$10 gallon Avgas

[SpruceForest]

Economy of scale.

... is a contributor to ultimate price at pump, but as Vigilant1 mentioned, cost of materials and process factors in as well, along with the way the market structures itself. More expensive additives, more complicated refining, special sales and distribution network, etc. all factor in to price at the pump, as well as the operator's model. Some airports view fuel as a service, so the airport authority prices fuel close to cost of providing that service, while a tenant FBO may have to actually at least break even on fuel sales, if not generate a reasonable profit. Put in multiple FBO's and you see things like fuel pricing become a competitive edge, so another factor.

Avgas is stable for about 10 years in storage tanks... mogas closer to 30 days. Just that one special storage requirement from operators drives aviation fuel cost up by a definable amount over mogas. You can also see the special requirements impact on mogas pump price in Caliworld, where special location-specific fuel blends and overlapping aspirational - versus strictly rationale - requirements compete each year to set record CONUS prices at the pump.

 

[TXFlyGuy]

So...all of the current FBO's have lead contaminated fuel storage and delivery systems.

How is this going to be rectified?

At the refinery, the cost to make G100UL is 80 cents / gallon more than 100LL. At the retail level, look for an increase of $1 and higher.

 

[Vigilant1]

So...all of the current FBO's have lead contaminated fuel storage and delivery systems.

How is this going to be rectified?

At the refinery, the cost to make G100UL is 80 cents / gallon more than 100LL. At the retail level, look for an increase of $1 and higher.

I thought it was no problem to mix G100UL with 100LL, right? And it's still 100% legal and proper to burn 100LL. So, can't we just dilute our way out of this particular problem? Refill the tanks only when they've run down a bit and in several turns the TEL will be very low in the pumped fuel, and eventually it'll be undetectable.
Regarding the equipment: Are the 100LL pumps, lines, etc hazardous waste today when they need to be changed out for periodic maintenance, or can they just be recycled with other metal? Regardless, the FBO would be in the same or worse situation if the new fuel hadn't come along.

 

[rv7charlie]

So...all of the current FBO's have lead contaminated fuel storage and delivery systems.

How is this going to be rectified?

With diodes, obviously.

;-)
Seriously, why do you think it needs rectifying? Many FBOs have Jet A tanks, and avgas tanks, and even E-free mogas tanks. Why would adding a G100UL tank require any rectifying of avgas tanks? Since this isn't the FAA's mythical 'drop-in replacement' and requires an STC to use it in certified planes, it can't be co-mingled with avgas if the FBO intends to sell both. If they decide to transition to G100UL exclusively, then there's no reason not to just pump it into the avgas tank and relabel the tank.

edit: of course, the fact that cert a/c can't use it without an STC is going to make it tough for G100UL, because the tank installations are pretty expensive.

 

[Vigilant1]

edit: of course, the fact that cert a/c can't use it without an STC is going to make it tough for G100UL, because the tank installations are pretty expensive.

At small fields like mine (maybe 100 acft based here) I'd expect strong reluctance to pay for another fuel system. They'll probably just let folks know of the changeout date so they can get an STC. Maybe there will be some credit toward the STCs, but I doubt it. They won't do it, but it'd likely be cheaper to just buy everyone their STC than to pay for a new tank/hydrant set.

They'll see a fixed swapout date also as a way to avoid the cost of removing the extra 100LL equipment in a few years.

There's a long list of folks who want to rent or buy a hangar here. I'm pretty sure the airport manager and board aren't worried about finding new tenants if some folks leave if 100LL is no longer available. That's just the way things are. They haven't installed MOGAS pumps (despite requests from the Rotax pilots and others) because they just don't see a sufficient demand among tenants and transients. It would be that way with 100LL after the switch.

We can agree or not, but there will be increasing community demand to get rid of 100LL. With an available, practical alternative there is no credible way to turn back that tide.

 

[Hot Wings]

With diodes, obviously.

From the postings sounds more like a suppository?

 

[Bill-Higdon]

The True Inside Story Of The G100UL Fuel Approval (In 22 seconds) - AVweb

www.avweb.com

 

[Bigshu]

I thought it was no problem to mix G100UL with 100LL, right? And it's still 100% legal and proper to burn 100LL. So, can't we just dilute our way out of this particular problem? Refill the tanks only when they've run down a bit and in several turns the TEL will be very low in the pumped fuel, and eventually it'll be undetectable.
Regarding the equipment: Are the 100LL pumps, lines, etc hazardous waste today when they need to be changed out for periodic maintenance, or can they just be recycled with other metal? Regardless, the FBO would be in the same or worse situation if the new fuel hadn't come along.

The number of turns to get the lead contamination out of the tanks is bigger than you think, and the drop dead date for sales of 100LL is yet to be determined. So diluting your way out is a good approach, but only goes so far. Tank cleaning after dilution will take care of more, but that's a nasty business at best, and even worse when dealing with lead. For above ground storage, the cheapest solution is to cut up the tanks and replace them. That's problematic for below ground tanks, but they aren't often so big you couldn't do it. As far as the pumps, lines etc, they will have to have their hazard level decided on a case by case basis when they come out of service. We had to test our jet fuel filters for hazard level once a year, for them to be accepted at the landfill. Nobody wants to create more superfund sites. Even the loading and vapor hoses from the rack had to be tested for benzene prior to disposal. Lead is a much higher hazard, so the testing will be a big part of the changeover. These remediation requirements will be a small part the cost of fuel, but it ain't free.

 

[rv7charlie]

But all that has nothing to do with the simple switch to UL fuel at the moment, since LL is still legal to pump into planes so there's no short term need to completely purge the lead out of existing systems. No need, at least in the near term, to make the massive changeover in storage at the airport. If/when that day comes, it will have to be dealt with, but that's a given anyway.

 

[Vigilant1]

But all that has nothing to do with the simple switch to UL fuel at the moment, since LL is still legal to pump into planes so there's no short term need to completely purge the lead out of existing systems. No need, at least in the near term, to make the massive changeover in storage at the airport. If/when that day comes, it will have to be dealt with, but that's a given anyway.

Seems that way to me, anyway.
Hopefully any prohibition of TEL in acft fuel will allow a generous amount of it mixed in with the G100UL for a considerable time. A draconian policy of zero TEL on day one (with ramp checks) will have unintended consequences (midnight drainage and pour outs behind the hangar, etc). Seems outrageous, but I'd bet on it. The safest, best thing to do with the orphaned TEL is to burn it in airplanes.

 

[Bigshu]

But all that has nothing to do with the simple switch to UL fuel at the moment, since LL is still legal to pump into planes so there's no short term need to completely purge the lead out of existing systems. No need, at least in the near term, to make the massive changeover in storage at the airport. If/when that day comes, it will have to be dealt with, but that's a given anyway.

Except it's not a simple thing like a vapor pressure switchover. The 100LL and G100UL have different specs, and nobody has said they're interchangeable. So unless you have the STC, you can't burn the G100UL, even comingled with 100LL. You can burn either or a mix if you have the STC, so everyone should get that ASAP. Lot's of STC purchases will help make the business case for refiners and pipelines to add G100UL to their facilities. Otherwise, it's going to be tough to gain widespread availability. Trucking product in is the least efficient way to deliver fuel. Long haul trucking adds up fast, so that's where a lot of your price difference to 100LL will come from. Avgas travels in the pipeline, and you pay a little premium over auto gas to cover the testing and handling at the terminals. Then short haul delivery only adds a little to the price at the pump. If an airport manager does his homework and figures out which aircraft buy, or are ready to buy the STC, then they can buy the G100UL and start switching their tanks. Most likely the consignees will work with the trucking companies to consolidate their 100LL inventory at a few locations, and load fresh G100UL into the old tanks rather than dump on top of the old leaded fuel. It wouldn't surprise me if EPA or local EH&S bodies require tank cleaning before the changeover. Once you start talking about the distribution system at large, there's a lot more fingers in the pie than just the FAA.

 

[Bigshu]

Seems that way to me, anyway.
Hopefully any prohibition of TEL in acft fuel will allow a generous amount of it mixed in with the G100UL for a considerable time. A draconian policy of zero TEL on day one (with ramp checks) will have unintended consequences (midnight drainage and pour outs behind the hangar, etc). Seems outrageous, but I'd bet on it. The safest, best thing to do with the orphaned TEL is to burn it in airplanes.

The typical transition allows for time to make a switchover. The problem is it doesn't always go as planned. We occasionally would have gas storage tanks we had to physically lock out if they didn't get down to the correct RVP by the Spring deadline. No waivers, no excuses, you lose that storage volume until the RVP goes back up in the Fall. It's a very hands on process with the refiners and pipeline schedulers to get the product in the pipe in the right order and batch size, at the right time, to make RVP changeover go smoothly. TEL will be different from RVP in that terminals and stations can sometimes get waivers for exceeding the RVP limit in their tanks, but it's unlikely there will be waivers for lead content.

 

[TXFlyGuy]

All this is fine, and I guess the FBO's will sell two avgas fuels? Both leaded and unleaded?

Regarding the STC, it's simply a tax. A piece of paper is not going to make you any safer. But it will provide a new source of revenue for certain entities.

Is this going to take 5 years to happen, before UL fuel is available at every airport nationwide? Longer?

 

[JMKD]

Except it's not a simple thing like a vapor pressure switchover. The 100LL and G100UL have different specs, and nobody has said they're interchangeable. So unless you have the STC, you can't burn the G100UL, even comingled with 100LL. You can burn either or a mix if you have the STC, so everyone should get that ASAP. Lot's of STC purchases will help make the business case for refiners and pipelines to add G100UL to their facilities. Otherwise, it's going to be tough to gain widespread availability. Trucking product in is the least efficient way to deliver fuel. Long haul trucking adds up fast, so that's where a lot of your price difference to 100LL will come from. Avgas travels in the pipeline, and you pay a little premium over auto gas to cover the testing and handling at the terminals. Then short haul delivery only adds a little to the price at the pump. If an airport manager does his homework and figures out which aircraft buy, or are ready to buy the STC, then they can buy the G100UL and start switching their tanks. Most likely the consignees will work with the trucking companies to consolidate their 100LL inventory at a few locations, and load fresh G100UL into the old tanks rather than dump on top of the old leaded fuel. It wouldn't surprise me if EPA or local EH&S bodies require tank cleaning before the changeover. Once you start talking about the distribution system at large, there's a lot more fingers in the pie than just the FAA.

Re "nobody has said they're interchangeable". GAMI has said that they are 'fully fungible,' both in the aircraft and in infrastructure. You can mix G100L and 100LL at will.
See: https://gami.com/g100ul/GAMI_Q_and_A.pdf

From the pdf:
Q: Are there any known material compatibility issues in aircraft, engines, storage tanks or transportation systems?
A: After extensive testing, no compatibility issues have been identified in any aircraft, engines, storage tanks or transportation systems. G100UL is a drop-in fuel, fully fungible with 100LL and other aviation gasolines, and ready to be used within the industry’s existing infrastructure.

Q: My airplane has a MoGas STC. Can I mix G100UL avgas with MoGas?
A: Yes. Comingling of G00UL Avgas and other gasolines approved for use in your aircraft is specifically authorized in the limitations section of the STCs.

Q: What changes will I have to make to my engine to use G100UL avgas?
A: Other than placards, no modifications are required. A small placard is attached to the engine and “stick-on” placards are applied to refueling ports. In addition, there is a short AFMS supplement added to the AFM or POH.

 

[Hot Wings]

Can I mix G100UL avgas with MoGas

Put a pump outside the fence for increased sales to street racer types. They might buy more of it than we do as long as 100LL is still available for less $$s?

 

[rv7charlie]

Re "nobody has said they're interchangeable". GAMI has said that they are 'fully fungible,' both in the aircraft and in infrastructure. You can mix G100L and 100LL at will.

There's what works, and there's what's legal. A parallel valve Lyc runs just fine on premium mogas, with or without ethanol, and a lot of exp owners do it all the time. And they often mix the mogas with avgas, especially when traveling. But that E-mogas is most certainly not 'interchangeable' with avgas in a certified a/c, because there's no STC that allows it. G100UL isn't interchangeable with avgas in certified planes, until the a/c owner purchases the STC. As mentioned earlier, this is likely the biggest sticking point for widespread adoption; airports are going to be resistant to spending their own money for an additional tank, and resistant to switching outright because such a small percentage of the planes that actually buy most of the gas (cabin class twins used for business) will (at least at first) not have the STC.

BTW, an STC isn't a tax. It's a vehicle through which an innovator is allowed the opportunity to get some financial return on his research & development efforts. More akin to a patent (but unfortunately, with out the end point of a patent. Maybe 'copyright' would be a better analogy.

 

[tspear]

Somehow I doubt the EPA or anyone will require a massive change over in the equipment. The cost/benefit is negligible to negative; combined with the ability for cities/politicians and others to state that they have banned sales of 100LL going forward basically takes the wind out of the argument.
There just is not enough juice at that point to continue to squeeze it.

Note: I am not saying we do not guard against the possibility such a change gets "mandated"; but I think the probability is rather low that it will happen.

Tim

 

[TXFlyGuy]

So...we know someone who flew a C-172 for hundreds and hundreds of trouble free hours on 87UL. Did not have an STC. I bet this is more common than what we think.

 

[skydawg]

Interesting that the MOGAS STC and the new UL STC is a sticker, no mods to aircraft……. I see why buying the MOGAS STC is reasonable, these guys had to jump through FAA hoops to get STC and they realize no additional revenue as you buy UL MOGAS anywhere. The new UL STC cost is relatively cheap, but its only good when buying their gas……seems that would want to hand these STC stickers out like candy on Halloween.

 

[SpruceForest]

Somehow I doubt the EPA or anyone will require a massive change over in the equipment. The cost/benefit is negligible to negative; combined with the ability for cities/politicians and others to state that they have banned sales of 100LL going forward basically takes the wind out of the argument.
There just is not enough juice at that point to continue to squeeze it.

Note: I am not saying we do not guard against the possibility such a change gets "mandated"; but I think the probability is rather low that it will happen.

Tim

I hope the old type of common sense prevails here, but never underestimate a large swath of our policy makers' addiction to virtue-signaling versus actually exhibiting virtuous behavior, as well as their belief that the money to make 'expensive-for thee/feel-good for me/zero actual beneficial impact for us' policy is outside the bounds of cost/benefit.