GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[A64Pilot]

49 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Pennzoil does.

You can go over to Bob's the Oil Guy forum.  A lot of people there feel that synthetics starting from petroleum are not true synthetics, since the oil molecules were not built up from smaller molecules, but cracked from larger ones.

This is the answer and why years ago there was a complaint filed about Castrol calling their petroleum based cracked oil Synthetic. They won by the way, I guess the term synthetic was redefined, sort of a “it depends on what your definition of the word is, is”

Group IV, PAO is generally considered “pure” synthetic, but no pure group IV oil is available, reason is the additives in the oil apparently have to be mixed with group III or II oils, but a high percentage of group IV is considered desirable.

https://blog.amsoil.com/are-all-synthetic-oil-groups-the-same-group-iii-vs-iv-vs-v/

I believe Castrol is or used to be group III oil, which to me interestingly cannot by law be called Synthetic in Europe, but can be in the US.

Penzoil I believe which used to be garbage oil, has now a very good Synthetic that’s made from Natural gas.

https://www.pennzoil.com/en_us/education/natural-gas-to-motor-oil.html

Still can’t bring myself to use Penzoil, but I hear it’s natural gas Synthetic is very good oil.

Oh, be a little wary of “blends” first All oil is blended but sometimes those that claim to be Synthetic blends have very small, insignificant amount of Synthetic, and since Castrol won that Lawsuit, the name Synthetic doesn’t mean much anymore.

Interestingly the Castrol / Mobil 1 complaint, not really a lawsuit I guess, best and most truthful explanation that I have found comes from Amsoil 

http://www.1st-in-synthetics.com/a_defining_moment_for_synthetics.htm

[A64Pilot]

Oh, and for leads impact and or what the gains of UL may or may not be, I’d look towards Rotax for answers as they have been capable of burning both types nearly forever, and I believe some recommendations like maybe increased oil changes for LL? Never owned one so not sure.

I’ve burned car gas and LL in my little 140 for years, and honestly haven’t seen any difference except of course for storage stability and LL doesn’t stink like car gas etc.

Carb stays clean with LL not so with car gas, but one tank of LL cleans it right up again.

I’d expect maybe to eventually see OCI to double to 100 hours myself, with maybe a 50 hour filter inspection just to look for metal.

‘Maybe it may even help Lycomings cams? Can lead contamination of oil be good for lubrication?

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, bcg said:

If I'm GAMI, I'm probably selling the STC for $10 or something so that I can get it into as many hands as possible as quickly as possible and sell more fuel.  Hopefully that's what they'll do.

 

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

This being aviation, probably $100.

I am not sure of the paperwork and record keeping on their end.

Peterson sold the MoGas STC for $1.50 per HP.  In 2020 Swift "slashed the price of its UL94 Avgas Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) by more than 75% – to $100 for each piston aircraft" according to their press release.  Apparently, it started out at $400 in 2015 but of course it could only be used in low compression engines and was not very popular.

Since GAMI is the only game in town for "high performance" engines I would expect them to price it higher.

Consider a few things:

• Now that everyone in the aviation community is heralding GAMI G100UL as the "breakthrough unleaded solution to all aviation piston engines", communities will start mandating it (i.e. banning 100LL) faster than G100UL can make it to market.
• Most airports have only one FBO and most only sell one brand/grade of AvGas.  They are not going to comingle inventory. And they are not going to invest in duplicate/parallel tanks, dispensers, trucks that will be temporary regardless.  It will be one or the other.  Once the decision is made they will decontaminate the tanks, pumps and trucks of lead ((TEL) and switch with no going back.
• I suspect 100LL will completely disappear by 2024 due to declining demand, rising cost, limited/shrinking distribution, probably new fines by cities, etc.
• In the eyes of the FAA this is an STC like all STC's.  Without proof of purchase/license of the STC, your plane is not Airworthy to fly with G100UL.
• In this day and age it will be easy to require electronic proof of the STC before purchasing fuel.
• On Beechtalk there is a suggestion that G100UL will be about $3 more than 100LL currently
• Also suggestion that you will see a further demand erosion due to price, further consolidation of FBO AvGas availability - Self serve will all need to convert to smart pumps that can confirm that you have the STC.
• Braly and Roehl are in their 70's - I suspect that they (AND THEIR HEIRS) want to see a significant return up front after 12 years of development rather than waiting for licensing royalties to dribble in.
• Like most partnerships, once the founders heirs start getting involved in the business expectations of profit rise and as well as what is considered to be "fair pricing"
• And once the founders step out, most times the heirs can't agree so the easiest way to please everyone is to monetize the business by selling it to Private Equity
• Either the heirs or Private Equity will find ways to squeeze more money out of the business
• I bet the heirs or PE will switch to subscription (yearly) non-transferrable STC payments for everyone the drags their feet and initially resists buying an initial perpetual license to the STC.

[haymak3r]

Tanks, trucks, equipment shouldn't need to be cleaned. It's all fully compatible. I do agree that I am finding it hard to believe that fbo's are going to stand up another tank, etc for g100UL rather than just switch over. On the delivery side, things shouldn't have to change much. It's the production side that requires cleaning of the lead additive before they can go back to producing UL gas? That's the way I understand it from their release of this yesterday.

It'd be super awesome if the FAA just blanket allows G100UL without an STC, and so the switchover can happen faster, and with less impact to GA. But, I will keep dreaming..

[EricJ]

8 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

• Braly and Roehl are in their 70's - I suspect that they (AND THEIR HEIRS) want to see a significant return up front after 12 years of development rather than waiting for licensing royalties to dribble in.
• Like most partnerships, once the founders heirs start getting involved in the business expectations of profit rise and as well as what is considered to be "fair pricing"
• And once the founders step out, most times the heirs can't agree so the easiest way to please everyone is to monetize the business by selling it to Private Equity
• Either the heirs or Private Equity will find ways to squeeze more money out of the business
• I bet the heirs or PE will switch to subscription (yearly) non-transferrable STC payments for everyone the drags their feet and initially resists buying an initial perpetual license to the STC.

I think these are all reasons why they may have difficulty getting production and distribution.    The larger refineries and distributors might prefer to wait until their usual corporate suppliers and partners have a solution that will be more reliable in a business sense than G100UL.    Just geting the STC approved doesn't really mean much if there's not production and distribution, and the larger companies will be skeptical of business arrangements that don't have a reliable future for them to recoup ROI.

An additional concern I've had is that while GAMI has some technical chops, they're not industry technical chops.   A chemical solution invented by a career lawyer may not be that attractive to the larger industry, especially if they think there may be technical liabilities that were not considered by someone outside of or not sufficiently familiar with production and distribution details. 

I think it's way too early to count the chickens just yet.

[1980Mooney]

54 minutes ago, haymak3r said:

Tanks, trucks, equipment shouldn't need to be cleaned. It's all fully compatible. I do agree that I am finding it hard to believe that fbo's are going to stand up another tank, etc for g100UL rather than just switch over. On the delivery side, things shouldn't have to change much. It's the production side that requires cleaning of the lead additive before they can go back to producing UL gas? That's the way I understand it from their release of this yesterday.

It'd be super awesome if the FAA just blanket allows G100UL without an STC, and so the switchover can happen faster, and with less impact to GA. But, I will keep dreaming..

Yes it is fully compatible for plane owners to mix it in their planes.  But this change is being driven by environmental legislation - you are seeing it in California.  Now that "the unleaded solution" is here (and it will be the headline "success" in all Aviation publications) municipalities will mandate change like a tidal wave through regulations and laws.  Due to legal liability, distributors and FBO's, will want a clear line of demarcation.  Proof of decontamination.  This will probably be the next "ambulance chasing" target of lawyers - Lead exposure at airports.  They will want it gone and will show proof that they cleaned it up.

46 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I think these are all reasons why they may have difficulty getting production and distribution.    The larger refineries and distributors might prefer to wait until their usual corporate suppliers and partners have a solution that will be more reliable in a business sense than G100UL.    Just geting the STC approved doesn't really mean much if there's not production and distribution, and the larger companies will be skeptical of business arrangements that don't have a reliable future for them to recoup ROI.

An additional concern I've had is that while GAMI has some technical chops, they're not industry technical chops.   A chemical solution invented by a career lawyer may not be that attractive to the larger industry, especially if they think there may be technical liabilities that were not considered by someone outside of or not sufficiently familiar with production and distribution details. 

I think it's way too early to count the chickens just yet.

Large refiners couldn't give a crap about AvGas 100LL.  It is just a nuisance and a liability.  It is an environmental headache and source of lawsuits.  If an ambulance chaser is going to create a class action lead (TEL) lawsuit who do you think they will go after? - Municipal FBO's or big refiners?  From a volume/sales standpoint it isn't even a flea on the back of a dog.  They will dump it in a second - they will abandon it as fast as they can.  Their Board Rooms will be saying "why are we in this business of 100LL? - GET OUT"

• Refiners and distributors of Aviation Gasoline sell in the US about 413,000 gallons/day
• Refiners and distributors of Automobile Gasoline sell in the US about 369,000,000/day 

That is 893 times more Automobile Gasoline sold than AvGas.  AvGas is 0.11% of Automobile Gasoline sales. - In less than 10 hours on January 1 of any year (only one day), refiners sell more Automobile gasoline than they will sell AvGas during the entire year 

Edited September 2, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[haymak3r]

That is a good point. While it could be mixed with no issues, the proof it's not there anymore to satisfy those people may be needed. Which is silly. 

Yep, and so hopefully moving away from LL will be a good thing for them to hopefully give a little more crap? I know still wishful thinking lol.

[GeeBee]

If the industry is smart, they will buy out Braly and his patents. Present G100UL for ASTM spec "aviation gasoline". EAGLE can say "mission accomplished" and this whole thing can go away.

As to refiners, they will tell you, yes Avgas is small batch but a very profitable segment. 

 

[Will.iam]

14 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

If the industry is smart, they will buy out Braly and his patents. Present G100UL for ASTM spec "aviation gasoline". EAGLE can say "mission accomplished" and this whole thing can go away.

As to refiners, they will tell you, yes Avgas is small batch but a very profitable segment. 

 

It must be very profitable or the refiners would have stopped producing it years ago. 

[1980Mooney]

8 hours ago, GeeBee said:

As to refiners, they will tell you, yes Avgas is small batch but a very profitable segment. 

I’m sure it is before you add in the cost of endless lawsuits Related to the well documented detrimental long term health affects of lead on the environment and people.  Just like opioids, cigarettes, asbestos, etc. appeared profitable to those business execs ... until they werent. 

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[1980Mooney]

40 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

If the industry is smart, they will buy out Braly and his patents. Present G100UL for ASTM spec "aviation gasoline". EAGLE can say "mission accomplished" and this whole thing can go away.

Spot on. And that would be music to the ears of their heirs. I bet private equity is swirling right now dangling no question asked cash offers so that they can get control of the licensing terms. I e higher and annual

[RobertGary1]

Just in time. Some airports here have already banned selling 100LL; the epa has started the ball on a nationwide ban with its endangerment finding, the epa is already facing lawsuits to ban lead immediately. 

[1980Mooney]

10 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Just in time. Some airports here have already banned selling 100LL; the epa has started the ball on a nationwide ban with its endangerment finding, the epa is already facing lawsuits to ban lead immediately. 

This has been a sleeping dog for a long time that no one was kicking very hard (except a few in California). It was easy for oil and refineing execs to just look the other way and let it run.  Now everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and kick it. 
 

As a result demand will come fast - faster than supply - driving price up in bidding wars. Like Lysol, alcohol, face masks etc during Covid. 

[hammdo]

4 hours ago, Pinecone said:

This being aviation, probably $100.

I am not sure of the paperwork and record keeping on their end.

Probably $200 to recoup 12 years of ‘extensive’ development for the FAA…

-Don

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

If the industry is smart, they will buy out Braly and his patents. Present G100UL for ASTM spec "aviation gasoline". EAGLE can say "mission accomplished" and this whole thing can go away.

As to refiners, they will tell you, yes Avgas is small batch but a very profitable segment. 

 

It depends on what he is asking for license to make it.

And probably, the first refinery to sign on will get special deal.

 

But at 413 thousand gallons per day, which is 151 million gallons per year, a 10 cent per gallon "license fee" is $15,000,000 per year income.

[A64Pilot]

What the STC will cost unless it’s really high is irrelevant, we can all swallow a couple grand one time fee as an example.

I don’t see any need to prove you own the STC to buy the fuel just the fact that if you burn it without the STC your no longer Airworthy and therefore your insurence is invalid, plus I’m sure it’s illegal ought to be enough, I don’t have to prove my Medical is good or that the airplane is in Annual or my BFR is valid, knowing the possible issues if something happens and they aren’t is enough.

I think the best thing that could happen for us is the “recipe” be bought and it turned into an ASTM fuel. It would I think be very easy to come up with a slightly different recipe, just painful to get the STC, but maybe since one is done, not so hard, so there may be a good reason to sell.

But I bet we are going to pay more, significantly more. Like ULSD but moreso.

I’m still hoping for the Methanol / water injection and Premium auto fuel STC myself

[GeeBee]

As to the STC, I know that in several cases for 94UL the self serve pump requires entry of the STC S/N number to dispense.

Equally so, for full serve, there is a similar requirement for reasons of liability of the dispensing entity.

 

 

[kortopates]

Just now, GeeBee said:

As to the STC, I know that in several cases for 94UL the self serve pump requires entry of the STC S/N number to dispense.

Equally so, for full serve, there is a similar requirement for reasons of liability of the dispensing entity.

 

 

At the very least, I am sure fuel providers will be counseled to not dispense without seeing the required G100UL placard by the tank cap. 

[A64Pilot]

I believe the requirement to enter a tail number at self service fuel is a tax thing, I think to ensure it’s going into an aircraft.

I have fuel delivered and in setting it up I had to give a tail number and I asked why and was given the answer that by law they have to ensure it’s going into an airplane for taxes, I guess Av fuel gets some kind of tax break.

But around here sometimes you see people pull up in their trucks with 5 gl cans for fuel for their airboats, so I don’t think anyone really cares, just need the required paperwork on file.

I’ve never seen 94UL, where is that sold?

[A64Pilot]

50 minutes ago, kortopates said:

At the very least, I am sure fuel providers will be counseled to not dispense without seeing the required G100UL placard by the tank cap. 

I think they are supposed to do that even with 100LL, but the times I’ve had fuel dispensed I can count on one hand. I don’t trust them, if you have tanks like my Maule or 140 if they let the weight of the nozzle hang, it breaks off the neck of the tank. If I have to let them, I stand there and watch.

I pulled up with an R-1340 on the nose for all to see one time and told the kid I needed fuel, as I was walking away he said, these things take Jet, right?

If they have to check, fine what’s the harm, but I have never heard of it being the responsibility of the FBO to check for STC’s for anything.

 

[toto]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I’ve never seen 94UL, where is that sold?

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1fNC9vcS4U3u15y5FxBZ_d6Mjqvw&ll=40.805955463244246%2C-94.37862123125001&z=5

[MikeOH]

Well, I'm probably the only one that thinks this is HORRIBLE news.

Mark my words, we are going to get really hosed on what we pay for G100UL. For the reasons stated above 100LL is going to disappear FAST; even before the EPA issues their mandate (which is inevitable!).  Especially here in Kalifornia!  My prediction is that this time next year we will be paying $2 to $3 a gallon MORE for G100UL than we do today for 100LL.  Of course, when this comes to pass, all the Braly fan-boys will jump up and say, "Oh, we'd be paying that for 100LL now, anyway because of blah, blah, blah."

Regardless of the minuscule amount of lead involved in aviation (someone said 'not even a pimple') there is no doubt lead is bad stuff to living things.  The public has been conditioned to think they are about to die if there's a molecule of lead anywhere within 5 miles....the ambulance chasing attorneys are going to be all over FBOs, refineries, airports, and anyone they can think of almost immediately.  The defense of there's no alternative just won't fly anymore.  This is going to be spun as rich airplane folk that want to continue to poison the population!  100LL is not going to be a survivor in that litigious environment.

The government has just handed ONE MAN, George Braly, the keys to a nationwide monopoly.  There is NO competition.

To believe he, his family, and his heirs are going to be benevolent 'dictators' of pricing is naive in the extreme.

Enjoy the next 6-12 months of low pice...I hope it takes longer.  But given how slow bureaucracies move (not just government ones) I hope the time frame is longer, but I'm not betting on it.

[MikeOH]

This thread, and others, have made the unsubstantiated assertion that not having an STC, medical, or flying after your annual has expired will render your insurance null and void.  I don't believe that to be anywhere near categorically true.  For one thing, it would seem the 'violation' must be at least causally related to the reason for the crash.  Engine quits because the dual mag failed.  Guy with the G100UL STC gets covered and the guy with G100UL in his tanks but no STC is denied?  I seriously doubt that!

@Parker_Woodruff

What's the real story with claim denials over this kind of thing?

[toto]

8 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Well, I'm probably the only one that thinks this is HORRIBLE news.

Mark my words, we are going to get really hosed on what we pay for G100UL. For the reasons stated above 100LL is going to disappear FAST; even before the EPA issues their mandate (which is inevitable!).  Especially here in Kalifornia!  My prediction is that this time next year we will be paying $2 to $3 a gallon MORE for G100UL than we do today for 100LL.  Of course, when this comes to pass, all the Braly fan-boys will jump up and say, "Oh, we'd be paying that for 100LL now, anyway because of blah, blah, blah."

Regardless of the minuscule amount of lead involved in aviation (someone said 'not even a pimple') there is no doubt lead is bad stuff to living things.  The public has been conditioned to think they are about to die if there's a molecule of lead anywhere within 5 miles....the ambulance chasing attorneys are going to be all over FBOs, refineries, airports, and anyone they can think of almost immediately.  The defense of there's no alternative just won't fly anymore.  This is going to be spun as rich airplane folk that want to continue to poison the population!  100LL is not going to be a survivor in that litigious environment.

The government has just handed ONE MAN, George Braly, the keys to a nationwide monopoly.  There is NO competition.

To believe he, his family, and his heirs are going to be benevolent 'dictators' of pricing is naive in the extreme.

Enjoy the next 6-12 months of low pice...I hope it takes longer.  But given how slow bureaucracies move (not just government ones) I hope the time frame is longer, but I'm not betting on it.

George Braly and GAMI don't seem to have any intention of making G100UL themselves - they are in the IP business, and they're going to sell licenses to producers who can make and sell the stuff per the GAMI recipe.  They sell licenses and STCs, and let the producers duke it out for market share.  I don't think it's in anyone's interest for aviation gasoline prices to go through the roof --- that just results in less demand.

[Jerry 5TJ]

I felt 100LL would be unavailable soon, so I switched to JetA a decade ago.  As usual, my timing was off.