a bit quicker towards finding an unleaded solution for general aviation.
A government-industry initiative, known as Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE), has set a 2030 deadline for the transition to be complete, but that timing is not set in stone.
If the industry can cast doubt as to the safety of the move to an unleaded fuel, that may delay the transition to unleaded fuels.
And just because the EPA has spoken, that doesn’t mean it will happen on that agency’s timeline. The final endangerment finding does not ban or impose restrictions on leaded fuel.
In fact, it is the FAA that is tasked with developing the “standards that address the composition, chemical, or physical properties of an aircraft fuel or fuel additive to control or eliminate aircraft lead emissions,” according to EPA officials.
So while the EPA has created panic over leaded avgas, that panic should not drive the GA community or the FAA.
It’s imperative that there is a safe and adequate supply of fuel for the entire general aviation community — now, during the transition to unleaded fuels, and beyond.
Another concern might be that, IIRC, all of the world’s supply of tetraethyl lead is made by one boutique refinery in the UK. If they decide the risk exposure is no longer worth it and stop making it, the issue will definitely be forced upon the industry. Just a though…
Well, stop any panic.!! The FAA Reauthorization bill included;
” FAA reauthorization legislation passed May 9 by the U.S. Senate prevents federally funded airports from banning the sale of 100 Low Lead (100LL) aviation gasoline through December 2030 unless an approved unleaded alternative becomes available sooner. ”
So, does that require Reid Hillview to start selling 100LL again ?
It’s my feeling that the EPA is out of control in every thing they do. If it was up to me I would shut it down completely. It’s ran by a bunch of nay sayers who are getting rich from everything they touch. Aircraft are a small drop in the bucket; Yes if you eat it might kill a person but no one is going to eat lead on purpose… There are many things out there that arer bad for people such as vaccines that we don’t know what’s in the concoctions the drug companies brew up for instance..
I’m an 81 year old man and I’ve been around aircraft most of my adult life… I’m still alive…
Please don’t comment on things you know absolutely nothing about.
Rather impolite there, Paul. It used to be a free country where a man could state his opinion.
It was up to the people who heard his opinion to figure if it was valid.
Thanks to Senator Shelley Moore, (R-WV), she drug out the radical, left wing group, climate justice alliance into the light of day. The EPA just granted that lovely organization 50 MILLION dollars for helping with defund the police, defund the military and free palestine to name a few. Sounds like the EPA is out of control to me! So Paul, are you a climate justice alliance warrior?
On a side note, I’ve work on aircraft my entire working life including 4 years operating a fuel truck 45 years ago that had 80 & 100 octane, full lead fuel. Other than a minor heart attack 13 years ago from too much fast-food, I’m still as healthy as a 62 year old can be.
Yes, you’re still alive. But how much cognitive damage has been done? Can’t really tell unless you have some serious testing done. Basically, this means that the average person has no idea how much damage exposure to lead can do unless they are tested for it.
To the general aviation news comment censor – here’s my comment again with an addition just for you.
Hey Greg, do you think Mitch has enough cognitive impairment to prevent him from becoming President of the former usa ?
Asking for a friend … and a nation.
The add on – who exactly is authorized to launch our nukes ? It’s a question that has been asked more and more lately.
The unleaded fuel debate has passed the mark of unbelievable and entered the realm of the totally absurd. We have all been talking about this for decades, while watching a slow motion train wreck in progress. I fly on the CA central coast and see firsthand where things are headed e.g. descending into E16 (San Martin) a few weeks back and hearing the warning that no 100LL is available. The same applies a few miles up the road at KRHV (Reid Hillview). These airports are ground zero for what could happen soon all across the country if we don’t wake up. APOA’s commitment to have 100LL gone by 2030 will be overtaken by special interests, public outcry and politicians bending to satisfy their constituents. The fact that there is no conclusive evidence that the very small volumes of leaded fuels burned by our GA aircraft create any significant health risk to adults or children is beside the point. There is very real cause to panic. I fly a Cessna 150, which would be perfectly happy on mogas, but there is no car gas without ethanol sold within hundreds of miles of our airport. Bonanza and Cirrus owners have no lower octane option. Yes, let’s panic and get this solved – APOA calling for a ban by 2030 just doesn’t cut it. Maybe the FBOs should join forces nationwide and start applying pressure to get the already proven 100UL fuels into the local tanks – otherwise they will have nothing to pump very soon.
This is ridiculous. PAFI failed. EAGLE will fail. Both wasted money. Money that could be used to buy every plane a STC for GAMI 100UL. GAMI doesn’t seem worried about the legal risk! It’s manufacturing now. Ready for distribution! We should all support GAMI and start using it before more airports close because of lead!
Hi, Isn’t the gas market shrinking? The push for electric aircraft and cars is having an impact on petroleum based fuels? This might be the reason for the majors not investing in unleaded av/gas.
Thanks for the discussion
Robert
If we argue on the terms of the peepul who want to shut down general aviation, it is likely general aviation will die. So a little panic might be justified.
Once again I ask, what exact harm is caused by piston aircraft leaded fuel ?
I once again point out that children in the fusa are being diagnosed for autism and attention deficit at bewildering rates.
The peepul who are supposedly worried about the children being exposed to lead don’t gives a rats rear about what is causing autism rates to explode.
Avgas isn’t the cause of 100,000 Deaths due to fentanyl, either. Another rats rear.
I say NO.
Gee. It must be really painful to live in a world of half empty, Glenn.
ET, call home.
Fwiw, my particular gas tank is full, 24 gallons in an RV-3A. Perhaps you could write something where you’re meaning is not possible to be mis understood.
Kids where exposed to much more lead before it was banned in cars. Autism rates have gone up for different reasons but mostly because of more awareness and maybe because the kids get assistance in school with the diagnosis. Asperger’s is now lumped in with Autism. I don’t think AV has had anything to do with it.
With the EPA saying that there is no safe level for lead exposure, good luck selling your story to the public.
Well, I’m not seeing the panic that they’re talking about here. There should be panic though because General Aviation is coming under attack because of leaded fuel and airports will be closed down as City’s site leaded Fuel as the reason. I think the panic needed to happen lots of years before now, just for the public relations issue alone, but I think the price is going to be paid here soon, as the public is fed up with it and shutting down airports may be the only way to stop the lead poisoning.
An official grubmint document, your benefactors at the CDC. Count how many jabs amerikan babies are scheduled for at 6 months. Yup, I’m going to get real worked up about avgas induced lead poisoning.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf
That looks like the amount of vaccinations I got in elementary school in the early 70’s. The science must have determined that it’s OK to give them to younger kids.
Your memory is off a bit. I’ll leave it at that.
By the way, are you familiar with the attention deficit and autism rates of your fellow Amish countrymen ? Do you know what the “ science “ says to explain that ?
Trick question, there is no science on that anomaly. Your betters at the CDC have made sure of that. And anyone who asks that question will never get a grubmint grant ever again.
May I humbly suggest for you to consider the implications, what it means, if you are wrong. My observation is the reason you will not listen to valid arguments like this is, your worldview would never be the same. And more importantly, you’d have to admit something about yourself that you will go to great lengths to avoid.
Ben,
My reading of the 100LL specs, indicates a TEL level of 0.27 to 0.53 mL /L.
So, why can’t a 100VLL be spec’d with a max of 0.27 mL/ L.?
My question is, what is the minimum of TEL that can be added and still have the fuel 100/130 octane ? I have not been able to find any info on a min. TEL fuel.
It sounds like the 4 ‘majors’ like selling us 100 octane fuel !! So, maybe a partial solution ?
I have proposed this over 20 years ago, I suggested lowering the lead level from 2 grams per gallon to 1 and then on down. Part of the answer was that the leaded refinery in the UK would close because of lack of business. The answer to the question on how low a lead level is possible now is an economic question.